Talk:List of heavy metal bands

message: * Danzig = Thrash Metal ??? I think this is Doom or something.  Pantera = Power Metal ??? Thrash, Neo-Thrash or Nu Metal. Only the first output(=shit) was Power Metal.  Is the band named Cemetary or Cemetery? -- Zoe
** Pantera is most probably Thrash Metal for most of their releases.  Maybe it would be better if album's are also identified. Some bands evolve throughout their careers.  Like : Genre - Album - Band  But since this is a list of band and not of genres.  I would suggest removing the classifications and make another list.  --sisidapa
*** Pantera was considered Power metal and never was considered thrash. Cradle of Filth is not even considered black metal and how can they classify D.R.I. into death metal? I guess you are right sisidapa, it is better to remove the classifications.
**** Danzig is Heavy Metal - Metallic Doom Rock, and Pantera is Groove--Neo139 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danzig and Pantera

message: * One band is listed under the heading of "Dark ambiental metal".  Is "ambiental" a word?  The article for In the woods... says that they are "dark ambiental metal", but Google only gives 2 results for that phrase as opposed to 181 for "dark ambient metal" and 2740 for "darkwave metal".  I think I'll change the listing to "Darkwave metal".  Change it back if it isn't accurate... I think that's what the lister meant. --Idont Havaname 21:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dark ambiental"?

message: * Two comments - one, the black/red color scheme is a little hard to read.  Second, the mainstream popularity is somewhat accurate, but metal has never really become that "play constantly on every radio station" genre.  At least this is not the case in the US.  I like the rest of the template, though. --Idont Havaname 21:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check out the new template I put together 

message: Currently many of these band names are wikified, but the wikilinks take you to the wrong place. Going to Quicksand, for example, you might experience a sinking feeling. Correct these links. I suggest against filling up with external links where Wikipedia articles are unavailable, since Wikipedia policy advises against large lists of external links (WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files). And if you haven't got articles for all these bands, unwikify them. Fuzzypeg 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the problem with Satan and Goatlord too. Basically, someone needs to go through the entire list for dab problems. I agree that we should un-wikify the redlinks, but anyone who creates a band article needs to remember to update the list. Maestlin 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that The 3rd And The Mortal and The Sins of Thy Beloved are under T. Shouldn't they be under # and S respectively? --IronChris 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Romarin 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list needs major clean-up or deletion 

message: I have removed some bands like POD, Staind, Blue Oyster Cult and more, they are rock bands and cant be considered as heavy metal bands cause they have nothing in common with this style. I have removed Alice in Chains and Soundgarden from the list  because they are classified as grunge bands (although I dont know why).
I think some bands of nu metal cant be here, as they sound more like rock than heavy. Only bands like Slipknot, which are heavier than POD or Linkin Park should be here
If you desagree with me, revert my changes (except for Staind and Blue Oyster Cult, which are rock bands for everyone who has listened them!!!!)
BTW, since when is Europe metal? Zaebangad 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy and rock are not the same, so... 

message: Can Queen really be considered part of heavy metal? They were far more linked to the glam rock movement at the time. Rather than the likes of Sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. - Deathrocker 08:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said about Led Zeppelin or Steppenwolf. --Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean being considered part of Heavy Metal, not them being Glam Rock.--Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Queen were more linked to heavy metal in there early years. At the time music critics where saying they were going to knock Zep of there metal thrown.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. — Rolling Stone - 149
Ignoring Inhumar's nonsensical comment. The Queen association with Heavy Metal is very tedious to say the least... Queen fans like to make out that the band were somehow connected to an endless list of music forms when it isn't really true; they don't have the same characteristics as any of the other bands from this period which were viewed as heavy metal. 
And when this movement was around, everything from their image to their music was associated with glam rock... especially due to Mercury's image, the band's themes, music, name, etc, etc. What in their musical characteristics do they share with Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, etc?  - Deathrocker 14:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Queen's music is not glam, it is much more complex and heavier then glam, the glam ended with the look!— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queen?

message: I think there needs to be a list of bands the formed after the Original movement. --Inhumer 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy Metal Bands Post 1974

message: Is this section really necessary on this page? It keeps getting modified, bands are added, removed, and all that without any kind of verification; there is one general source that is provided for the whole list, but the list has changed since that source was provided, and it therefore the source no longer applies to all the bands in the present list. Also, the source being a book, it is impossible for most of us editors to refer to it to retrieve the original list. Really what is needed is a source for each band, otherwise the list just isn't reliable.
Also, maybe moving it to its own page would be a good idea. I mean, why do all the other bands have their own article, but this movement is featured on this general list about all of heavy metal music? That seems like a lack of consistency to me. IronChris  |  (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Original movement: 1967-1974" 

message: Motorhead should not be labeled as heavy metal because "heavy metal" is a term they always said "fuck you" to, like Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple and other heavy metal bands more commonly seen as hard rock nowadays. They're also a little bit like AC/DC in terms of attitude, except their music was faster than AC/DC's music. Like AC/DC, they think of their music as nothing but one thing and one thing only: "rock n' roll". If you were near Lemmy (Motorhead's leader) and you used the "heavy metal" term when you are talking, he will be insulted by it. They can't be labeled as punk rock because they had long hair and wore leather jackets. I think it's better if we label them as "heavy rock" than "metal".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Whitton (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are well referenced as a heavy metal band. Their own article explains how they feel about the term, as does AC/DC. But in the end Wikipedia is built on referenced content from reliable sources and not on editor's personal opinions. And those bands, and their connection to the genre, are extremely well referenced. 156.34.215.188 (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Motorhead is hard drinking womanizing fist t cuffs hard rock ensemble. HM is usually sex, drugs (not drinking exclusively per sey), worshiping women (or broken hearted) melodic tunes usually with classical influenced guitar solos. Motorhead is certainty well referenced as in touring with metal bands maybe, and as a computer programmer I can understand how a wikibot can reference Motorhead as HM, which in text media is often listed along side true HM bands. Even going to venues with them on the ticket, or even when shows displayed them, I never, nor anyone with or around me for one second lumped them with the other HM bands.
	  	
Just like Aerosmith (rock, blues, top forty) is "heavy metal" too, huh? Def Leppard can be kinda HM so I am being way lenient here (pop metal, rock, pop rock, top forty) King's X? (rock, top forty) Rush (hard rock, progressive rock) Where's Asia, ELP and Yes if Rush? Correctly left off as they are not heavy metal any more than Rush. Motorhead? Hum, hold on... AC/DC is not on the list! Good. Shouldn't be. I would put Motorhead with AC/DC (hard rock) long before with Ozzy or Deep Purple even. The name "Motorhead" is HM sounding, though. Steppenwolf is like Motorhead... let me check... holy crap, Steppenwolf is HM too! LOL
	 
This list is forfeit... or better, let's not even try to over-label anything as esoteric, opinionated and abstract as music. Put them in genres not beyond a few, like less than MAJOR ones like Classical, Pop, Rock, Country, Soundtrack, Metal, Folk and such. If someone asks what a band sounds like today, with the existence of the net, don't answer them, ask them if they know how to use a search engine. 108.238.32.48 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't call Motorhead a heavy metal band. 

message: * The heavy metal band Dust should be included in the original movement section, they ARE notable, Marky Ramone was their drummer.  The fact that theres no article about them does not mean they arent notable.--Krautukie (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there was once an article about them, but apparently the material was plagarized from AMG. Dust also seems to meet the criteria for notability under wikipedia's guidelines. Not only was Marky Ramone in the band, but MArky Ramone also went on to join Richard Hell & the Voidoids.  Other band members went on to join  Stories  In other words, they qualify under multiple sections of wikipedia's own policy.  The criteria for speedy deletion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7
This obviously does not apply to Dust as they were pioneers and are verifiable from a reliable source (AMG).  Im going to include them on the original movement section.--Krautukie (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make an article for them first. No red nn links allowed. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Whose rules are these? They obviously arent wikipedia's, so to me it seems as if you just made that up.  Furthermore, until you can come up with something that shows that the band should not be on the list, they will remain.--Krautukie (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus from who? A select few who choose to delete it? I know for a fact that the band has been included in the past on the list, and was probably deleted by the same marauders who are engineering this scrofula.  It's also obvious that they are notable enough for an article to be written about them, as there was one written in the past.  However, it was deleted as I previously mentioned, due to the fact that it was plagarized.  Also, the rules given could apply to a band being included in a list, as there is no article but irrefutable proof that they are notable.  Because of this it is not a candidate for speedy deletion under the aforementioned section A7 and should remain on the list, despite the fact there is no formal article about them.--Krautukie (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was deleted over copyvio and not over notability then there is no reason you can't try and re-create your article again. This time just don't plagiarise any content from external sources. That's a quick way to get blocked. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt my article, first of all (dont know where you got that idea from), and secondly and most importantly there doesnt have to be an article about them for them to be included in the list.--Krautukie (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For this article, like most others, no nn entries. An article must exist. Make one. And come back here after and re-add them. 156.34.230.187 (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey 156.34.230.187, why don't get an account at Wikipedia first before you start bitching around here. People like you really get on my nerves. Why don't you write the article yourself, as per be bold. 85.3.9.154 (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dust

message: hi. the sources dont work..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuxdecimaltriangle (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the sources 

message: why isnt motorhead included in the original movement??? their  first album, which is accepted as a heavy metal album, was released in '77.  that falls under the time period of '67-'79. ill wait until somebody gives an explanation before making changes, but it needs to be changed.  perhaps they should be included in both the original movement and NWOBHM, on a side note  accept and  saxon (the latter falling under the category of NWOBHM as well) should be included in the original movement section as well. i dont see this as being up for debate, as all three of these bands fall well within the article's guidelines, and (as some have pointed out) this is not an opportunity for some to pick and choose bands to be included on the list(s). --Krautukie (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are already included in the page... more appropriately in the NWOBHM section... and do not need to be duplicated. They are the NWOBHM band whose coattails were rode upon by all the other NWOBHM bands so it is the best placement for them. 156.34.217.80 (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: that still doesnt change the fact that theese bands fall under the criteria of the original movement, and should be included as such. according to that logic black sabbath would be included under the doom metal artists sub section (and not under the original movement). this is obviously flawed, as i already pointed out. if the criteria for inclusion is a problem (as these bands obviously fit the current criteria), then the dates need to be changed (and the various, cherry picked subgenres that fell under those dates would have to be changed as well). otherwise, these bands should still be included in the original movement section.--Krautukie (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't be flawed since Black Sabbath are not a doom mtal band. Playing 'doom metal' and playing 'heavy metal' vvveeerrryyy slowly are 2 completely different things. Black Sabbath are an influence on doom metal. But they are never thought of as a doom metal band unless it's on some amateur online fansite/fanzine that caters to retards (see metal-archives.com for a good example of a website that caters to the lowest common denomintor of heavy metal fan... only level 4 basket weavers read that website) Most of the NWOBHM bands started long before 1979 (Iron Maiden-1975, Saxon 1977, Def Leppard-1977) And even though Motorhead had a release in 1977... it barely charted and the band was, essentially not much more than a bar band... until 1979. It's hard to be a part of a movement when you're an unknown. Dates don't mean much... it's significance. And Motorhead are the locomotive at the head of the NWOBHM train. So that is where their inclusion has the most impact. There wouldn't be a NWOBHM without them. WHereas from 1976 tot 1979... their contributions to the global heavy metal scene are insignificant to nil. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ohhh, so its all about how significant they were at the time? i was under the impression that as long as there was an article about the band that was grounds for inclusion (among other things). or maybe you seem to be making up your own rules as you go along (along with injecting your own bias into the matter as well). black sabbath exemplifying doom metal was an example, much like motorhead could be considered an archetypal speed metal band. this, again, is not about opinion. this is about fact. if certain bands happen to fall under various sub genres/timeframes, then that should be incorporated into the article.--Krautukie (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with the original movement section 

message: Since when are Deftones nu metal?
On their article they are alternative metal/experimental rock.
61x62x61 (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are most commonly referenced with the origins of the genre. As most pro publications support and not just personal pov that they aren't personally I think they sound link an alternative rock band, But thats just opinion and Wikipedia isn't built on opinion it's built on verifiable refs. Anger22  (Talk 2 22) 17:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nu metal 

message: Shouldn't Glam Metal be included in the list of sub-genres along with examples? There is a wiki page for this List of glam metal bands. As the wiki page Heavy metal music cites "Heavy Metal" as "often referred to as Metal" and Glam Metal is a sub-genre of Metal, wouldn't this mean that Glam Metal belongs on this list? Mseanbrown (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of glam metal bands was voted on in an AfD and the consensus was to delete it. Libs (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing/Incomplete Sub-genre List 

message: Previous discussion on this topic was pretty clear. The list is replaceable by the category without a clear lead-in to detail what it is about. See the List of thrash metal bands to see what a good list should look like. Anything straying from that style and is up for AfD. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No lead 

message: y isnt iron maiden listed under heavy metal 
(Seth4000 (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are listed under their appropriate NWOBHM section The Real Libs-speak politely 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  iron maiden 

message: I saw that Jimi Hendrix was omitted from the list of heavy metal bands, yet bands like Cream, Blue Cheer and Mountain are still kept on the list. The Hendrix article tells you that he "established a sonically heavy yet technically proficient bent to rock music as a whole, significantly furthering the development of hard rock and paving the way for heavy metal". Let's not also forget his exstensive use of guitar feedback, overdriven ampliers and effect pedals. Therefore, HENDRIX SHOULD BE ON THE LIST OF HEAVY METAL BANDS!!! Race should not matter, need I remind you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.119.254 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hendrix wasn't Metal. He influenced it a lot, but Blue Cheer, Cream and (as far as I know) Mountain actually "played" it. Also, the article you cited very explicitly states that he paved the way for Heavy Metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I not only read it earlier today, but I commented in the Discussion section. The thing's terribly inaccurate. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: If I ever see him, I'll be glad to. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't Jimi Hendrix (The Guitar God) on the list of heavy metal bands?! 

message: Surely they should be in this list? After all they are listed on the wiki page as heavy metal (along with a few other genres).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.221.191 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the greatest thing you have forgotten is they are not part of the original heavy metal movement which the section is a list of and nothing more. This article is merely not a list of heavy metal bands but of bands that were merely heavy metal before the genre branched off into many others like thrash (and no this does not include NWOBHM as they have a section below this). FireCrystal (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ???  This list is called "Heavy Metal Bands", not "Heavy Metal Bands from the original heavy metal movement before 1979". That would be stupid.  If you only want to include those type of bands then the title needs to be changed, otherwise all heavy metal bands will be included. 
Although under the Heavy Metal banner. Metallica was one of the progenitors of Thrash/Speed metal along with Anthrax and Slayer. Andy_Howard (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica 

message: Let's say there is a notable band playing exactly the same style as the ones on this list, where do I put it? I mean not every band plays in a subgenre? Maybe the title should be changed to "List of original heavy metal bands"?
85.3.9.154 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he isn't a band he is a single person. The title of the article says "bands" And it has section for original bands and for easy links to other sub-genre band lists. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the "just Heavy Metal" bands. 

message: a couple of bands need adding... the list definatley needs Ted Nugent, and Jimi Hendrix. And what are Raven doing on the list? They are NWOBHM, not original metal movement. Oh and should Slade, Sweet and Smile be added to the list? I know they were more linked to glam rock at the time but... Smile's page say they are metal, Slade's music is very heavy and was described by Nikki Sixx as "The only thing metal about glam in the 70s", and Sweet are often credited as a metal band with their heavy songs like action (which was later covered by Def Leppard). So we need to add/discuss these bands:
*Ted Nugent
*Jimi Hendrix
*Slade
*The Sweet
*Smile
DooDahDave (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick clarify to help out... Ted Nugent and Jimi Hendrix aren't bands and Slade, Sweet and Smile aren't heavy metal. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I'm still not sure about Slade... we'll have to discuss that more. I see what you mean with Sweet and Smile, but Slade are still sorta a metal band. Listen to the albums We'll Bring the House Down and Till Deaf Do Us Part, both of which are heavy metal albums. Mama Weer All Crazee Now is also a metal song. You could consider adding them... oh yeah and you still need to get rid of Raven. How can you have Raven but not be allowed to put in Iron Maiden? DooDahDave (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Jimi Hendrix wasn't a band... but the Jimi Hendrix Experience was. Put them on the list.--Lordnecronus (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, I don't consider Slade and Sweet metal (yes, Slade experimented with metal, and Sweet were on the harder side of Glam). If Wiki lists Smile as metal, I see no reason why we can't add them, unless we have some objection to their being considered metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I still don't consider Hendrix metal, personally (why not include Blues Creation?).(Albert Mond (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Finally, I see no reason why Nugent shouldn't be added, even if he isn't a "band." I think that "band" is probably just a term that the article's creator didn't completely think over, and I doubt it's meant to be taken so literally. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, it seems Raven was formed in 1975. I was under the impression the the NWOBHM didn't start until around 1978, although the Wiki article on Raven implies they were part of it. (Albert Mond (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: There are more bands that need adding

message: I have several sources (two 100% reliable by Wiki standards) which refer to Grand Funk Railroad as 'heavy metal.' I also tend to agree with this term, at least in the late '60s/early '70s context, as it was used. One of the two reliable sources is a 1980s (yes, I know I said late '60s/early '70s) review by Rolling Stone of "Grand Funk Lives." In the last sentence, the reviewer refers to it as "...boorish heavy-metal bluster". The second 'reliable' source is the book "Rock Eras" by James M. Curtis. Besides those two, I've found a recorded interview with Don Brewer in which he says "We were a three-piece heavy metal kind of a band in the late '60s, early '70s," and there's a copy/paste of a Kerrang! article which frequently refers to them as heavy metal. Keep in mind, that Vanilla Fudge and Steppenwolf have made it into this article. (Albert Mond (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider GFR metal, but I say go for it. We aren't really using a pure definition of metal seeing how Aerosmith, Cream, Mountain, Bloodrock, Vanilla Fudge, Steppenwolf, etc. have been included here. And I know bands like Twisted Sister and Anvil have both refered to GFR as metal in interviews. I have a book here called Rock the Rough Guide that calls King Crimson metal(who again I don't consider metal). A quote from page 477, "Opening with the cataclysmic heavy-metal of "21st Century Schizoid Man", and closing with the cathedral-sized title track," Rockgenre (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of understand Aerosmith's inclusion. They have a few songs I'd say are pretty metal, and "Rocks" could have been a metal album in the '70s. Not sure how I feel about Cream and Vanilla Fudge, though. "21st Century Schizoid Man" could definitely pass for early metal, I think (though I'm not certain about the rest of Crimson's material). Is it just me, or does it sound like it directly inspired Sabbath's "Iron Man"? (Albert Mond (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I do agree that Aerosmith do have a few metal songs("Nobody's Fault" is definately metal), but to call them a metal band I think is a bit overkill. They were mainly just a really great bluesy, hard rock band. Still "source>opinion" and the book I mentioned actually does refer to them as metal too. Vanilla Fudge and Cream I personally consider bands very influencial to metal and the hardest bands of their time, but to me metal didn't start until Blue Cheer(rest in peace Dickie Peterson), Iron Butterfly, Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Purple came along. And I have heard an old myth that the "21st Century Schizoid Man" inspired "Electric Funeral", though no proof to back that up. Ozzy even covered it on his cover album. Rockgenre (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you added King Crimson. I'm really, really, really not sure about that, personally. It seems like both sources refer primarily to "21st Century Schizoid Man," but in that case, could one not include Pink Floyd for "Nile Song," and "Ibiza Bar?" (Albert Mond (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't consider more than half this list metal, King Crimson and Grand Funk included. You can remove them if you want. I really don't care. Though I don't really understand this list. Is this just a list of just plain heavy metal bands? Rockgenre (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty good question. I think it's supposed to be first wave (late '60s stuff to right before the start of the NWOBHM). I'd expect the primary genre format for most of this era would be hard rock/heavy metal or vice versa. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Considering adding Grand Funk Railroad

message: So, I've noticed there have been a lot of entries lately for bands which do not meet the requirements of 'Original Movement.' These have mostly been from anons, and a number of times, anons even made it into something of a joke. While humour is fine, I think that if we want this to stop, we should probably put it on 'semi-protected' status. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think its wrong to have the list just be "Original movement", in the first place. The article is called "List of heavy metal bands". It doesn't say "List of First Wave Metal Bands". I think we should removed the original movement paragraph and let any kind of metal be included. Rockgenre (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it wasn't incredibly well chosen, too. On the other hand, a full list of metal bands might seem relatively jumbled (not that I'm opposed to the idea), and I think it would be a good idea to have an article which covers first wave groups and artists exclusively. Personally, I think it might work if we 'changed the name' of this article, maybe to something like 'first wave heavy metal artists' or something. That would also fix the technicality keeping Ted Nugent and (assuming there were any) other first-wave solo artists off of this list. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Ted Nugent, in my opinion was never metal. I think he's in the same position of Thin Lizzy. And by that I mean their biggest influence was on metal which is why they have linked to the style even they are more hard rock. Still sources back up that he is metal, so unfortunately I can't argue with sources. His first band the Amboy Dukes(even though they are really more of a psychedelic, protopunk band) having several sources backing them up as metal. Allmusic says they were adding "adding a psychedelic sensibility to an otherwise proto-metal sound." and my that book I mentioned before claims they were, "mutating again into full-blown heavy metal." on page 18. This page I think should just be heavy metal in general and we already have pages called 1960s in heavy metal music, 1970 in heavy metal music etc. ,so I think those pages cover enough in terms of "first wave".Rockgenre (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider myself a Nugent expert by any means, but I know I've heard more '70s Ted Nugent material that I'd undoubtedly consider 'metal' by '70s terms than I've heard of '70s Thin Lizzy material (though their '80s material is definitely worth note in that area.) As such, to this point I consider him to be significantly more metal than I consider Lizzy. I've no clue whatsoever about Amboy Dukes, though. Plus, I think the vast majority of the first wave, including the relatively canon groups like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, and even Black Sabbath, were arguably Hard Rock/Heavy Metal format by today's qualifications. I disagree on the latter statement regarding the importance of this page, though. As of right now, I think the fact that it's here should designate that it has some point, but as you've argued the title is clearly misleading to some editors. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm obviously not an expert either(which is why I regret choosing the name "Rockgenre", but I figured I wasn't going to stay here very long). If there has always been one problem with metal it's that no one knows how to define it. Almost no other style as been so debated. We can easily tell whether a band is blues or psychedelic, etc., but whether this band is metal or that band is metal will always be up for discussion. I remember reading comments for "VH1's 40 Greatest metal Songs" on youtube and people were writing things like, "What?!? Scorpions, GNR, KISS, Marilyn Manson, Deep Purple, Twisted Sister, AC/DC, and White Zombie ain't metal! Real metal is Death, Cannibal Corpse, and Cradle of Filith!" or something like that and I'm thinking how close minded these people are. I guess we're all a little closeminded sometimes. I'm sure many others would agree with you and disagree with me on the Nuge's music. Here's some Amboy Dukes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo . I agree on the first wave being hard rock as well and being honest I don't consider Sabbath the heaviest band of their time. I think Blue Cheer first album heavier than Sabbaths first and that Budgie at their loudest could definately rival Sabbath. Rockgenre (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of think the same. I'm not sure whether or not it's really not knowing what metal is, though. A lot of it has to do with such factors as how much metal a band must release to be metal, aesthetic, time period, popularity, and multiple other things which don't necessarily factor into the music itself. Personally, I don't really consider the first wave 'hard rock,' so to speak. I'd say both were primary genres for most (alright, maybe not necessarily 'most'), but that hard rock was almost always ahead by at least a bit. I'm not sure about Blue Cheer's first being heavier than Sabbath's first, but I have heard "Just a Little Bit," and it's one of those tracks that really blows your mind when you think about other '60s music, and it's easily heavier than much of today's prominent metal material. I'm skeptical about that album being heavier than Sabbath's debut, though. And of course, Sabbath later released "Symptom of the Universe," which I think could be the first true thrash song. To add on to what you said about Budgie, I've heard some of Deep Purple and BOC's early live material and I think it's also comparable to, or excelling Sabbath in the area of heaviness. I'm really just rambling now, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-Protection

message: The name 'List of heavy metal bands' implies that this article lists every heavy metal band notable, but that's not the case. It listes every heavy metal band that were part of the original movement. Robo37 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely a misleading name. Problem is, I can't think of a new name that isn't too ponderous. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "First-Wave heavy metal bands" might work, but that was probably one you thought of. I agree that it's a very misleading title. If we do end up moving it, I suggest that we use 'artists' instead of 'bands.' If we move it, we could also use this page as a directory for the various subgenre lists, if that's alright. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, I didn't think of "First-Wave heavy metal bands". I thought of "List of first-wave heavy metal bands", but for some reason I didn't think of dropping "list of". It's a good suggestion, anyway, and if the page gets moved (which is a move I support), it's what I vote for as the new name. I also agree with the other two suggestions you made ("artists" instead of "bands", and using the page as a directory for the subgenre lists). --LordNecronus (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, I'm not sure if we could get removing "list of" approved, but if we could it'd be great. I think we should probably start on this soon, though I'm not sure how we'd go about it exactly. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this article be moved? 

message: A previous attempt to move the content of the article have been reverted. Any future attempts will be treated as vandalism unless the topic is brought up here on this talk page and a consensus reached. Wiki libs (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It got brought up above, but I don't think a consensus was officially reached. Nobody seemed to disagree vehemently with the move, though. --LordNecronus (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move reverted 

message: I'll support it.Curb Chain (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite Semiprotection? 

message: Whitesnake should be deleted from this list. Whitesnake are not heavy metal. They are blues rock and hard rock band. We can say that Whitesnake are a little glam/hair/pop metal, which is sub-genre of heavy metal, but is less aggressive and less louder than heavy metal. Whitesnake from 1978-1982 was blues rock. Slide It In album from 1984 was bluesy hard rock. Whitesnake album from 1987 was hard rock with little influence of blues. This album isn't glam metal how say Americans. The album from 1989 Slip Of The Tongue was glam metal. The sound of Slip Of The Tongue was harder far away than previous ones. So, to conclude, Whitesnake are: blues rock, hard rock and little glam metal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.62.54.163 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitesnake should be deleted from this list 

message: Brayness (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because almost any sort of metal genre would be included.Curb Chain (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are bands that formed after 1981 not supposed to be added? 

message: Hi! Should we rename this list as "list of english heavy metal bands"? Many spanish, german, and other bands are missing here. For example, Hermética, the argentinian heavy metal band; Rammstein, the german heavy metal band, and so on.
--Canopus49 - Replies here 14:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, they should be included.Curb Chain (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-english bands 

message: This has to be the most glaring oversight.
I'd also include The Cult.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.255.57.79 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverchair? 

message: Traitor's Gate
2602:301:77BC:A310:EC0E:B68E:C092:F902 (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add band 

message: There is no way that Megadeth or Metallica are thrash. Thrash has kind of "shouting" vocals, as does Slayer. Slayer is the only band in the Big Four that is thrash. Just compare the vocals of Slayer songs like Angel of Death, War Ensemble, etc. to Metallica songs like Master of Puppets, Dyers Eve, etc. and Megadeth songs like Holy Wars, Sweating Bullets, etc. If you compare the vocals of Megadeth/Metallica to Slayer, you will see a huge difference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethkarlthomas2000 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal opinion of a single editor (you) is not required on Wikipedia. Only cited content with references from sources which meet Wikipedia standards as reliable sources for material. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metallica and Megadeth are thrash? 

message: A lot of hard rock (and not heavy metal) bands included in this list.
There must be two different lists.
--95.28.216.71 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Those bands are heavy metal. You have heavy metal confused with extreme metal.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't call hard rock "heavy metal"!  

message: You confuse everything.
Don't accuse me of confusing.
Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Nazareth and Uriah Heep are hard rock.
Accept and Manowar are heavy metal.
Deicide and Morbid Angel are extreme metal.
You see no difference between, for example, Led Zeppelin and Manowar?
Yes, the term "heavy metal" emerged in late 1960s, but now Led Zeppelin are almost always considered to be hard rock.
--95.28.216.71 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Both those bands are Power metal not Heavy Metal. Heavy Metal started in the 60s as it says on the Heavy Metal page. Also I reported you as a sockpuppet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitloop11 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

text: It's not about editor opinions, it's about what is found in reliable sources. The genres should be discussed in the literature, and a band should be described as heavy metal in multiple sources to be on this list. A band can also be described as hard rock or something else, so the same band can be on multiple pages. Binksternet (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Fruitloop11 

message: They formed in 1981 as a new wave act, but later turned to metal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs. Jan Cola (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry 

message: ...Really?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.13.254.186 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tho Who? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of heavy metal bands. 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://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=48603
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412064712/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/california/los+angeles/london to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/california/los+angeles/london
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) 13:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified