Talk:Death metal

message: The history section really deserves an addition about what happened in the first 20 years of the new millenium. 
Death Metal did not end in the 90s and is still alive with many active bands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.209.218.209 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The Death Metal History did not end in the 90s

message: Look, this is quite frank and may be an incendiary comment but the page on black metal is really really long while the death metal one is short.  For someone new to Death Metal, they should know all about the genre, and it's controversies - there are bound to be quite a few!  Also, this genre is arguably more well known than Black Metal (I've done a poll, this is original research, I know, but 98% of people have heard about death metal, yet only 56% have heard about black metal)and therefore this needs more info.  Anyway, I know very little about the basic death metal movement, being more of a punk myself (I only really like the music, and don't follow the scene except for the black vs death stuff), but i feel that Death Metal deserves a better page than what it has.  Any thoughts? Afifanno1 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This needs a longer page

message: what complexity?79.173.229.147 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Death-metal bands such as Suffocation, Cynic, Atheist, Dying Fetus and even latter-day Cannibal Corpse have technical, complex riffs. Some of these bands even crossed into genres like jazz fusion. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So basically what you're saying is that bands like Cryptopsy, Necrophagist or Obscura are not using complex composition ? One does not exclude the other, there can be different genres or schools of music that produce complex material. zubrowka74 18:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Complexity

message: ...How so? Morbid angel by 1989 was creating some of the first virtuoso music in this genre while Death was still fairly simple by this point. Same goes for Atheist.
His solos, mostly. Death's music was fast since Scream Bloody Gore, but Schuldiner infused melodic elements in his solos with his death metal rather than the more atonal approach of his contemorarires.
 
I think Paul Masvidal and Sean Reinert should be credited for helping Chuck Schuldiner with "Human".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.54.8 (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Schuldiner helped push the boundaries of uncompromising speed and technical virtuosity

message: "Death metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is well known to be a very bad genre of music, with unnecessary screaming."
Vandalism?
Yeah. I reverted it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 23:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: It really seems like this article tries to play down the importance of Possessed, calling them a Thrash Metal band and claiming Death established half of the things that Possessed already did two or three years earlier.  Possessed's Seven Churches and their Death Metal demo were the first pure Death Metal works and this article tries vehemently to deny that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.162 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I went to the Possessed page and saw the footnotes to the references supporting the premise that Possessed were the 'godfathers of metal'. Well, the same writer from Allmusic.com who referred to P as godfathers, Ed Rivadavia, states that Chuck Schuldiner is widely recognized as the father of death metal. Does it get much plainer? When we think of Possessed, we old schoolers obviously respect Jeff Becerra's gutteral voice and their musical brutality and speed (wildly copied by others in the thrash genre). However, Death brought an element of doom (minor key melodies, etc.) into what they were doing that stood the test of time, at least as far as 'creating a genre' called death metal goes. When running around praising Seven Churches let's just all remember that in 1984 Death forerunner Mantas did the demo Death by Metal followed up by Death's first demo Reign of Terror. If there is any genesis to this genre, overall, the majority of writers (Borivoj Krgin, Jeff Kitts, Don Kaye, etc.), who at the time were all metal tapetraders, point to Florida and not California... A Sniper 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Navnløs, I would tend to agree with you - and of course this is all ancient history. It is simply that this user (68.149.147.162) seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder about the notoriety of Death, with this comment and an edit to the Death page, and so I jumped on the high horse. But I also think it doesn't make one bit of difference over 22 years later. A Sniper 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I understand what you are saying and agree.Navnløs 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possesed

message: I think you have a valid point about MA, Kameejl. My objection was that the band were mentioned too many times as being at the genesis of the movement, and that would be incorrect. I felt there should be a line of sorts between Slayer, Possessed and Mantas/Death on the one hand, and the latter 80s bands such as MA. I remember Terry Butler, Chuck & I being invited by Dave Vincent to come see MA in 1989 and they were just getting off the ground. Alternately, Obituary were already getting popular in Florida by that time and Roadrunner was having success with them. In fact, other Florida acts were all being launched at the same time, and MA was but one of that second wave. In any event, I've not touched your edit. best, A Sniper 14:16, 06 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I removed your addition again, not because it's bad, but because it doesn't fit the intro. If you can find a nice place in the body, please put it there (I think it's valuable information). I see  you're an early DM fan. Maybe you could help me out. I have written a part of the history of death metal (see User:Kameejl/Death metal) but I'm stuck. I'm planning to put it in the article some day but there is to much that has to be told. Maybe you could give me some help or sources. I would be very grateful! Kameejl (Talk) 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morbid Angel 

message: I see much talk of Slayer and Death here, but not much of Carcass. Surely such a key influence should be mentioned? --Wick3dd 07:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carcass? 

message: Please speak out here . Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: If you agree a source listing [[OTEP]] as death metal is a bad source...

message: I got rid of the subgenres without articles. If you disagree, revert it and leave a reason here. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you got rid of is brutal death metal, and it has already been determined it is a "real" genre.  You should know what I'm talking about.  I mean after all, the metalcore article has NO sources, but it is true that it is a real genre.  So what if brutal death metal doesn't have its own article?  It's a real genre.  Also, the black metal page lists some subgenres that do not have their own pages, I believe. No big deal. Navnløs (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright no need to get uncivil.  The black metal article does have one section that is a "subgenre" of sorts.  The modern black metal section talks about the black metal of today, which is a subgenre sort of.  You don't have to think of it like that, even I can see the flaws in my argument, but brutal death metal still belongs in this article. Navnløs (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subgenres

message: Do most of you think this is a real genre? I ask because I nominated the deathcore article, and if we end up keeping it, I think we would have to add it on this page. I encourage all of you to go to the deathcore page and view the arguments, maybe submit your own. I would appreciate more help on this. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick3dd (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathcore? 

message: I've read all these death metal subgenres, I did found one error in Brutal Death Metal: Cannibal Corpse. Can I ask who put CC in B Death Metal? They have nothing to do with BDM, they are one of the best known and leaders on Death Metal. If someone does not agree, tell it here, but before that, compare CC to Krisiun for example and listen other BDM bands and compare to CC, you'll know what i mean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.217.246 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: What is policy round here regarding which bands should be included as examples within the subgenre sections. I'm specifically referring to the inclusion of a band like Between The Buried And Me. I'd deleted on grounds of notability and it has been re-added, admittedly with a citation to demonstrate that they do indeed play some form of progressive death metal. However, the rest of the section is talking about bands of a calibre like Pestilence, Gorguts, Atheist, Edge of Sanity, Opeth and the like. This is not meant as a subjective statement... their notability is reflected by their inclusion in books like 'Choosing Death' by Albert Mudrian and prominent placings in things like the Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance magazines death metal specials, and Terrorizer's retrospectives of the 80s and 90s. My feeling therefore is that bands like BTBAM lack notability, and in order to justify their inclusion a source should be provided not to confirm their genre but to explain why they are notable. As such, I'm deleting them again, until someone can provide such a source (and will do so with other bands of this nature). However, feel free to discuss it with me here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same goes for whovever just added The Fatal Effect ;-).Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your Favourite Band

message: It should be slimmed down and a few sentences should just be added to Brutal Death. Inhumer (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, can we have a legitimate source to justify its inclusion at all? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. (...) (lol) Logical Defense (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Find a source, or it's not getting added. Period. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slam Death 

message: I've noticed someone combined technical and progressive death metal. I totally agree as these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and the genres have a big deal of traits that overlap (and we have no sources). However, I am concerned readers will think the 2 genres are completely synonymous, and that isn't 100% correct (some DM bands are never called technical (Opeth comes to mind), while others are never referred to as progressive (Origin/Cryptopsy)). I adjusted the prose to feature both genres, without making a clear distinction between the two. Please review the following rewrite I did. Kameejl (Talk) 10:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical death metal and progressive death metal are related terms to refer to bands that are particularly distinguished by the complexity of their music and the virtuosity of their musicians. Common traits are abruptly changing, sometimes chaotic song structures, uncommon time signatures, atypical rhythms and unusual harmonies and melodies. Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz and/or classical music. While the term technical death metal is sometimes used to describe bands that not only focus on complexity but also on speed and extremity, the line between progressive and technical death metal is thin. "Tech death" and "prog death", for short, are terms commonly applied to such bands as Cryptopsy, Edge of Sanity, Opeth, Origin and Sadist. Cynic, Atheist, Pestilence and Gorguts are examples of a bands noted for creating jazz-influenced death metal. Necrophagist and Spawn of Possession are known for a classical music influenced death metal style.
I like it.  But like you stated, the terms are not always interchangeable, and though you mention this slightly, I think there should be a little more (like a sentence) about how they are not always the same.  You could even mention what you just said before about Opeth and Cryptopsy.  Otherwise, It's great. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I will copy it to the article. If you want to change it, go ahead. Kameejl (Talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what my input is worth, I think the rewrite for that section is great and should be left as is for a while. Logical Defense (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are differences between Technical Death Metal and Progressive Death Metal. I think it is not correct to combine them in one title. Every technical Death Metal band is not progressive at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enslaved (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical and progressive death metal 

message: Tiamat were black metal NOT pure Sacandinsavian death metal!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.155.119 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Although early Tiamat lyrics indeed delt with "satanic" and occultist lyrics, this doesn't mean they're black metal. And sound-wise, I agree with the first amonymous post. There's a definte scandinavian/Entombed vibe going on in Sumerian Cry. Furthermore, it was recorded on Sunlight Studios (note the "buzzsaw" guitar tone?) and Johan Endlund was definately associated early on with the people that were to become Dismember, Entombed and Unleashed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep early Tiamat out from this!

message: There is one thing. It is black colour for infobox. It isn't very important, but I think most of people would agree, that it looks much more apposite. Why? Heavy Metal includes bands such as Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix and Sepultura or Mayhem. These bands are musically pretty really very different, so these subgenres should have another colour. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours as black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres". It is 100% allowed to do it. But some people (unlogged) just have a problem with it and delete it unreasonably as a POV making pure edit war, what is POV by itself.
So I would collect some people that want black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres", which would help to keep it...--Lykantrop (Talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is only natural to allow extreme metal to have black for the infobox color. What other genre(s) could allow it? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, maybe they're upset with the association to black metal?  Maybe they'd rather keep it red like blood?  No idea. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: The progressive death metal and technical death metal were moved into one section together as one thing and now I just noticed they have their own sections again.  Progressive death metal doesn't even have an article, but technical death metal does (that article needs a lot of work, too) where is described as also progressive death metal. What's up with this change?  This is a problem! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is... maybe a mention of progressive death metal and it's difference to technical death metal could be found somewhere (like in one of Sharpe-Young's books about genres and the bands within them or the history of heavy metal, or that death metal/grindcore book: Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore and that one on the dm scene especially (Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture) because I keep thinking there is a distinct difference between the two. Listen to uhh..., Sun Caged or Coroner they have plenty of jazz fusion riffs in their music (although they are just technical metal not tech death) and then Circus Maximus or Pagan's Mind and you'll understand the difference that I'm talking about. Sadly, if we can't find any refs for progressive death then it should stay as a combination again. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know there's a difference between technical and progressive metal, though it is a fine line (and usually both genres are progressive and technical), but idk about prog death and tech death.  But yes, I believe those two sections should probably be combined as Kameejl once did, I believe. It doesn't seem what I'm saying is getting a lot of attention, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Good job!  Thanks, and a good example of being bold.  I don't know who changed it back to the split sections in the first place but they belong in the same section as Kameejl made it.  And yes, it addresses the dispute, even better! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge problem 

message: This user has been trolling around after me, and in the process has made some disturbing edits to the Chuck Schuldiner article and talk page. The most startling is a long paragraph on the talk page that attacks the relevance of Chuck (and in a previous edit the relevance of death metal itself) and personal attacks, innuendo and ridicule. I fear this editor will continue the trolling and hit this article, as he/she seems bent on messing with any article I lightly or regularly contribute to. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. A Sniper (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:single-purpose account|single-purpose account]] [[User:Jackmantas|Jackmantas]]

message: I think some kind of comment on the popularity of death metal relative to other metal genres is totally appropriate to the article, but the last comment about it added is a bit problematic. Firstly, I'm not sure Metal Archives is a great or appropriate source for the comment as currently phrased, but regardless at the moment it's basically OR (Metal Archives themselves make no comment on the phenomenon, and the numbers simply reflect what's been added to the site). Perhaps a way round it would be to simply state, "Metal Archives lists x death metal bands out of a total of y", with the same source and no other comment? Thoughts? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with Blackmetalbaz and that a qualifying statement re: MA would make it more encyclopedic. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Didn't we have this discussion awhile back and agree that we WOULDN'T use the Metal Archives information because it is irrelevant? If the consensus is to have it, it must be qualified by noting it is from MA - but I would also ask WHY? My vote is not to include it. A Sniper (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we did and I agree with you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of death metal bands

message: Can somebody answer this? They're not that great. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, I wans't aware they were "famous." But they do suck, at least in my opinion (and many others). However, they are not even death metal, so why bring it to this page? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. It seems I'm mistaken. I looked at their article and it mentioned that they changed their style from deathcore to death metal. I didn't believe it, even after reading the sources until I just saw a vid by them (a rather gay metalcore-looking type vid). They have changed. And they are now death metal. They still suck, though. I listened to it and it was standard death metal, but extremely boring. The one good thing about their new album (on which they turned death metal) is that it might bring their deathcore fans to listen to some new, better shit. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: However, Wikipedia isn't about what is true, or what you or I think; it is about what can be referenced. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But references can be debunked as a reliable source or specifically a reliable source for something such as Sputnik Music's staff reviews can only be used and its article got deleted. Sites can be reviewed to see if they can be used as a reference like Allmusic can. For example, Allmusic labels Opeth symphonic black metal... when they obviously are not and would seriously misinform readers. The site needs to be competent enough and Allmusic doesn't show it for most metal band pages. So the only reliable content Allmusic offers is most of the biographies and more mainstream genres like rock, rap, punk, pop and country... etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Job For A Cowboy so famous? 

message: Was by Mantas, the band that would become Death. I woun't won't change it because of the source though.Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death By Metal

message: Doom metal is another genre influence. Death metal has down tuned guitars and slow passages, too. and the allmusic says that Death metal owes as much to thrash metal than to black sabbath (they choose black sabbath apparently to represent doom metal) If you won't accept that, could I at least ad black sabbath as an influence?
:Black Sabbath are no more an influence on death metal specifically than they are on other most other metal genres. They're one of the single biggest influences on heavy metal, but I don't see any direct connection between Sabbath and death metal. Besides which, allmusic is a useless excuse for a reliable source on metal anyway. Prophaniti (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doom Metal

message: Noticed that there's no mention of Nocturnus' contribution to the rise in popularity of electronic keyboards in extreme metal. Think its worth mentioning somewhere in the early history section...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.42.68 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance of Nocturnus

message: Was added to the subgenre section. I don't think it's accurate to mention it in that section because a) the "subgenre" is based on lyrical content, which is not a strong bases for a death metal subgenre. There are no genres called pagan death metal, viking death metal, satanic death metal etc.. Any (subsubsubsub)genre can be Christian-themed. b) Only few bands fit the description and the term christian death metal is not used a lot by the press to describe bands. c) It better fits the christian metal article and is described there in detail.
Although the term is not used often and althought it's more of a christian metal subgenre than a DM subgenre, it might be interesting to touch on it's existence. Maybe it's better to add a few lines on it in the Other fusion subgenres section (as it is a christian metal/DM hybrid). Any opinions? Kameejl (Talk) 12:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The genre "Unblack" is even more viable as a genre since it goes against the basis of what black metal is and its strong use of Satanism-based lyrics. There's no term yet for an "Undeath" for the expected Christian-themed death metal. I think it could use a mention in the lyrics section too that some bands cover more Christian-themed lyrics than they do criticism of religion, Satanism, gore and other philosophies. It could go like: ".....but may also extend to contain themes of Satanism, criticism of religion, Occultism, mysticism, and/or social commentary, while a few bands may use Christian themes." or something like that. Then we can have a sentence or two like you said in the fusion section as like a parallel of the "black" version. I know that Becoming the Archetype are big on this but I can't think of others right now that do the same. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian death metal

message: There have been a couple of attempts to insert Slayer into the lede as an example of a pioneering death metal band. The latest had three references. After going through all three, I verified what I had believed: Slayer were influencial on the pioneering death metal bands but were not themselves death metal pioneers. I pointed out in my last edit summary that Slayer are mentioned later in the article as an important influence, as they were. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, amatorial - yeah, of course. In any event, I changed the reference for Possessed in the lede to a citation from allmusic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Slayer

message: Shouldn't Dethklok be inserted into this article somewhere to highlight satire of death metal? Doshindude (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we could add something on them though... and to add to this, I was thinking about adding an "In popular culture" section towards the end of the article myself. Some examples would be of course the animated tv show Metalocalypse (which glorifies death metal and has many references to heavy metal bands) and Dethklok a virtual band who are basically melodic death metal (yes they have melodic riffs and support the description very well) . Only the media would label them plain old death metal since they are unaware of its subgenres. Also, in movies including Ace Ventura: Pet Detective when Cannibal Corpse appears onstage (a favorite of Jim Carrey) as well as School of Rock where a sticker of their logo appears. I'm sure that many horror movies would include brief songs. And ever so slightly (not exactly death metal), Ozzy Osbourne's son blasted some Meshuggah at his neighbor for some reason. I'm blank on any other cultural references but anyway we might be able to mention something about Dethklok. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dethklok?

message: Mantas (formed in 1983) released a demo in 1983 under the name of DEATH BY METAL (http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=101903). Mantas has always played the same music (What we consider now death metal)from their beginnings until their break up. Possessed (also formed in 1983) released their first demo back in 1984 under the name Death Metal (http://www.metal-archives.com/release.php?id=21654) One year after Mantas'first demo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.0.152 (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. However, Wikipedia isn't necessarily about what is fact but what is verifiable - so if you need to re-write anything (which will need consensus) it will need sources. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: MANTAS is in fact older than POSSESSED

message: In the lead paragraph: "...in part because it does not appeal to mainstream tastes due to its aggressive nature and because the musicians often choose to remain obscure". Really? I don't associate intentional obscurity with the death metal scene. With black metal, yes, but I don't see death metal bands intentionally hiding themselves. Aryder779 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with Aryder779 - it also seems to be an opinionated and speculative statement, and not based on sourced fact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Aryder779. In general extreme metal tends to be more underground but strictly remaining obscure? I don't think so. Black metal is the most obscure and sometimes drone doom and funeral doom as well when the band members cloak themselves, hide their identities with stage names or additionally in black metal's case (wear corpse paint), are sworn not to play live and stay on lesser known independent labels or their own. Obviously this is not for all but most. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  05:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. It rather forgets how big bands like Obituary were around the early 1990s. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choosing obscurity 

message: Why was the page on deathgrind deleted? It make sense to have it up, considering we have sub-subgenres such as ****ogrind and goregrind still up. Perhaps we could put it back up? CheesePiggy (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The goregrind and ****ogrind pages should almost certainly be deleted or merged into the grindcore article, on the basis of notability (or lack thereof). There are basically no reliable sources in either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am going to take that back about the goregrind page... I hadn't looked at it properly for a while. The ****ogrind page however lacks even a single reference (I removed the solitary Blogspot one for what I hope are obvious reasons). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathgrind 

message: If anyone wants to contribute to the debate of whether or not to delete the Dr. Shrinker article, please check
here  Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Shrinker

message: There are at least three separate sources that consider deathgrind and goregrind to be separate subgenres; the first is Danny Lilker writing in the liner notes to the Grind Your Mind grindcore compilation (I copied the specific part to here. I also cited Zero Tolerance here... two sentences later in the same paragraph, it reads "Related genres [to goregrind] are deathgrind, which sees grindcore and brutal death metal colliding head on (Brodequin, Dead Infection, Pigsty, Alienation Mental), and ****ogrind, the most downright perverted of the lot, often adding a dollop of filthy groove and vocals straight from the toilet (Gut, CBT)." That's Issue 004, p. 46 for reference. Issue #150 of Terrorizer discusses death/grind explicitly as part of its "death metal special" run of issues, and goregrind explicitly in #181 within its "grindcore special". There is no indication that they are talking about the same bands... whilst the first talks to the likes of Mortician, the latter is focussing on Carcass and their soundalikes. I'd have to dig out #150 if you want specific quotes, but the above should be enough to suggest that parsing deathgrind and goregrind in this article is incorrect. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really, really disliked what you did on their section. You've put too much emphasis on the differences, cited controversial distinctions (rock-like pornogrind, which is disagreed on other sources) and attributed traits to singular genres that can be found on others ("speed-soaked fury" Deathgrind can be fast like Goregrind and Pornogrind's "vocals straight from the toilet" similar to extremely low Goregrind's vocals). Joint sections should only cite concensual attributes, whicch in this case are only the imagery and lyrical content. ABC paulista (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s really one sentence. The sources say they’re some differences, you need to add those differences. WP:STICKTOSOURCE.  ~SML • TP  20:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the differences are covering more the subsection than the similarities, which should not happen and is aggravated by the fact that those differences are controversial. Natalie Purcell, on the book "Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture", state that the only distinguishable trait of Pornogrind is its lyrical focus. And Goregrind is not the only one cited as very fast and with low-pitched vocals, since according to Paul Schwarz of Terrorizer magazine Deathgrind is also very fast, and according to Zero Tolerance magazine Pornogrind also use low-pitched vocals. So, as you say, WP:STICKTOSOURCE, and also WP:CONCISE. ABC paulista (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These subgenres are different. Pornogrind and goregrind have they’re own sound. And I don’t think they are at all controversial. The book source you mentioned is just one source that’s wrong, there are others. The type of vocals they use and speed of them are more or less the same (pornogrind is slower). But the sources say there are differences, so you need to stick to the sources. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s not right. ~SML • TP  21:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You can think whatever you want, because as long as there is some reliable source that disagrees with what's being stated, the statement becomes controversial per WP:BALANCED and WP:IMPARTIAL, period. We don't go with what's right or wrong, but which is reliable and which is not, and you don't have the right or power to decide which is right, wrong, reliable or not, sou your opinions about the sources are irrelevant here since these sources were accepted before and they all pass WP:RS. Also, the other sources presented on their articles don't fully agree on the other assertions aside from the thematics, and citing them while omitting the others goes against WP:NPOV, which is very severe, but citing all of them here goes against WP:CONCISE. That's why they have their own article: To cite the many facets and interpretations that these sounds can have, without convoluting other articles, so these kind of info are unwelcomed here. Only because a source cite something, that doesn't mean that it must be cited everywhere. It's an user's job to evaluate the pertinence and WP:WEIGHT of said info whitin the article's scope and context. ABC paulista (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You think I don’t know I don’t have the power to do that? I know my opinion doesn’t matter anywhere, neither does yours. But I’d be happy if the sentence said that those are the main characteristics, making it present that some sources say there are different characteristics. ~SML • TP  21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here, they have their own articles for that. We must be WP:CONCISE, so cite only the main, undisputed info. The Natalie Purcell, Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance sources all challenge your reasoning and sourced info's ones, so no pass. ABC paulista (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathgrind and goregrind

message: Has been deleted per AfD. No sources have been produced for its existence (Metal Archives? Give me a break. Why does no-one read WP:RS?) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I also point out that the source currently being provided is not a reliable source either. I'm not getting into a 3RR situation, though it looks like another user is. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It's a pity y'all don't read my blog, which will prove to be a decisive reference for the genre of mies metal. It's rugged. Seriously, this has to stop. Metal Archives is not a reliable source, and if there isn't anything else, there simply isn't anything. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Brutal death metal is absolutely a distinct subgenre.  And Encyclopaedia Metallum is definitely a reliable source--certainly more so when it comes to metal than Wikipedia is.  It is also quintessentially absurd to say that because some article that (a) is from a mainstream publication (i.e., a publication with no particular expertise vis-a-vis death metal) and (b) does not purport to provide an exhaustive list of death-metal subgenres, does provide an exhaustive list of death metal subgenres.  We may wish that all death metal were brutal, but much of it is not.  Suffocation, Incantation, and similar bands are much heavier than, say, Asphyx or Pestilence.  The former populate the subgenre of "brutal death metal."  Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal and Albert Mudrian's Choosing Death both repeatedly refer to "brutal death metal" as a distinct subgenre.  Those are two of the most well-regarded books about death metal, and unquestionably are reliable sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been deleted so any content related to it can also be deleted. See: WP:CON. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why there was no mention of brutal death metal in the main body of this article. I believe that it must be mentioned on here, aside from in the infobox. It is indeed a notable subgenre of death metal, and Encyclopaedia Metallum is not needed to prove that. Brutal death metal is a very fast and heavy form of death metal typically consisting of, but not limited to, songs ranging from 2 to 4 minutes. That's a basic definition of what brutal death metal is. After this editing ban is lifted from the article, I would recommend that brutal death metal have its own section on here, now that it doesn't have its own article anymore. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

text: As stated above, the article on Brutal Death Metal was deleted per AfD for lack of bona fide resources. This meant that references to this were deleted from this article.  Apart from that, there really isn't any point including it if there are no mainstream sources to support its existence. A Sniper (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Brutal death metal

message: the thing with deathcore is it's really metalcore taking bits of death metal and just adding death in front of core like they do with alot of genres. real deathcore is not really consider a sub-genre of death metal because all deathcore did was change the way metalcore singers sang. so instead of screams like metalcore bands they do growls. it is still metalcore in every way musically (writing in majors, lots of breakdowns, etc). there are a few bands that are labeled deathcore but is really just death metal but they label themselfs as deathcore. so that can be why there is a confusion about this genre. this genre is not accepted by most people and musicians as a sub-genre of death metal as it is stated in lots of articles (guitarworld, revolver, and countless magazines and artist interviews. also metalcore was not incorporated in to death metal it was the other way around. also melodic riffs are part of melodic death metal and has become one of the most popular genre of death metal. so if that part is to be kept it should say -
Deathcore: With the rise in popularity of metalcore, some bands have incorporated death metal in to their music. Bands such as Suicide Silence, Salt the Wound and early music from Job for a Cowboy combine metalcore with death metal influences. Characteristics of death metal, such as fast drumming (including blast beats), down-tuned guitars, tremolo picking, melodic riffs and partially growled vocals, are combined with breakdowns.
however the part about characteristics are still wrong as death metal bands were the first to use breakdowns but is now mainly used by "core" bands. this should be moved to the metalcore part of wiki and the death metal section of this should be completely rewritten as very little of it is true. also if you listen to a real deathcore band you will realize that it has nothing to do with death metal. bands like whitechapel, sucide silence, and so on are 100% metalcore youtube born Of osiris and other bands like that and you will understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retardsrwe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise that that is all WP:OR and WP:POV, right? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also a widely accepted WP:OR and WP:POV.  We're talking about extreme metal here, probably the absolute farthest from the mainstream you can get.  You won't find any real "credible" sources on such things.  Hell half of all the facts about different genres of metal on this site are completely uncited as it is, yet nobody takes those down as being WP:OR/WP:POV - they're just widely accepted facts.  In fact, anyone deleting material and dismissing claims like this one is committing WP:OR/WP:POV.  You know what we do in situations such as this?  Add special wording that "It is widely accepted common knowledge that..."  I've seen many statements on this website that are preceded as such and have absolutely no cited references.  Anathematized one (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally and utterly wrong. We should never write things like "It is widely accepted common knowledge that", precisely because of core Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Finding reliable sorces for extreme metal articles is, it turns out, not in the slightest bit difficult, owing to the number of metal print sources such as books and magazines devoted to it and its various subgenres. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. A Sniper (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  deathcore not really a part of death metal 

message: Came across a potentially useful source here. What do other people reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Does anyone else think that Netherlands should be listed in the regional scenes?  - Matt 00:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch death metal

message: There's been a significant number of IPs coming into the article to revert, usually without edit summary, the removal of "brutal death metal" from the article no matter how flawed the section is. There may be an argument for the existence of BDM, but the definition for it is not very clear and, in its current pre-revision state, is contradictory. Suggest a semi-protection?--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edits 

message: Why do you people not bother to read other articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Forces states, and it is cited, that the Metal Force zine was, contrary to what you may have otherwise heard, the origin of the term death metal and thrash metal. Yet you do not mention this on the death metal article. This would be ok if it was from some off-site link, but it is mentioned on another WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. One article says one thing, the other article doesn't mention it. FIX IT NOW.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.13.52 (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first, read WP:CIVIL. I suspect the reason for not including this bit of information is that its source is Dave Reynolds, a writer for Metal Forces at the time concerned and therefore clearly not a reliable source. It may be worth adding a sentence mentioning his claim, but in reality what should probably happen is that the claim in the Metal Forces article should be qualified. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, just to let 92.16.13.52 know, you cannot use another wikipedia article as a source. Yes, you can use a source (if its reliable) from another wiki article as a source in other wiki articles, which I think was what you were trying to suggest anyways, but the way you worded it may it sound like just because something was on another wiki article could mean it could be cited into another wiki article. Which is against the rules. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 02:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: Somebody needs to add Death Rap as a fusion genre on the page for death metal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weezerfan1 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, you invented the genre "death rap," because the article was created by you and with no references, which is equal to original research.--Cannibaloki 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I strongly suggest that you source that article. It looks like a very real candidate for a PROD.--WaltCip (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Death Rap (Music)|Death Rap]]

message: I have removed "Z-grade" from the description of the lyrical themes of death metal. While some death metal has lyrics that involve slasher film violence, to call it "Z-grade" seems derogatory and adds nothing to the description. It's better to just say "Death metal's lyrical themes often invoke slasher and splatter movie violence." Mason092 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrical Themes 

message: Although many "reliable sources" claim this band is from San Francisco, this claim is not correct. Various interviews from current/former Possessed members point to the band being from the cities of El Sobrante, San Pablo, Pinole, Richmond or El Cerrito, which are 20-40 minutes away from the actual city limits of SF. (Most likely the journalist or researcher was referring to "San Francisco Bay Area", as the journalist is obviously not familiar with the area.) Second, the Slayer influence on Possessed is incorrect and an obvious anachronism. Possessed formed in 82/83 and began writing songs at that time, whereas Slayer's first album "Show No Mercy" wasn't released until late 1983 (and I'd imagine it would take a year or so for the "buzz" to get out - they were still a young band back then.) Band interviews are the best indicator of a band's musical influences, and I've yet to find any Possessed interviews where anyone cites Slayer. The Allmusic source directs to an album reviewer who believes the Possessed album Seven Churches has a Slayer influence, that's it. Not a fact, only an opinion ... so fixed. --Danteferno (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Possessed (band)]] location and influence were incorrect. 

message: A couple of things I'd like to note. Metal Archives is used as a source in the article a couple of times. MA is all user-supplied content, hence not a reliable source and needs to be removed. The word "often" and other WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL words is used a lot in the article as well. Rather than overusing ambigious phrases, specifiy who said what exactly. I'll rewrite it myself, but thought I'd mention it here if someone has the time to do it before me. Nymf talk/contr. 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording and sources 

message: A user is attempting to delete all the Death and Possessed demos on the premise that they are neither noteworthy or sourced.  Can folks assist in finding sources that signify their importance? Thanks.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as with all demos, per WP:MUSIC they are not notable if they are not sourced to independent reliable sources. To the extent that we can write a reasonablyu detailed article, sourced to independent reliable sources, I'm all for keeping them. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but as we're concerned with these particular demos and their historical importance - we interested in the genre who have been reading about them and listening to them for the last 25 years - it is of prime importance to add the references and keep the pages.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I'm missing something, there's no "but" in your :"yes, but". I said we need significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you said, "Yes, but...it is of prime importance to add the references...". ? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can of course help out by adding references, since this appears to be a concern of yours. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have searched, to the best of my abilities, for in-depth coverage. I have found none. That is why I nominated it for deletion. The first Afd was unable to find substantial coverage. Prior to the second AfD I was unable to. No one in the second AfD could. The article was deleted, though there are clearly strong feelings to the contrary. When I saw that the article had been recreated without providing those needed sources, I could have gone for a speedy deletion. I opted to bring it up again due to the lack of concensous on the first AfD and the somewhat weak delete on the second. I still cannot find the substantial coverage in reliable sources you promise exists. No one else seems to be finding it either. Unless that coverage is found and added soon, this article is heading for a second deletion. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Certainly, to the extent that they are discussed in reliable sources, that is welcome. To the extent that there is significant coverage in such sources, separtae articles are sometimes appropriate. That is the consensus. Those who gripe about "deletionism" are often merely unhappy with the consensus which states quite clearly that demos are generally not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and those who wish to delete those particular Death releases have yet to garner a clear consensus to do so.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question really would be : if there is separate articles for the demos, will they bring more information or would they just repeat what's in the death metal article ? I'm all for leaving demos out, unless they have a strong significance as it it the case here. I cannot believe nobody never wrote anything about that. Black metal, for example, is fairly documented in books and movies. zubrowka74 03:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance required

message: Is it just me or is the sentence "the style is characterized by an extremely vocal guttural with lyrics sung in a slow following the guitar riffs and sudden weather changes" of the Brutal death metal section is total nonsens ? Sounds like the kind of phrasing produced by Babel fish... zubrowka74 20:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's absolute nonsense, though you might be right about Babel fish. The section in question was added by an IP out of Brazil. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I was just being a drama-queen. I picked-up the pattern because I'm not a native english speaker myself. But I still think that the rest of the paragraph was OK. With minor corrections it could be reinserted. zubrowka74 02:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If I was going for drama, I would suggest translating the text (via Babel fish) back into Portuguese, then using a different site to re-translate it. As it is, I guess we keep what we can make sense of and source, ditch the rest. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsens 

message: Soilent Green has never been a deathgrind band and it isn't even listed in its article so I'm removing it from there. The band is refered to in a previous section, where it must be. Gothbag (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article lead lists them as sludge metal and grindcore while the infobox uses sludge and death metal. Death + grind = deathgrind was the probable logic behind this. These could use a cleanup as well. zubrowka74 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Soilent Green from the deathgrind mini list 

message: Is that serious ? Someone deleted the section under the rationale that consensus was made that this sub-genre did not exist. Should it be reverted ? (my guess is yes, unless I missed something) zubrowka74 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackened Death 

message: To the user(Scabrosus) who twice added the comment about poor drumming technique, your edit summary read, "I have noted that the drummers use poor drumming technique along with the fast beats. I can hear the differences because I play drums." That's pretty much the definition of WP:OR, which is exactly what I said when I reverted it the first time. Either find a source for your claim or don't add it again.  << Fyrefly  (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor drumming technique 

message: The article described death metal as being characterized by minor key tonality and atonality.  What it should be saying is not atonality, but chromaticism, because for the music to be atonal, the guitarists would have to carefully give equal value to each tone, which is highly unlikely and mostly used in orchestral settings.  The use of all 12 tones in death metal music is a characteristic of chromaticism, as in, uses the chromatic scale. 144.162.76.185 (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to "strict" atonality. I think "free" atonality is implied here. zubrowka74 18:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death metal is not typically "atonal" 

message: I have no intention to start the umpteenth "Possessed or Death?" debate, but the article has way too much emphasis on Death and Chuck Schuldiner as being the "first death metal band/musician/godfather of death metal". There is one thing everyone can agree on, be it Wikipedia editor or professional music journalist: Death released way more albums than Possessed, was active longer than Possessed, and with that weight alone, was more influential on the death metal genre than Possessed. However, a Google Books search either suggests that the bands pioneered the genre together or that Possessed preceded Death as being the first death metal band. Besides Allmusic - which has always been sketchy with its claims - there's no indication Possessed was a "fast Slayer-influenced thrash metal" band. Just because a journalist thinks a band sounds like it has an influence from another band does not mean a band WAS influenced by other band. No interviews suggest that the band was influenced by Slayer on Seven Churches. Band interviews are key to what influences a band/musician.
In just a little bit, I plan on overhauling the "History" section of this article with more accurate information, but just thought I post this, first, for discussion. Thanks, --Danteferno (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we'll monitor your every edit because, unless you have bona fide secondary sources, you'll just get reverted.  A new interview with Possessed frontman Jeff Becerra himself (found here: ) makes it very clear the importance of Schuldiner - that, despite Possessed coming first, the music Schuldiner created is more closely associated with what is considered death metal.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much bias/misleading bent towards Death/Chuck Schuldiner 

message: To be frank, I don't listen to any sort of metal...so I'm a bit out of my musical comfort zone here, but I have reverted all edits and restored the deathcore section of the article.  After doing independent research, I have determined that it would appear as though deathcore is a valid subgenre that has a good following.  Finding a citation or two for the section might prevent a repeat of the edit war that has been occurring.  Food for thought.  --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 01:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article for deathcore, there are many sources that say it's a subgenre of death metal or just simply an extreme metal genre… ect. So yes, it is a subgenre of DM, although the reason for its constant removal by IP is because it's technically a dirty word in the extreme metal community because traditional metalheads don't really have a thing for taking death metal and adding breakdowns to it or whatever so basically, people like him just can't handle the fact that it is a metal genre. Simple as that • GunMetal Angel 01:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Genre warriors make me smile.  Thanks GunMetal. --Tymun (Contact Me - Contribs) 02:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathcore edits 

message: This stuff needs to be cleared up.
Subgenres are: melodic death metal, technical death metal, progressive death metal, and brutal death metal (which is being entirely dismissed, sadly). These are subgenres on the basis that they do not incorporate any specific genre into the death metal formula, but rather alter the formula itself with "objective techniques".
Fusion genres include: deathcore, blackened death metal, doom/death metal (sometimes called funeral doom), deathgrind, and death'n'roll. These are fusion genres on the basis that they combine aesthetics of other established genres with the death metal formula, instead of altering it with "objective techniques".
Goregrind is not a subgenre, but not entirely accepted as a fusion genre of death metal either, it is rather a subgenre of grindcore than anything else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.150.32.140 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum. You haven't provided any sources to back uo what you're saying, whereas the material in the article has been reliably sourced. You have essentially wasted your time even typing that edit out. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Goregrind and deathgrind should not be grouped together. Period. Yes, both are death metal / grindcore fusion genres, but treating them as though they're at all similar is ridiculous. Not only is the text pulled directly from an older version of the deathgrind article, the only genre explored or given examples of IS deathgrind. It's very misleading. 68.47.13.178 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so improve the article. Don't just delete material; find some pertinent, sourced examples of goregrind and list them; I see no problem with them being  grouped together as death metal/grindcore subgenres. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why are the sources given for blackened death metal much better than the ones I provided for brutal death metal? It needs some consistency. They both have a tiny bit explaining that blackened death metal is a combination of black and death metal, but that's pretty much it SonOfPlisskin (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subgenres and Fusion genres 

message: According to the AV Club, Dethklok's first two albums are "the highest-charting death metal albums of all time, bringing a whole new audience to the genre." This should probably be addressed on the page here. As of late 2003, the best-selling group was Cannibal Corpse.  Aryder779 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With the questionable bona fide nature of the source notwithstanding, the article itself doesn't make any such claim. It states that Dethklok is the highest charting.  But it also claims that Dethklok has "billions" of fans.  Dethklok has come nowhere near the combined sales of Death (since the Relapse reissues hit stores within the last two years), for example.  Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And we have to keep in mind that there is a fictionnal band with billons of fans and real band with more realistic figures. It would be ironic if the real band achieved the same status as the fictionnal outfit. zubrowka74 13:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;) \m/ A Sniper (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dethklok: Best-selling death metal ever?

message: I would like to use the words "bands" or "artists" instead of "acts" because the former don't lead to misconceptions, whereas the latter may also be used to indicate a circus or theater performance, e.g. in the sense of a theatrical play having four or five acts. This (the use of "bands" rather than "acts") would also apply to articles about musicians or bands, provided many Wikipedia articles about pop music artists list related artists as related "acts".  What do you think? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "bands" or "artists" instead of "acts" 

message: Death metal guitarist use low tuned guitars!
:Difference? ABC paulista (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Down tuned guitars? 

message: Ok... now while I highly agree that "brutal death metal" is not really a genre versus "death metal" since there's really not much at all that warrants it being its own thing besides maybe just heavier riffs and guttural vocals, but I really think slam death metal should have its own article and very soon with the rise of peak it's at, enough big publications are going to write stories about it. I mean maybe slam wasn't a genre 7 years ago, but it sure is a genre now! I mean look; how can you even really compare this to this, and let alone call these two things the same thing? Even a twelve year old who has never been exposed to anything metal could agree there is definitely a difference in death metal and slam death metal. If technical death metal can be its own thing, then slam definitely deserves to be. Second Skin (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slam 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Death metal's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AllMusic":
From Kreator: 
From Symphonic black metal: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Death metal]] 

message: Since when is death metal even remotely rooted in hardcore? Yes, it's often fused with it, but there are simply no stylistic similarities at all. Early death metal is, first and foremost, really just glorified thrash metal. Much like how grindcore is souped-up crust punk/hardcore. And even though there's a source stating it, it's just incorrect. It's not true, the earliest forms of death metal have absolutely no hardcore in them whatsoever. Listen to Death, Mantas, Possessed, Sepultura and Morbid Angel and tell me there's hardcore there? There's none, you won't find it. Hardcore should be removed. Also, no, bands that "influenced" death metal weren't playing hardcore either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.1.126 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a source, you have what? And besides, you say that early death metal is glorified thrash metal, so clearly Death Metal has Hardcore Punk elements within it since Thrash Metal has plenty of Hardcore Punk elements. ABC paulista (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: punk rock -> hardcore --> thrash metal --> death metal  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.64.147 (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardcore? 

message: Dearth Meatball  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.215.202 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative genre name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Death metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=113803
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113120317/http://www.earache.com/WickedWorld/interview/possessed/possessed.html to http://www.earache.com/WickedWorld/interview/possessed/possessed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325022446/http://www.officialatheist.com:80/index.php?item=biography to http://www.officialatheist.com/index.php?item=biography
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604092255/http://www.waytooloud.com:80/2007/10/23/cannibal-corpse-alex-webster-and-george-%E2%80%9Ccorpsegrinder%E2%80%9D-fisher/ to http://www.waytooloud.com/2007/10/23/cannibal-corpse-alex-webster-and-george-%E2%80%9Ccorpsegrinder%E2%80%9D-fisher/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Death metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617183213/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20081202153909/http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/07/19/Arts/phantom.Limb.Exorcises.Its.Emotions-2925041.shtml to http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/07/19/Arts/phantom.Limb.Exorcises.Its.Emotions-2925041.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first source clerly states: For those who aren't familiar with the slam death metal genre, here's a quick summation. The genre evolved from the '90s New York death metal scene, incorporating elements of hardcore. It's not so focused on guitar solos and blast beats aren't so important; it's more about utilizing mid-tempos (and you can't forget the breakdowns), palm-muted riffage, the occasional surprising element of hip hop-inspired vocal and drum beat rhythms, and a healthy dose of growls and grunts. Oh -- and this genre takes the macabre of death metal to the extreme. So all of your changes and band additions are unsourced, thereby being innadequated for this place. Even Brutal Death metal isn't listed here as a subgenre because of a lack of valid sources. ABC paulista (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slam death metal 

message: hardcore punk grouo Discharge sounds like  proto death metal oin 1982. forget metal bands that were then - it's like girls singing compare to this
Discharge ‎– Protest And Survive (1982) 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAiLqQ8XicsSergey Woropaew (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Closest thing to Death metal in 1982

message: I propose an edit to the section "Subgenres and fusion genres" to change the current bulleted list to a list of subheadings underneath the main heading "Subgenres and fusion genres". This would allow redirects to the specific subgenres' headings instead of the current trend of sending redirects to the general "Subgenres and fusion genres" section (which could possibly be confusing to users unfamiliar with Wikipedia's redirect system or those who don't know to scroll down to find the specific genre they were looking for). Why would we want the link "Slam death metal" to redirect to "Death metal#Subgenres and fusion genres" when a simple reformatting of the section would allow other articles to link to the more specific "Death metal#Slam death metal" so that users can more easily see the genre they clicked through to read about? — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subgenres and fusion genres" format change proposal 

message: Technical Death is derivative of Prog but are nowhere near the same subgenre. Nile and Opeth sound nothing alike.
"Technical death metal (also known as tech-death, progressive death metal, or prog-death)[134] is a subgenre of death metal which employs dynamic song structures, uncommon time signatures, atypical rhythms and unusual harmonies and melodies. Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz or classical music. While the term technical death metal is sometimes used to describe bands that focus on speed and extremity as well as complexity, the line between progressive and technical death metal is thin. Tech death and prog death, for short, are terms commonly applied to such bands as Nile, Edge of Sanity, and Opeth. Necrophagist and Spawn of Possession are known for a classical music-influenced death metal style. Death metal pioneers Death also refined their style in a more progressive direction in their final years. Some albums for this subgenre are Hallucinations (1990) by the German band Atrocity and Death's Human (1991). This style has significantly influenced many bands, creating a stream that in Europe was carried out at first by bands such as Gory Blister and Electrocution.[135][136] The Polish band Decapitated gained recognition as one of Europe's primary modern technical death metal acts"
2604:6000:9382:5600:5D3D:6D9E:5AC9:2C1E (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some reliable sources that back-up your claim, feel free to share. ABC paulista (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prog combined with Tech subgenre 

message: Do we really need a disambiguation for a largely unknown film that took $2500 at the box office? Random name (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so, i've removed it. Next time just be bold and do the edit yourself if you think it's right. enjoyer -- talk 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Metal Angola? 

message: , in the book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture, by Natalie J. Purcell, it is stated that Deathgrind, Goregrind and Pornogrind are styles that mix Death metal with Grindcore, but no "hierarchy" is established between them, so grouping them the way you are doing without sources backing it up is considered original research, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The book might not be used in this article in particluar, but it's used in each respective article as source. ABC paulista (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grindcore Subgenres 

message: Persons ask why metal I love. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal rules. 

message: Yeah metal is not dead. Still lives on. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal rules. 

message: Deathmetal come along way. back before our time. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  People really don't know death metal come along way. 

message: This is Jeff from Possessed. These years are cooked. The media has always misled the fans because of a few revisionists and the actual history of Death Metal is actually better than the false claims. Put simply, I think we came too early and so many people were unable to understand what was going on. Of course, after I was shot and people thought I was never coming back Possessed went from the only Death Metal band to being massively downplayed. So many band labels, knowing there is a certain intrinsic value that comes with being the “1st “ began spinning stories in wn attempt to cash in during my absence . 1983 start date has went from just Possessed to  a  multitude of workarounds. To say that “Death formed in 83” is simply not true. According to Kam Lee “While Mantas we’re around in 83 they  were a Venom cover band with one original that sounded like Venom “Chuck joined Mantas which quickly became the mighty Death.  
Keep in mind,  every member of Death also knew/knows what happened. Chuck was extremely taken with Possessed, Death Metal. Possessed were apples to oranges different than anything else at that tine. 
In 83-84 Possessed were so far over the top. Back then it was like the most brutal death metal of today because at that time we were literally the heaviest fastest band in the planet. And. Ring “the heaviest” very quickly and early on became the benchmark. Once we opened Pandora’s box bands started getting  heavier and heavier in a race to become the new heaviest. And with this Death Metal became more than Possessed, 
I am certainly not trying to claim all things Death Metal. I just want people to know the truth. Which is that Possessed were unequivocally the first Death Metal band and created the original Death Metal style. 
I was robbed of a big part of my life and I love Death Metal. It’s history. 
It’s probably worth pointing out that not one of these bands that claim to have “invented Death Metal” would never say that to my face. Especially if the were actually there as well, there are still far too many of us around that were there and know the truth. 
I am still trying to figure out how “Noise Records” is being attributed to “creating death metal” a year after we did. In fact, it’s a bull shit logic to say that because there are heavier bands Possessed should be blotted from what we did. 
That logic goes both ways. And truthfully, since Possessed were the very first, it could also be said that it’s the purest form. 
Anyone who claims to have “invented” DM before Possessed are posing hard and they know it. We would have never tried to sound it take credit for another bands efforts. 
At the same time the most important thing is that Death Metal as a genre, and it’s true I brainwashed history be kept alive. 
Chuck made no secret that he modeled Death after Possessed. He was in correspondence with me and literally moved into the California Possessed Fan Club President’s house (Krystal Mahoney) in Antioch in order to be closer to us. Chuck and I became friends and was truly one of the first people that followed in our footsteps. He was proud of me and I am proud of him. The only “rivalry” stemmed from greedy revisionist managers, labels and the lucrative business of the industry. 
Possessed was the first, and this means we will forever be downplayed and despised by everyone who thinks newer is older. 
Of course, I see it in the old  school pre-cancel culture way. I support ALL Death Metal bands. Being first is both a blessing and a curse. 
Long live Death Metal. May it’s true history be known and brought to light. Death to posers. 2601:200:4000:1D80:C938:CB87:15D8:1DC5 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1983-4 

message: Wanted to check on this - the "Not to be confused with" template says it's to be used as below:
"This hatnote is generally used when readers have misspelled their desired title, and the error would be apparent by simply displaying the alternative term without further explanation. For example, consider a reader looking for the punctuation mark who instead ends up at coma:"
Does this really apply to deathrock in this article? Deathrock certainly isn't a misspelling, and have to be honest, I don't have any idea what deathrock is - I'd definitely need further explanation. Does that deserve a section in the article under associated styles rather than a misuse of the "Not to be confused with" element? Random name (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to be confused with