Talk:Lamb of God (band)/Archive 1

message: Thanks to anyone who is helping keep the genre box free from error as per the WP:HMM project. If you would like a genre added, there must be sufficient discussion/proof here! Thanks. --Ryouga 23:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genrebox

message: Took out the first ¶ of the bio because it simply states what is on the Burn the Priest Page. Jman8088 17:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio Edit

message: Is there any consensus here that this article should be listed as groove metal? It seems to keep getting bounced in and out of that list, and I don't know enough about them to render an opinion. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should only be listed as groove metal, if metalcore is because of the vocals being hardcore-influence, then I disagree with that, because the genre of the music can't be based solely on the vocals.Theunknown42 14:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=59 ^_^
They are called metalcore because in almost every song they have a slower "mosh" part, which is a common trait of metalcore.
Groove metal = Post thrash = Half thrash. The label used doesn't make a difference, people just seem to "prefer" post thrash. And as the other guy said, the breakdown/mosh is a common trait of metalcore, as well as the midrange riffing. --Ryouga 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  groove metal? 

message: They should be listed as Groove Metal or Post-Thrash because those two are interchangble genres. Their vocals are Metalcore/Death Metal and a few times he does Black Metal scream (but not enough so we can label him as that). The guitars are a hybrid of Metalcore and Groove Metal, the bass is to, and the drums are Thrash. So Groove Metal is the best term.
Ok dont know very much on working with Wikipedia so pardon if this is not in the correct form.  First, I dont think you can define LOG as metal core or thrash metal, metal core is to light for LOG (as in most metal core drums, guitars etc. are more simplified then LOG, not a bad thing, just needed in defining the genre) Second, although LOG lyrics concentrate on universial issues much like some punk rock (war, religion) the beat of the music is not the same a metalcore.  Third, LOG is not typical to thrash metal because, it does not have a simple thrash drum beat and simple thrash guitar.  All instrumental work is very very technical, and hard for the average musician.
*As far as genre goes my inclination is strongly towards death metal for Lamb of God. Personally I'm not sure I agree with groove metal, but that much I can accept. However, I do think it should be stated more explicitly in the article that there are strong death metal influences there. Bear in mind that grindcore is a separate genre, and as such something doesn't have to sound like grindcore to be considered death metal. Prophaniti 14:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to the author of the first post, the individual instruments and efforts don't make a band anything at all. The band as a unit is what gives the band it's designation. That said, I think that some sort of progressive thrash metal would be most accurate, with perhaps death metal and metalcore influences. 65.182.52.95 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The metalcore label is removed all the time for no reason, but I try to keep the genre at the most accurate "groove metal/metalcore" or "post-thrash/metalcore," which mean the same thing. --Ryouga 21:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: 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 (band))
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 06:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Quotations? 

message: Since post-thrash is the same genre of groove metal, it should be changed back to groove metal because people that don't know post-thrash is the same as groove metal would be confused and actually think its thrash.
:That would be their own fault. Not a good reason for changing it. Although either is correct, what is annoying is the constant removing of 'metalcore.' If you cannot see why LOG is metalcore, you need to listen to more metal. --Ryouga 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is it doesn't matter that much, typically the terms are synonymous, as the case with both LOG and pantera. A lot of times you'll see a band called "post-thrash/groove" because they imply basically the same thing. I personally just think "Post thrash" sounds better than "groove." The "thrashier" groove metal is usually called 'groove/thrash' or etc. Ditto for half thrash. Like I said, it doesn't make a phenomenal difference. --Ryouga 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-thrash changed to Groove metal 

message: Knowing nothing of the band, I don't know what to do with this, I only know it doesn't belong in the article about Jesus:
:Latest Album 
:There is a new album out in stores today, known as Burning In Hell. This release follows after Burn The Priest. The Church Of England have commented on the latest album, saying it is a sign of homosexuality.
--WWB 16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from Lamb of God Christianity page 

message: Lamb of god thrash man? sorry, but even if they rock (and they do) theyre not thrash, theyre metalcore, but like no other metalcore band, those guys rock, even if theyre NOT THRASH
:A band can label themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true though. DevilDriver often poses as death/black when it's obvious they aren't. Lamb of God does the same thing, but with the "thrash metal" genre. From what I've heard, Lamb of God sounds more like groove metal than anything. --Pasajero 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything but thrash 

message: I'd like to know when and why they changed their name from "Burn The Priest" to "Lamb Of God". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.106.65 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They did and that's all that really matters. --Ryouga 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually its a gaping hole in the biography section that should be filled. --Patrick Berry 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I was made aware of the edit war by Skeeker, so I did some research:
http://www.rockdetector.com/artist,5087.sm -> Metalcore/Groove Metal/NWoAHM
http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=59 -> Groove Metal/Metalcore
http://www.last.fm/music/Lamb%20of%20god -> metalcore/thrash metal
http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/lamb_of_god -> death metal, thrash metal, heavy metal, groove metal, metalcore
http://www.bnrmetal.com/groups/log.htm -> Death Metal , Thrash Metal
http://books.google.com/books?id=uIIf03bGyAAC&pg=PA192&ots=ZxLUYnWraL&dq=lamb.of.god+burn.the.priest&sig=ia7jXcDCo7_x4RcKjcHqJS5neis -> NWOAHM
Prosthetic Records: http://www.prostheticrecords.com/bands/lamb_of_god/1.php
"As The Palaces Burn delivers the violent blend of thrash, death metal and groove their fans have come to expect, but is poised to blow a new set of minds with the infusion of more melody"
Epic Records LoG site: http://www.lambofgod.tv/
"The Virginia-based progressive metal quintet agrees this is its most natural sounding album."
Allmusic, albums
New American Gospel
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0jfyxqukldse -> Alternative Metal/Death Metal/ Black Metal/Heavy Metal
As The Palaces Burn
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfexq8aldhe -> Death Metal/ Black Metal
Ashes Of The Wake
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:fifwxqtsld0e -> Alternative Metal/Death Metal/ Black Metal/Heavy Metal
Sacrament
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hxfexqudldse -> Death Metal/ Black Metal / Metalcore (in article) 
Metal Observer, albums
New American Gospel
http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=3705 -> Death Metal
As The Palaces Burn
http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=3233 -> Death Metal
Ashes Of The Wake
http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=7134 -> Death Metal
Sacrament
http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=11075 -> Metal
summary:
Alternative Metal 2x
Heavy Metal 3x
Death Metal 10x
Metal 1x
Metalcore 5x
Groove Metal 4x
NWoAHM 2x
Thrash Metal 4x
progressive metal 1x
So, the genres I found the most are: Death Metal, Metalcore, Groove Metal, Thrash Metal, Heavy Metal
I'd say they are metalcore and groove metal with death and thrash influences.--Emmaneul 13:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I posted above, there are many sources proving the opposite of what you are saying here. If you can come with sources proving the points you mention I would accept them (but you probably can't because these "rules" are non-sense). Metalcore is a fusion genre of metal and hardcore and contains many different sounding bands, from Killswitch Engage to Ion Dissonance and from Burnt by the Sun to Caliban. Emmaneul 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Any of those pages calling them Black Metal should be ignored, I mean what the... (But they're Metalcore.) ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 07:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic is a very respectable website with a lot of good genre information but when it comes to metal they don’t use a lot of different tags. When they consider a band to be death metal they use the tag “Death metal/Black metal”. Black metal bands also get the “Death metal/Black metal” tag. But the reviews are often very clear. I see the tags as DM considering LoG.
Can't save the page due to links that are now blacklisted... ≈ Maurauth (nemesis) 07:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre / Edit War 

message: Yes perhaps I linked the wrong part of the article... try here or here. = ∫ tc 5th Eye 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song title punctuation 

message: Please reach a consensus before making any more edits to the genre section of the infobox. If the edit warring continues, the page will be protected and warriors may be blocked. 
Without knowing anything about the subject, if I may offer any input to the discussion, it is that while I don't know of any guidelines about the genre field, in general it is a very good idea to have completely undisputed information such as a broad genre in infoboxes, with issues where there are different opinions discussed fully (with references of course) in the text. JPD (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopaedia Metallum and Rockdetector sources, both used to cite groove metal, also cite metalcore; it's kind of biased not to include those. So I put them in along with the citations. Also, the third citation was for metalcore, not groove metal, so I moved that as well. = ∫tc 5th Eye 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: i was surprised that this info wasnt included in the Bio about thier banning in LA
back on the Subliminal Verses tour (when LoG was touring with Slipknot)
they got banned from a show cause the venue was owned by a bunch of christians
the info is on: (and they do correlate)
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=32360
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/03/165535.php
i dont think im going to tack it on though. i know people knew about this...
but why isnt it on the wiki lol 68.252.111.78 18:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  old news, but why aint it here? (LA Banning) 

message: :Image:Lamb of God Logo.png 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 05:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Lamb of God Logo.png

message: Quite obviously NOT metalcore, at all. I say the metalcore tag be removed.
:No, sources prove you're wrong. Please read this and this. Emmaneul (Talk) 08:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the second time, it would be a very good idea to put only a general description in the genre field of the infobox, that is widely agreed on. Then the text of the article itself can explain which sources consider the group to be metalcore/not metal core, and so on. This would actually be more informative than simply listing some tags and having to go to the footnotes to see who says what. JPD (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metalcore? 

message: Me thinks not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.118.183 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed—I was at a show last night and the wall of death was nothing. Although, to include any statement about the intensities of either is clearly original research and needs a source. = ∫tc 5th Eye 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walls of death>circle pits? 

message: well then perhaps there should be a section of this article that states there is a debate about whether or not the band is metalcore, since there are many people who disagree with the metalcore tag, and plenty of review sites that do not list the band as metalcore.. and to whoever wanted to see a review site that specifically states they are not metalcore, have you ever seen a review site that specifically states britney spears is not hard rock? why even mention something they aren't when it's already obvious? i suggest making a new section for the debate because this is going nowhere and it will be argued for a long time.--69.122.5.180 04:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t think that’s a good idea. I think it’s better to add a well-sourced “musical style and influences” section (like other band articles have; e.g System of a Down, Queen) where we explain the different aspects of LoG’s sound. We shouldn’t point out why LoG isn’t genre X, we should do the opposite and explain why LoG is genre X, Y and Z. Emmaneul (Talk) 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section for debate 

message: The information from Burn the Priest needs to be merged into this article since both articles are about the same band. The fact that the band renamed themselves and shed one member does not warrant a seperate article for the old name. They are not different bands and shouldn't not  have different articles. Even the genres listed are the same. --Leon Sword 21:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Different bands because: Different members. Different Label. Different copyrights. Different memebers: Chris plays guitar on some songs. Randy isn't even in a most of thier albums. Different label: from legion to Prosthetic.Different copyrights. Abe Spear is in the BtP copyrights. Willie is not. BTW: you obviously have never listened to the bands. You would know the difference if you did. Jman8088 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is not valid because the following reasons: (1) there is only one member that is different (don't try to argue that it's a completely different band because it isn't), (2) bands change labels all the time because their contracts are always temporary, (3) because bands change labels and band members all the time, the copyrights will always belong to different people (do you think Megadeth should have a separate article for every single line-up they have had? No, they shouldn't and no other Wiki article I've seen does this except for this band's article). (4) A lot of the information from Burn the Priest is already merged into this article, this article even says the band formed in 1990 not 1999. By the way, I have listened to the bands and even if their sound was different, that still doesn't justify separate articles because bands also change their sound all the time (Linkin Park changed their sound completely with their new album, but they don't have separate articles). --Leon Sword 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the merge for the same reasons. I can't think of another band who has two pages like this because of a name change. = ∫tc 5th Eye 21:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: This article and it's surrounding articles need work. I would like to know if anyone would like to help out on improving it. I think the goal for every article is FA status, and that would be friggin sweet, but it's got alot of work. Here is a list of stuff that could be improved.
*The bands biography
*The members pages
*The discography page needs work and should have Burn the Priest albums added to it
*Album pages could use a bit of work
*The table of the bands equipment needs to be merged on to the members seperate pages
*And possibly creating articles for noteworthy songs and singles
So anyone could work on this stuff and that would be cool. Skeeker [Talk] 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're definitely right. I just started out by moving most of the info in the equipment section to the band member pages. However, it is all unreferenced and (imo) pretty messy, though I think we should concentrate on the main article first. I'm going to fix up the discography right now, maybe using Template:Infobox Discography. = ∫tc 5th Eye 18:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right about that too—the merge was done very poorly, and none of the discography got merged at all. This is easily fixed, I suppose. = ∫tc 5th Eye 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Needs Work 

message: I have a solution to the debate. What seems evident to me is that people are arguing their opinions versus sources. At first this seems like it is a breach in conduct condoned by Wikipedia, but it really goes further than that. I believe the metalcore tag should be left in, because there are many documented sources, and they DO make use of frequent break downs and such. However, sources also call LoG death metal. This is where things get tricky. I realized that I (and most of the people who edit the more technical metal pages) know much more about the history and concept of the more abstract branches than most any popular reviewer does. My solution: anything dealing with abstract metal (brutal, technical, blackened death, etc.) or misunderstood metal (death and black mainly) should be checked with what Wikipedia has to say on the issue. Many reviewers are apt to label a band "death metal" because music involves growling and such. If we want to resolved a genre debate like this, why not check what Wikipedia says? It would be ridiculous to have a page on death metal and then have bands that don't fit the page's bill be labeled as such. After doing so myself, I found the current tags work just fine. I encourage you all to visit the metalcore, death metal, and thrash pages. 
On a side note, I have had some interaction with the metal archives and have found them to be a completely bogus bunch. It is run by a handful of people throwing their opinions around about what constitutes metal. Also, as it is user edited and without citation, we cannot consider it a reliable source. Thank you, --Wick3dd 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre Debate

message: As far as many users last time provided a good sources, Lamb of God is dominantly METALCORE.
Only having those influences ranging from thrash, death and progressive they're however just
metalcore!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.23.199 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamb of God is Metalcore and nothing more! 

message: Aww cmon. They are clearly not a thrash metal band. A lot of fans here seem to be offended that they are tagged as a metalcore band, but they are at least a lot closer to metalcore than they are to straight up thrash metal. I don't care if there's a citation. Music critics come up with silly things these days, if I wanted to label 3 seconds to mars as a metal band I'd be able to find citations to back it up, but that doesn't make it so. So continue squabbling over the metalcore label if you want, I don't really care, but one thing is for sure, they are NOT a thrash metal band.
160.39.130.95 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrash Metal??? 

message: There's all this crying about going with sources.  Fine, then label LoG has Death Metal as 10 sources list them as that while only 5 list metalcore and even fewer yet with 4 listing Groove Metal. 
Also, for fuck's sake Metalcore is not a real genre.  Look at the sources on its wiki page.  Oh wait, there are none.  Deathwish238 (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to sources, LoG is Death Metal.  Metalcore is not a genre! 

message: The following code makes the infobox not working:

It's a refference in Genre. I removed it. If anyone thinks I made a bad move, here's the old infobox (which doesn't work):

Joke (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox