Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 3

message: Queen are the first non-blues based heavy metal band and one of biggest influence on Judas Priest music. Queen release his first album one year before Judas Priest. In the early '70s Queen are the heaviest band on the planet and the precursors of speed and thrash metal sound. In the early '70 Judas Priest are not an influential force because anybody knows about the band. The Judas Priest albums begun to sale heavily in the late '70s.
    
—**Rob Halford (Judas Priest) about Queen: "All I've got on my iPod is every single Queen song and every single Judas Priest song. Queen were an incredible heavy metal band. I saw them on their first ever tour, at Birmingham Town Hall. They just blew me away."
more info: http://www.queencuttings.com/cod/ClassicRock_oct2006.html
-If you think that Queen are not the first non-blues based heavy metal band, one of the best rock critics, GORDON FLETCHER, wrote in the Rolling Stone Magazine one year before Judas Priest first album release, in Dec 1973 this:
“Rumor has it that Queen shall soon be crowned "the new Led Zeppelin," which is an event that would certainly suit this observer just fine. There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. Their debut album is superb. The Zeppelin analogy is not meant to imply that Queen's music is anywhere near as blues-based as the content of Led Zep I & II. No, their songs are more in the Who vein, straight-ahead rock with slashing, hard-driving arrangements that rate with the finest moments of Who's Next and Quadrophenia. There's a song on the album (remarkably reminiscent of "Communication Breakdown") called "Modern Times Rock 'N' Roll," and that's exactly what Queen's music is. They're the first of a whole new wave of English rockers, and you'd best learn to love 'em now 'cause they're here to stay. Regal bearings aside, Queen is a monster.”
Rolling Stone Magazine (1973) facts info:
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/199416/review/5942941/queen_1st_lp
-Queen are the first inductee in "Vh1 Rock Honors"
-Is an error to said that Judas Priest helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence.
The correct form: Queen helped spur the genre's evolution by discarding much of its blues influence;
---
:No offence but the use of your source is fallascious.
:First let me specify this:
:1. I don't question the seriousness of the article. 
:2. I have nothing against Queen
:These are not the points. The point is no matter you are correct on this issue you just can't deal with the history's evolution with an article that lacks the history distance. That's nonsense.
:I mean you just can't prove history with a source which hasn't witnessed that history happen yet.
:*That's not an article which notes retrospectively the role of Queen in the heavy metal history in the PAST 
:*This is ONLY an article which predicts the role of Queen in the heavy metal history in the FUTURE 
:Confusing these two aspects and using that quote as some evidence is wishful thinking and fallascious…
:So even though most part of this prediction turned out to be right, the use of this quote is irrelevant anyway to support the fact Queen HAS played a major role in history.
:One relevant point I note however in this source is it testifies that Queen is a not blues-based band. Which isn't totally true as Queen still uses some blues elements in some of their songs (I have very precise sources about that if you need), whatever... 
:Anyway on the general issue, I don't think Queen has to replace Judas Priest in the article. 
:They both played a major role in HM evolution. Queen indeed had a undeniable influence, but JP has also a major influence in the development of pure HM aesthetic. You just can’t dismiss this fact in order to credit Queen only.
:Of course Queen played an undeniable role. Some even credit them as the precursors of Thrash with Stone cold Crazy in 1974. 
:However that's not Queen which introduced in HM one of the future major element of Speed and Thrash, double bass-drum that is, (Exciter -1978)
:Because Rob acknowledges the importance of Queen, doesn't mean JP had less importance in history. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris  07:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen, the first non-blues based heavy metal band (I have facts) 

message: I find it odd that no mention is made either of the sort of subgenre-free metal of Mastodon and High on Fire or the Post-rock influence metal of Isis, Pelican and the like.  I mean, those bands are some of the most prominent US metal bands today, and they've also attracted notice outside of heavy metal circles.  Surely these developments deserve mention?
Wilhelm Ritter 04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is another thread further down regarding "recent trends", where I proposed to include Mastodon as well.. I'd agree that the bands you mention are quite a good sample of the rather style-transgressing acts that you can currently find in Heavy Metal. Don' know if that's a trend though and having an impact on the genre as a whole.. Johnnyw talk 11:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Trends

message: "In addition to this, the bass is usually heavily distorted and is accompanied by a variety of effects pedals."
Is this really true for heavy metal in general? I guess its possible that some bands use a variety of effects pedals for the bass, but I can't think of any heavy metal band that uses anything but a rather mild distortion. 81.235.136.245 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Though heavy effects on bass are not necessarily uncommon, they are by no means the usual.  for hardcore and nu-metal bands, perhaps that is more common, but if we're talking straight-up heavy metal, I picture a fender bass in an ampeg amp, turned up all the way, nothing more.  don't you? Lord Stu 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Base in Metal 

message: I deleted the last paragraph from the alt/nu metal section, which I will justify here:
"Pantera was a key formulator of the groove metal (post-thrash) distant subgenre of heavy metal music."
Pantera was indeed a key band at this time, but "groove-metal" and even "post-thrash" are not well-known or often-used genre terms, in my opinion, and there is no reason why either should be considered a "distant" sub-genre of heavy metal. Pantera's metal. Nothing "distant" about it. I added a line to the first paragraph about Pantera, because they were important, and cited a source to justify the statement.
"Slower, eerier metal became more prominent as more bands left commonplace influences for the bluesy, deep sound of the original heavy metal groups like Led Zeppelin."
This isn't cited, and the same phenomenon of bands going back to the roots of metal is discussed in the next section, "Recent Trends." It should not be discussed in both sections - one or the other.
"The most prominent group of this first-wave metal revival was arguably Type O Negative, who claimed influence by Black Sabbath and even the later work of The Beatles."
This isn't cited, either, and it's highly debatable. It seems to me that it was added by someone who really likes Type O Negative, thus not a NPOV. The band need not be mentioned in an overview article - the alternative metal article might be the place to go.
"This led to a surge in the popularity of doom metal, as well as a resurgence of interest in early heavy metal bands."
Type O Negative led to a "surge in popularity" of doom metal? Debatable - doom metal has always been pretty underground. As for the resurgence of interest in early heavy metal bands, that is discussed in the next section. Orange ginger 17:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Metal sectioned revised 

message: Ok,I had to correct a certain number of chapters that were not totally acurrate on a strict musicological ground. I've also rearranged the article with more structure and relevance. But as I'm not a native english speaker, I'd like to ask the editors to check my english in the chapters.
Anyway here are some the things I had to correct.
*	Operatic Vocals: Technically speaking Dickinson and Halford use in no way the specific operatic singing techniques. But recent trend singers such as Tarja or Sarah Jezebel Deva do. But as for singers like Dickinson and Halford, I tried to find a more appropriate term with what the author meant: I suggest "theatrical". But I'm open to other suggestions 
*Tritone: Even though augmented fourth and diminished fifth are enharmonically equivalent in the equal temperament (they sound the same). Theoretically this is the actually augmented fourth which is called the tritone. Calling the diminished fifth a tritone is a parlance (because of the enharmony) but that’s not exactly correct. In a tonal harmonic context, augmented fourth and diminished fifth don’t have the same function. So it is important to distinguish. This is generally the function of the augmented fourth which is used in certain contexts to suggest evil, scaring atmospheres.
*Tritone and history: The tritone was not banned in medieval music because of its evil sound. It was banned because its sounded dissonant and so unpleasant. And so that dissonance was symbolically associated to the devil, that is to say what has to be rejected from music as in morality. Because of the original association, it was slowly assimilated in cultures conventions as “evil”.
* Classical and heavy metal: as it is a common wrong belief and it was particularly latent in the article, I had to specify  that even if  there are no question many metal guitarist are classical inspired, heavy metal  does not have any ascendance (close or far) from classical lineage though. I remind people that heavy metal is popular music whereas classical is serious (erudite) music. Classical compositions considerations and concerns are far more complex and technical than the ones of any genre of metal even the most erudite ones like the  neo classical metal or the progressive metal). I remind people too that the modern descendant of the classical music lineage is the  contemporary music not heavy metal .
* Music and words:I had to change the formulation about "words being translated in music" in order to make it sound a little less naive: Music undeniably expresses meaning but it is not like a verbal language you could translate textually from one to each other. There's a large confusion about it in the popular belief. As a matter of fact: as musical thinkers like Hanslick have underlined:  Words cannot be translated strictly into music. Music doesn't mean anything similar like language. I mean: as an example take some pure instrumental music: well, it doesn't have the hability to express explictly denotative things like "Yesterday  I woke up and I took a cup of coffee". It can't. Only verbal languages can express such precise things like that.  Actually music conveys connotative and diffuse meaning, impressions, atmospheres but nothing precise. Now some of these conotative meaning associate better with some lyrical themes than some others.
Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and specifications

message: Concerning your comment :
 “Eventually, black metal bands such as Mayhem began to drop this technique and replace   the traditional chugging sections with tremolo picking instead.”
It is correct but it was off topic in the place you wrote it. (so I had to put it in a more appropriate place)
When talking technical issues, it is crucial to see difference with the different parameters of music. Please don’t confuse instrumental techniques with compositional techniques. This is not the same. 
Pedal point is NOT an instrumental technique like tremolo picking. So it can’t be replaced by it as you wrote. 
Pedal point is a harmonic characteristic not instrumental technique.'''
While you’re correct when saying BM uses frequently tremolo it has nothing to do with harmonic language chapter itself. It has to do with rhythm and groove.
Now on as strict HARMONIC ground there is no question pedal point is extremely frequent in Heavy metal (and even in black metal). However in BM it is less obvious for guitar players as (unlike classic metal or thrash metal) the pedal point is seldom part of the guitar riffs itself,  instead it tends to be played in background by the bass : 
A striking example being De misteriis Dom Sathanas in the second riff where the bass insists on a persistent alternation between two E (low and higher) (TAB: 0 on E string and 7 on A string) while the guitar plays its own things: This persistance of this two E notes alternation IS also a pedal point.
But admitedly the pedal point tends to be a little bit less frequent in black metal
Concerning the tremolo specification, notice I have said in a general manner that Heavy metal tends to use "small equal binary or tertiary rhythmic figures" (what obviously includes tremolo as well though not overtly specified) 
Concerning the removing of the sound and techniques chapter title:
I added it for more relevance. Talking about instrumentation is not the same as talking about instrumental technique or instrumental  sound. Dealing with instrumentation is talking about the set and the kind of instruments involved not their sound or their techniques.
That's why I made a clear separation. For instance concerning the volume issue it doesn't concerns the instrumentation directly ( I mean their specific timbre) it deals with the amount of decibels those instruments are played. 
I insist on this: when talking about technique it is crucial to see clearly the different musical parameters to avoid confusion.
Thanks for your comprehension 
Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conkyworm's edition (about black metal)

message: "Classical has hell over lot more influence than blues in modern metal so don't remove it, ever seen "Metal: A Headbangers Journey"? Ever read any guitar mags? ie Total Guitar being one"
:Giani before getting mad and arrogant, maybe you should make sure you have understood clearly the reason of the removing.
:Indeed you're making an obvious confusion: Classical influences are absolutely not denied here! But your confusion lies in the fact that"Stylistic origins" does NOT mean "stylistic influences": metal draws influences from classical but it does not descend from it.
:If you had read the content of the article itself you would probably have realized that the classical influences are absolutely not denied. Only the descendance from classical is denied. 
:So no matter HM has indeed rid off most of its blues influences. It does descend from rock which itself descend from Blues. But Metal does absolutely NOT descend from classical. That's a very naive belief: Metal IS popular music whereas classical is serious(erudite) music. I remind people too that the modern descendant of the classical music is the  contemporary music not heavy metal.
:I'm musicologist and I can assure you that.
:Alpha_Ursae_Minoris09:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O sorry, keyword "origin" not "influence", that clears things up. (Giani g 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins

message: I have added a (badly needed) link to the Metal Archives. I think the link section could use some additions. Any suggestions?
--Conkyworm
:Someone removed it, I restored it. I added the Metal FAQ from the American Nihilist Underground Society as well, as that has always needed to be up there. I can't think of anything else that would make sense. Ours18 04:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links must conform to policy WP:EL. Which neither of those do. 156.34.220.114 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly do they violate it? Ours18 04:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Links have to provide something NOT already available on Wikipedia. Those two links add absolutely nothing. Only dumbass inbred 13 year olds read websites like that. 156.34.220.114 04:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ANUS was cited as a good source by the Deena Weinstein Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal that comprises many of the citations on metal-related articles.  That alone should be good enough to qualify it. Ours18 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links Section 

message: Probably around ten files would be reasonable in FAR. Suggestions
*1."Angle of Death" - Slayer
*2. "Business" - Biohazard
*3. "Aces High" - Iron Maiden.
*4. "Cursed Realms (Of the Winterdemons)" - Sunn O)))
Ceoil 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biohazard would cover metalcore? Ceoil 01:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking of one for 'Recent trends (mid 2000s)' - Killswitch or Shadows Fall, but Bio could cover it. M3tal H3ad 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Sunn O))) song is a cover, and I think putting covers up instead of the original is dishonest.  For mallcore (oh I'm sorry, nu "metal") I would suggest Korn's "Freak on a Leash."  "Black Sabbath" would be the most appropriate Black Sabbath song.  I would be willing to upload the files if someone would be willing to tell me how to upload in ogg or FLAC format, as I have no idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ours18 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some glam songs are needed.  I'm assuming we would be using one or two song samples per section, unless said section contains three or more subgenres. Ours18 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Iron Man" is decent for showing a blues/hardrock backround, but I won't oppose "NIB."  The Metallica song though is a no-no; there's far too much pentatonic-based riffing for that to be a definitive thrash song.  "Angel of Death" would be better.  Personally, I think each section should have a minimum of two audio files, so maybe both MoP and AoD would be best. Ours18 04:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound files

message: So couldn't we just remove nu metal from the header of the history section?
If you click on the Alt Metal link, you'll see that Nu Metal is listed as a sub-section of alternative metal.
There are a few types of alternative metal listed in the alt metal article... so, why does nu metal get special attention?
I imagine because it's the "biggest" and most controversial of the types of "alt metal;"  I wouldn't be opposed to putting it with the alt metal section myself.  I think I'll do that now, actually. Ours18 21:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic.com groups nu metal under alternative metal, but it does refer to it as a later wave.  Ian Christie's book makes a clear distinction between the genres, though.  WesleyDodds 01:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nu metal isn't a subgenre of alternative rock.  That's the key difference between alternative metal and nu metal.  Alternative metal consists of bands that to various extents are both alt-rock and metal.  Nu metal is meant to refer to the "new" metal that appeared at the end of the century, reflecting more metal's popular resurgence rather than the influence of alt-rock (even though that's still there to an extent).  WesleyDodds 02:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't Nu Metal just a type of Alt Metal? 

message: Can the group of editors striving to improve this article ensure that all reliable web based sources used as inline citations are consistent with the citation format of the article, with author, heading, publication, retrieval date etc.?  is one style that can be considered - I notice some editors (likely anons) have added cites inconsistent with the style used by the article. LuciferMorgan 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DCGeist is going to take care of that once we get all the cites down, which should be in a few days.  WesleyDodds 01:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|citeweb}}

message: I moved the prog metal section back into power metal, mainly because we could have an inifinite number of sub-genres listed in this section, and the line must be drawn somewhere. The underground metal section is going by the encyclopedias of Gary Sharpe-Young, who split the underground into five categories - thrash, death, black, power, and doom. So I say limit the section to those. The prog bands listed have a lot in common with power metal, so it fits in that section.
::Power metal is 100% different than prog. metal. 24.139.31.210 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  prog metal 

message: Hey everyone, I'm beginning to get burned out working on this. I'm going to finish up reworking and citing some prose, but help would be appreciated, particularly with regards to the characteristics section.  Unfortunately, citations from amatuer websites are not good enough; we need to directly reference reputable sources, particularly books and articles, on the genre and its characteristics.  Guitar World and similiar magazines would be a place to start since they focus a great deal in explaining how musical forms work, and books on rock music ought to provide at least a brief synopsis of the genre.  Additionally, older sources would be great in order to better flesh out the perspective.  The stuff I'm mainly working from has been published in the last five years or so, but I'm hoping to check out some books form my university library soon in order to help.  WesleyDodds 13:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure to keep FAR updated on things so they don't close the review. LuciferMorgan 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Saying that classical music is both "art music" and "serious music"-and that popular music (like heavy metal) is neither is completly condescending. Popular musicians are in fact "artists"!; and some popular musicians are serious with their music. To say on this article (note #19) that classical music is "serious art" and that heavy metal (or any other styles for that manner) is not, completly undermines the genre. That is why I demand that note #19, and the graph it has spawned, should be taken off the article! 
Anonymous 13:57, 13 MAR. '07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.172.237.93 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Conkyworm said everything. Sorry, but no condescendence was meant towards Heavy metal when I used those words (I'm a fan of HM), the words "art music" or "serious music" are actually idiomatic expressions. They refer to the general classification in music:  classical and contemporary music and (to some extent)jazz are classified as "serious music" or "art music". I agree these expressions may sound excessive or elitist but that's just the way they are ordinary called in the english vocabulary of music. And using these words doesn't mean in anyway that heavy metal isn't art or serious. Of course HM is. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen those terms used in reference to various types of music, but I think for the purpose of this article, it would be wise to use "art music" and not "serious music." The latter has a strong connotation, and saying something doesn't fall under the classification of "serious music" could be taken as derogatory by many an editor or average reader. PhantomOTO 00:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the " serious music" term might sound derogatory. Anyway Conkyworm suggested the use of the "erudite music" term. And I tend to agree with him, because it should avoid some misinterpretation from people who aren't necessarily aware of this classification and the difference of nature. However I had to keep the "art music" term as well to maintain coherence with the sourced quote. Concerning the art music term, I'm not denying some people may use it in reference to various types of music, but fundamentally the word exclusively refers to classical erudite traditions and by extension to contemporary music (as descending from classical) (and to some extent to jazz.)Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metal not "art" nor "serious"? 

message: I removed a note about retro metal since the retro metal article was deleted. If someone feels that it should be included (and I'm guessing someone does since it keeps getting added) they can make their case here. Olliegrind 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Retro Metal

message: Hi,
I frequently edit the German wikipedia, focussing on my favourite music. I've translated your music theory part, but I am looking for some expert views on metal music.
Are there any experts (university professors for example), who have analyzed this style of music, and are there publications (book or website) on this topic
thanx
--80.136.27.43 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Searching for Heavy Metal music theory 

message: Let try and clear this all up . . .
Deathrocker has some objections with the last two paragraphs in the "Mainstream dominance" section, particulary stuff I've written and sourced.
Here's the version I wrote:
:Heavy metal's success blossomed in the wake of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal with a rash of successful early 1980s releases. Following Van Halen's lead, a metal scene began to develop in Los Angeles during the late 1970s. LA bands like Mötley Crüe, Ratt, W.A.S.P., and Quiet Riot were influenced by the New Wave of British Heavy Metal and incorporated the theatrics (and sometimes makeup) of forebearers Alice Cooper and Kiss.Christe (2003), pp. 55-57 With the birth of MTV in 1981, many metal artists benefited from exposure, and sales often doubled or tripled if a band had videos screened on the channel.Christe (2003), p. 79 Def Leppard's videos for 1983s Pyromania made them superstars in America, Quiet Riot became the first American heavy metal band to top the charts domestically, while Ozzy Osbourne teamed up with former Quiet Riot guitarist Randy Rhodes to launch his successful solo career. One of the seminal events in metal's growing popularity was the 1983 US Festival held in California, where the special "heavy metal day" featuring Ozzy Osbourne, Van Halen, Judas Priest, and others drew the largest audiences of the three-day festival.Weinstein (1991), p.45 
:Heavy metal's popularity continued to grow as the decade wore on, and several professional and amateur magazines devoted exclusively to the genre emerged, including Kerrang! and Metal Hammer. In 1987 MTV launched a show devoted exclusively to heavy metal videos named Headbanger's Ball. Billboard noted "Metal has broadened its audience base. Metal music is no longer the exclusive domain of male teenagers. the metal audience had widened, gathering older (college-aged), younger (pre-teen), and more female."Walser (1993), pp. 12-13 One of the more popular forms of heavy metal to emerge during the 1980s was glam metal, which was based around the club scene in Los Angeles' Sunset Strip. Glam metal bands including Mötley Crüe, Poison, and New Jersey's Bon Jovi dominated the US charts, MTV, and arenas, but the underground scene of the increasingly factionalized heavy metal fanbase often considered these bands "posers"Walser (1993), p. 14 In contrast to their contemporaries in the LA glam metal scene, Guns N' Roses were seen as a rawer, more dangerous band that, with the release of their hit 1987 album Appetite for Destruction, "recharged and almost single-handedly sustained the Sunset Strip sleaze system for several years."Christe (2003), p. 165
And here's Deathrocker's version:
:Heavy metal's success blossomed in the wake of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal with a rash of successful early 1980s releases. Following Van Halen's lead, a metal scene began to develop in Los Angeles during the late 1970s. The first wave of glam metal included the likes of Mötley Crüe, Ratt, W.A.S.P., Dokken and Twisted Sister. Early glam metal groups were influenced by the original heavy metal bands such as Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led ZeppelinRivadavia, Eduardo. "Quiet Riot". All Music Guide. Retrieved on March 25, 2007.Motley Crue - Zeppelin & Sabbath influencesRatt - Rolling Stone attributing Sabbath & Zeppelin influencesBobby Dall, Poison bassist citing Sabbath and Led ZeppelinBlackie Lawless citing original heavy metal band Cream as influenceMick Mars - Jeff Beck Group influenced, incorporating guitar solos into the majority of their songs. Bands such as Mötley Crüe and W.A.S.P. expanded on the foundations laid by Alice Cooper and Kiss in regards to stage show, often venturing into shock rock territory. At times the likes of Dio, Ozzy Osbourne and Judas PriestMetal-Rules.com experimented with glam metal stylings in their music.
:Heavy metal's popularity continued to grow as the decade ventured on, and several professional and amateur magazines devoted primarily to the genre emerged, including Kerrang! and Metal Hammer. Billboard noted "Metal has broadened its audience base. Metal music is no longer the exclusive domain of male teenagers. the metal audience had widened, gathering older (college-aged), younger (pre-teen), and more female."Walser (1993), pp. 12-13
Before I go into in-depth arguments, does anyone have any preliminary opinions?  WesleyDodds 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have an opinion. WesleyDodds' version is clearly better written and more informative; also, unlike Deathrocker's version, it reflects a consensus view of the history and is based on reliable published sources. This barely rises to the level of "dispute." One version is superior in every way to the other by Wikipedia standards.—DCGeist 23:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been argued before; here and on users talk. Agree per WesleyDodds, Geist, and older discussions. Ceoil 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content dispute 

message: I was a little confused with the article starting out with:
"Heavy metal (sometimes referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed between 1968 and 1974"
I realize the its origins are mostly hard rock, but isn't Heavy metal its own genre, not a genre of rock?
DemonOfTheFall27 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's simply a very large subgenre of rock, like punk rock and alternative rock. These three are the largest subgenres of rock, and contain various subgenres of their own.  WesleyDodds 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock genre?

message: hi folks.. i took the liberty to remove the following passage from the power metal section:
:In these later days, power metal has become a scarce commodity seeing as that rap and r&b rampantly overpopulates metal's influence. It is safe to say that rock in general is a dying force, but with some help todays bands have brought back some of its potency. Bands like The Winters of Ragnark and Tenacious D have incorporated the new-age philosophy of musical freedom with the genius of the metal riff to recreate the metal audience in a new and more stable form.
Well, the reasons are obvious (strange claims, rants, etc..) Hope you agree.. Johnnyw talk 17:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I was going to delete it too--and ya beat me by a couple seconds.—DCGeist 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yep, well doneAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 18:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed a passage from power metal 

message: Shouldn't the "origin of the term heavy metal" section be listed under the history section? There's a section there about the origin of the music, so why not combine it with the origin of the name? Seems pointless to have them seperated. Orange ginger 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: This is more acurate than than just "glam metal" in general and "underground" in general.
:"However, the metal audience had begun to factionalize, with the second wave of glam metal and extreme metal scenes of the time diverging widely"
Because 1) not all glam metal bands achieved mainstream success, there were some "underground" glam metal acts too. 2) Please provide evidence of doom metal scenes voicing against the genre. It was generally the more extreme sections (death, black, thrash) where the largest divide was. 
The reason the word "second wave" should be used is because it is more reflective of reality. For example, even on Encyclopaedia Metallum (where the majority of the content is black and death) first wave glam metal bands are included such as Motley Crue, WASP, Dokken, Twisted Sister... but second wave acts such as Bon Jovi and Poison aren't. Thus showing a more reflective example of the "divide". - Daddy Kindsoul 08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since a book is being cited, we want to try to be as close to the original phrasing as possible. I'll look up the referece in a bit in order to provide context. WesleyDodds 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a different book, one that's an inline cited historical and sociological study of heavy metal. It's the one that makes up a lot of the references on this page. WesleyDodds 00:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "On the one hand, there was the metal of the broad new audience forged during the mid-1980s by bands like Motley Crue and Bon Jovi. This was the heavy metal on the sales charts, the heavy metal with radio play, the metal seen on MTV and at huge arena concerts. On the other hand, a different camp disparaged the newfound popularity of what they called lite metal or the music of "posers". These fans and bands attempted to sustain the marginal status metal enjoyed during the 1970s; they shunned the broad popularity that they saw as necessarily linked to musical vapidity and subcultural dispersion. The "underground" metal scene was, until the late 1980s, based in clubs rather than arenas, in subcultural activity rather than mass-mediated identity." (Walser, pg. 13-14) WesleyDodds 09:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Wave divide

message: :::"Ultimately, I think we agree more than we disagree on this topic." 
::: Indeed… 
:::"The tone of this paragraph implies that heavy metal music is inferior to classical music. If this is not your intention it should be toned down." 
::: Ok, if this line may be misinterpreted that way, it is indeed necessary to reword differently. Because I never meant to imply any dismissive tone.Basically I just meant to refer to:
:::1. A difference of nature and essence between both.
:::2. the  superficial nature of the borrowing of classical musical elements by metal. (I explain that below)
::: These are concrete and objective observations.
:::"At the heart of my objection is that both styles derive from the Western music tradition. As you probably well know, classical music defined many of the underlying harmonic and melodic devices that all popular western music uses to some extent. Certainly Heavy Metal music does not delve into many of the complexities of classical music, but it's still part of the Western tradition. So this is why I believe it's inaccurate to say that Heavy Metal has "nothing" in common with classical music. All popular music owes a debt to what the classical composers contributed".
::: Ok, stated like this I have to agree. Actually I believe what you’re trying to say is just the fact that classical music has developed and perpetuated the rules of the tonal system (which is the main musical syntax of Western music). Principles and rules that are now widespread and seem so natural today that even the musicians that don’t know theory can use it instinctively.  
::: So yes if you mean that every western popular music uses the tonal system (well, at least the very essential principles of that system) then yes, sure they definitely all owe a debt to classical. (and not only Heavy metal). There’s no question about that. 
::: But let’s not confuse tonality with harmony, melody or rhythm themselves. Even though tonal system definitely shaped some use of them, harmony and most particularly melody and rhythm were already used centuries before the rise of the classical tonal system. Moreover many non-western music use melody, rhythm and sometimes harmony without using the western tonal rules. But I agree classical system influenced almost every western music (and sometimes non-western ones)concerning this syntax.
::: But when I insisted on the big difference between both, that’s not about the tonal language as almost every western music uses it. That goes without saying. I’m actually talking of their very nature and essence. 
::: I insist it is necessary to underline the difference of nature and tradition between both to avoid the frequent confusion about it. One is from erudite music tradition and the other is from popular tradition. And this difference doesn’t just imply an issue about technique, but most particularly a difference of approach concerning the compositional aspects and the musical material. 
::: But of course we agree no matter the difference of nature, artistically they’re both valuable expressive forms, worth of respect. There’s no question about it.  No matter the technique degree involved or the compositional approach, the soul of a great music is the authenticity and the force of its aesthetic and expressiveness. And both genres don’t lack of them. 
::: "I also find objectionable the line, "Though many metal musicians have cited classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal—aesthetically and socially—ultimately has little in common with classical music." 
:::Well, basically, I don’t remember how I worded that, but I’m sure I didn’t write this that way. (Especially I never ever mentioned any stuff concerning the social background). It seems like some users have reworded sentences and eventually twisted some of the original meaning. 
:::But whatever, I agree this sentence may sound misleading formulated like this. 
:::Basically what I implied is just the fact that when metal gets inspired of classical, most of the time it borrows only superficial aspects such as famous melody, scales (The harmonic minor scale), the use of orchestral arrangements. But they don’t deal with the very core/ essence of the classical music such as the balance and the coherence of the language, the architectural, theoretical and formal considerations, the use of polyphonic and contrapuntal techniques, a focus concerning the theoretical harmonic, contrapuntal and orchestral rules.  
:::But I don’t mean this to be condescending toward Metal, I mean I could argue the same when classical gets inspired from Arabian or Chinese music, it just borrows some superficial aspects of them. And somehow makes a caricatured representation of this music. However no classical lovers would believe that western classical music originates from Orient or China just because some of its works gets influences from those music. 
:::Now in the case of metal, many fans tend to believe metal come from classical or at least revive its spirit. Which is in both cases wrong. Metal draws influences from it,that's a fact, but it doesn’t mean it descends from it or revive its spirit. Metal has its own spirit. 
:::"It may be better to re-word the sentence to emphasize that classical music is not a direct cultural origin of Heavy Metal, and de-emphasize what classical music's true descendent is since that's not the subject of the article." 
::: Here again, my original comment has been modified. Basically my reference to the real descendant of classical music was only a side note at the bottom of the page. I don’t know why some decided to include it fully in the article itself. I think it’s indeed irrelevant and off topic to include it in the article itself, however I wish to keep it as a side note. Because it might be useful to some to know that contemporary music does exist and is the real descendant. Because many people ignore even its existence. This ignorance generally tends to reinforce some beliefs concerning the classical ascendance of metal.
:::Besides my comment concerning music “classical music being erudite music whereas heavy metal is popular music” wasn’t written to be a conclusion or a summarizing part. Someone moved that part to the end but that reformulation as it is appears awkward. Because it tends to suggest that this point summarizes the former arguments or even draws a conclusion from them. But the previous sentence “Historical classical music's true descendent is contemporary music » or the rules preventing parallel fifths are not what make classical music an erudite music. They are not causes, they are just aspects of it. Besides rules preventing parallel fifths  concern only historical classical musical. An erudite music like the contemporary music for example doesn’t care about the parallel fifths rules. Jazz either. So one couldn’t consider these rules as defining element of erudite music, but only classical. However there’s no question this is a significant differential trait between real Classical music and metal.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I reworded the problematic parts. Hope it's ok for you. And guys feel free to correct my english syntax in that part.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 08:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heavy_metal_music#Classical_influence|Classical influence]](part II)

message: In the Ticket to Ride article it mentions that Lennon once said the song was the "first heavy metal" song. Should this be mentioned in the article as part of the early history of metal, as it came out in 1965. Rogerthat Talk 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. No professional critic I've ever come across takes Lennon's claim seriously; no metal band refers to the song as influential; virtually no one but Lennon himself makes that connection. For a sensible appraisal, see Toby Creswell, 1001 Songs: The Great Songs of All Time and the Artists, Stories and Secrets Behind Them (2006): "Lennon claimed that 'Ticket to Ride' was the first 'heavy metal' song. While that is clearly nonsense, it is the heaviest song the Beatles had recorded until then" (p. 376). Lennon's interesting statement certainly belongs in the "Ticket to Ride" article, but not here.—DCGeist 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I love that song and the Beatles in general, not only is Lennon talking out of his ass, but there's no stylistic hallmarks of heavy metal in the song, aside from maybe some unison riffing. I mean, "Helter Skelter" makes sense, but "Ticket to Ride"???? WesleyDodds 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ticket to Ride

message: Ok, after an irrelevant deletion from some user in the part concerning the tritone, I've realized some seem to confuse things... most particularly concerning the different historical periods and the different uses of the tritone.
First, do I have to remind that Classical music is NOT medieval music? 
What we refer here as the “Ecclesiastic music” is the religious  music of the Middle age which was played in the 9th/10th century .
Now classical music is a generic term which generally refers mainly to the erudite music covering the period from 17th century to early 20th century. Which is absolutely not the medieval period.
Now some user denies that the tritone has been avoided in medieval music, because he argues classical music extensively used it. There’s a clear nonsense. Of course Classical music did use it (the tritone is an interval involved in one of the most important chord of classical music: the dominant-seventh chord)… but Classical is not medieval music!!! 
So there’s no contradiction here saying that tritone has been avoided from music in the middle age. It was commonly avoided until early Baroque music which made a extensive use of it. However Renaissance and late Medieval music already started to use it occasionally.
However it must be mentioned, that the use of the tritone in strict classical was very regulated and was specifically used in a functional way, the tension/release mechanism. This has nothing to do with the general free use of its dissonance in metal. The free use of that interval for the sake of its dissonance was forbidden in classical. 
Only late Romanticism and later composers started to afford to use it freely for its dissonance and its evil connotation, composers such as Lizst who uses it notably in his famous Mephisto Walz.
Asides the confusion of periods, the user also confused what he read in the tritone articles.
It has never been stated that the interval is evil per se!!! How could a sound by itself be evil? Of course it is not. No, It is just stated that nowadays that kind of interval is associated with cultural connotations that suggest evil, oppressive, unhealthy characters because of the original avoidance in the 9th/10th century and because the monkish contrapuntists in the 14th century stated that “Mi contra fa est diabolus in musica”. Btw New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians traces the tradition of this interval as the "devil in music" (diabolus in musica) to "medieval" times.
Of course “Suggestions that singers were excommunicated or otherwise punished by the church for invoking this interval” are certainly fanciful. But none suggested that here.
But the guy seems to have missed the next line of the tritone article. 
“However, avoidance of the interval for musical reasons has a long history, stretching back to the parallel organum of the Musica Enchiriadis." 
Now what is the Musica Enchiriadis ? A medieval theoretical music book. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tritone banned and historical periods

message: Is there consensus on the recent trends part? 
My concerns:
* "propelling newer ones like Edguy and HammerFall to superstar status"
Is this a recent trend? these bands have been around for 15 years and are not shockingly new (power metal is not a new phenomenon)
* "This commitment is evidenced by the open-air festivals held around the continent from late spring to summer, including several week-long events featuring dozens of bands and audiences of up to fifty thousand people"
mid 2000 phenomenon? big metal festivals are not a mid 2000 trend
* "Metalcore, an originally American hybrid of thrash metal, melodic death metal, and hardcore punk"
Stating metalcore is a recent trend is right but isn't metalcore a broader genre than this? (e.g. Ion Dissonance, Burnt by the Sun, Between the Buried and Me), this part can be expanded
* "The early and mid-2000s also saw a traditional heavy metal revival"
A revival? Stoner rock/Stoner metal has been around for many years, and stoner rock is commonly known for being awe inspired by 60s/70s rock and early heavy metal . Wolfmother is nothing new. And by the way The Answer is not a big band and Wolfmother can't solely be responsible for a "heavy metal revival".
If there are no objection I'll delete the "festival" and "heavy metal revival" part
Emmaneul (Talk) 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points seem reasonable, but just hold off on the major cuts you propose for a couple days to give others a chance to weigh in. Those parts have been there for quite some time, and someone may muster up an argument for their retention in modified form. I see no problem in expanding metalcore a bit right now. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soon I'll be on holiday, so I wont delete anything until the end of this month. Emmaneul (Talk) 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The metalcore part is fine; everything else could be reworked by someone more knowledgeable about recent trends. Admittedly that's not a strong area of expertise for Geist or myself, so help would be appreciated. WesleyDodds 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I was a little bit concerned by the metalcore and the revival part as well. Since I am not into metalcore, I don't any of those bands but Killswitch Engage, but the revival thing seems a little exaggerated to me as well (The Answer who??). I'd offer my help, as far as I am able to contribute, my expertise lies more in the classic-metal-revival (whatever you want to call it) than things most people nowadays normally consider metal, but normally I'm at least quite capable at contributing sources. The only bands that spring to my mind (and really stem from the 2000s) in regards of relevance to a revival thing could be Mastodon (band) (Grammy nominees, but rather a step deeper into prog metal than revival thing) and Coheed and Cambria (heavily pushed on MTV, AMG called their latest "on par with anything that Rush or Queensrÿche ever released", which is s.th. for an ex-emo band.) --Johnnyw talk 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Haunted and In Flames also probably deserve to be mentioned over tha answer or Roadstar (who seem to have disbanded already).. --Johnnyw talk 18:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heavy_metal_music#Recent_trends_.28mid-2000s.29|Recent trends (mid-2000s)]]? 

message: Well... :Image:Zep Paris.JPG is missing a fair use rational for Heavy metal music.. Thought I'd better point that out.. (it's a nice image though) --Johnnyw talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Zep Paris.JPG]] is missing a fair use rational for Heavy metal music 

message: Wondering if any of you metal experts have ever listened to this groups stuff. The album Child of the Novelty strikes me as an early metal album, and while surely in the heavy rock/blues genre it seems to have pre metal sounds to it. Do they rate an inclussion in the influences of metal area?
Frank Marino-guitar
James Ayoub-drums
Paul Harwood-bass
Dwaink 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahogany Rush 

message: Manowar is pure heave metal not power! Who wrote that? 193.198.173.13 13:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manowar 

message: The "Devils Horns" referred to has been seen before Gene Simmons or Ronnie James Dio could lay claim to it...Elvis Presley would often flash this gesture to his audience with his left hand, as he left the stage.  Purported to mean "hang loose" or "hang loose in Hawaii" (two "h"'s), it became a common gesture for Presley following his movie career, notably the '68 comeback tour, and the worldwide satellite broadcast "Aloha from Hawaii" concert, Jan. 14, 1973.  24.235.169.119 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Gestures? 

message: Wouldn't it be easier just to make all the Weinstein notes into one big footnote (w/ the ) instead of these hundreds of footnotes? --Lhademmor 12:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because we have to cite individual pages. WesleyDodds 03:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Considering the frequent case of vandalism these days,I wonder if it wouldn't be a solution to ask for the semi-protection. What do you, guys, think of this? Alpha_Ursae_Minoris07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, anyone?[[[User: Alpha_Ursae_Minoris|Alpha_Ursae_Minoris]]21:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there that much V here? This article doesn't appear to have anymore vandalism through the day than any other higher profile music related article? The topic of the article is bound to attract younger, musically impaired editors and the occasional "tester". But, compared to the Rock, Rock and roll and Country music articles... this one is surprisingly tame. The edit history does show a clear violation of WP:OWN by a couple of logged users who don't actually edit/improve anything... they just rv the article back to their own version regardless of what positive edits they gleen over to warp the article backwards. As long as Daddy Dethrocker keeps clear of it... it should be in stable shape. 156.34.230.106 00:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Daddy" has been banned for a month, so nobody needs to worry about that for some time.  Perhaps I will resume editing as a result of this development. Ours18 07:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've added the image :Image:JudasPriest.jpg. As a FA I believe it is important to have an image in the lead. I've chosen this image for several reasons:
* It's a free image.
* Heavy Metal music is a genre with a visual component important to its style.
* It displays a band that provides an exellent visual example of the genre.
* The band pictured is mentioned in the lead.
—Malber (talk • contribs) 15:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the image because it's really not necessary for the lead section of a music genre article, particularly because it misplaces the infobox and lead paragraph. Thanks anyway. WesleyDodds 06:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added image to lead 

message: I have replaced the Motörhead-album with an image of Iron Maiden because
* It's free
* There's really no need for a fair use image there, it could be easily switched to a free image without the article losing any quality
* There's way too much Fair Overuse already in the article. --Lhademmor 16:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motörhead -> Iron Maiden image switch 

message: :For practical reasons I've shifted the most recent part of this old discussion here. For the entire discussion  see Classical removed from stylistic origins
Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this, but for something to be defined as "popular music," doesn't it need to kind of... uh... be popular? Which heavy metal really isn't compared to classical. So, as far as I reckon, you're talking out of your extremities.
::"Now, I know I'll probably get owned for writing this"
::Don't worry about that, mate...You just ask a question, I reply.
::Actually, It seems to me you are just mistaken on the possible different meaning the word "popular" can have.
::If so, that's an issue to which I've already adressed a reply in the Classical influence discussion (a few months ago).Whatever... Here I quote myself:
::: "  There’s a kind of confusion in your argument concerning classical music being popular. Because you seem to understand the word popular as “famous” or “trendy” but this is not what the term implies.(...)“Popular” in that meaning implies that music comes from the average population, the lower class as opposed to the upper social class who listened to “serious music”." 
::Of course that historical elitist social distinction doesn't make sense anymore nowadays, but I'm just pointing here the historical meaning of the term here. But let's avoid another confusion now: while I say the SOCIAL distinction doesn't make sense nowadays, doesn't mean the MUSICAL distinction isn't true anymore. 
::GreetingsAlpha_Ursae_Minoris 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Giani: Classical removed from stylistic origins (part II)

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support per SDornan. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "Common themes in heavy metal lyrics are sex, violence, fantasy, and the occult."... Who wrote that? --88.106.28.137 21:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia--we all did.—DCGeist 22:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What is it? As DC said it's like we all did, and even without writting it ourselves we condone or agree upon what is written if it's left as it is, so in the end it's like we  did it.  Whatever...Is there anything wrong about these common themes?Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 23:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes..