Talk:List of black metal bands

message: Anyone else think a cut-and-dry joke/parody band does not belong on this list at all?--- Ours18
nah. Theyre not grim and frostbitten enough :P Isilioth 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Impaled Northern Moonforest

message: Crade of Flith isn't a Black Metal band, even the lead singer admits it
* they started out clearly as a black metal band. Their debut album is an obvious display of that. Many ppl (esp black metal fans) tho seem to have blocked that out considering they have cheesed out into some crappy goth band now. Spearhead 09:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More genre arguments

message: Krisiun and God Dethroned are death metal.
It doesn't matter, the point is that many people dispute it. Not saying so wouldn't be NPOV.
* it is mentioned on the CoF page... doesn't have to be put here as well
It doesn't matter, the point is that many people dispute it. Not saying so wouldn't be NPOV.
I don't see how Cradle Of Filth is to be considered Black Metal when it's only their debut album that is possibly included in the genre and everything else is very obviously gothic. If a band puts out a rock album and then changes and makes their next 5 albums country, are they still to be labelled a 'rock' band? I think not. Ilyon 08:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who started listening to BM recently had first listened to CoF or Dimmu Borgir. -iopq 07:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death metal

message: I moved The Kovenant to Covenant because they never released a black metal album under the name The Kovenant. 113 07:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed or moved bands

message: I think this should be like in other lists of metal bands; if one doesn't have a page, remove it. This is the longest list, more than thrash for example...
------ I Agree. Too many broken links. How do we even know if these are actual bands?
I think there are at least 300 bands with no article. Too much, so we should remove new additions with no article. If someone wants to put a link to a band which is not here, must create an article first.--85.60.128.60 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many bands? 

message: should be here or not?
NO. They are a power metal with melodic death influence. Isilioth 10:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Bodom... 

message: can someone answer, why the following bands are listed as "black metal"? AFAIR their lyrics have little to nothing to do with BM:
*Children of Bodom
*Summoning
*Borknagar
*Agalloch
I know that articles in Wiki and some other sources name them as BM but i still have no idea why. BTW, only Summoning is called BM on Metalarchives.Blacklake 08:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. These bands aren't black metal at all (except Summoning, which first album sounds like Abigor and which still have aesthetical and atmospheric elements of black metal). Neither are Cradle of Filth (duh), Otyg (??? they're pure folk), Finntroll (!!! polka/folk), Augury (prog/death!), Asmegin (viking), Children of Bodom (hah), Bal-Sagoth, Witchery, etc etc. 69.70.27.42 17:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and remove them if you feel like it, particularly if the wikipedia article doesn't say they're BM. For the sake of consistency though, bands which are described as BM in Wikipedia should be listed here, whatever other sources might say. This goes for Cradle of Filth, Children of Bodom and Finntroll (which is folk black metal; plain folk metal is Skyclad, Korpiklaani or, as you say, Otyg). There is huge controversy over the genre of Cradle and COB, but the articles list BM as one of the genres, so they have a place in this list. IronChris  |  (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. I don't know that Wikipedia, particularly debated, controversial Wikipedia articles, should be used as a source of justification for an edit. And Finntroll has absolutely no black metal in its sound (shrieked vocals don't count). They are plain folk (or polka folk if you want to get more specific), just like Arkona or Hantaoma (who also have growls, but no black metal influence). 69.70.27.42 20:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So what? A Google search for Otyg folk metal gets 29K results, and a search for Otyg black metal gets 56K results. Obviously mere Google numbers are not very reliable - it just means that many sites are indexed with this combination of keywords on the same page. ;) Metal Archives does not list black metal in Finntroll's genre, by the way. I've changed the Finntroll article, too. And if we insist on sources, Metal Archives , Tartarean Desire , Metal Storm , Viking Blood , list them as folk metal. Others don't, but I don't think this can be solved by posting links or we'd never finish. Rather, by analyzing Finntroll's happy, upbeat music and realizing it sounds nowhere near black metal. :)
Borknagar's Self-Titled is Black Metal--Inhumer 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Should not be here. There is already a list of folk metal bands. As far as I'm aware, "viking" and "folk" metal (and whatever else redirects there) is similar to black metal, but they have their own pages describing them. I will remove all bands that do not list "black metal" explicitly on their pages very soon. --Dayn 07:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're here, I'm keeping in "blackened death/thrash/jazz/pop/whatever" metal in, as as far as I can gather, it's a mix of the two. --Dayn 07:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaand I'll leave in "dark metal" bands. I've no idea what that is, so I'll leave it to someone else's discretion who has more knowledge. --Dayn 07:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk/Viking metal 

message: Seriously why are they on this list? I am sure everybody who has some under standing of Black Metal knows for a fact they are not Black Metal. Seriously I feel like I am kicking a dead horse here but anybody with some common sense will know they are not Black Metal and its an insult to have them here. Please somebody find a source to state that they are NOT black metal. Lord of nothing 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, The Principle of Evil Made Flesh, From the Cradle to Enslave, and Cradle of Filth all mention black metal. If you can get those mentions of black metal removed with others agreeing, feel free to remove it from this list; but as it is, all this page is is a list of bands that play, or have played black metal. They mightn't play it now, but they have played it; would be better suited on CoF's talk page though. --Dayn 16:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then you'll have to take up the argument on their pages, as for consistency this page lists bands that play or have played black metal. I don't really listen to them, I just do my best to keep this list maintained. --Dayn 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I suggest to WP:CHILL a bit first, and then consider that not all BM is lo-fi TRVE KVLT. CoF came from a BM/DM background and on early material they are. It can't be helped that they got popular and turned in to a commercial act. Spearhead 10:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No shit dude. It does not make them a black metal band though for fucks sake. Shit, nigga... Isilioth 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about WP:CIVIL this time? Maybe you're just too KVLT for WP huh Spearhead 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to keep them off the black metal list as long as possible.  I seem to remember previously deleting them from it without much arguing. Ours18 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As will I. Spearhead, grow up please. Isilioth 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many other bands on the list that are only vaguely remote black metal, like Akercocke, Belphegor, Bal-Sagoth, Dimmu Borgir, Finntroll, Falkenback, God Dethroned, Lord Belial, Mystic Circle. It's entirely POV to keep CoF off the list while keeping those on. There has been a lot of discussion regarding CoF's style on their own page. Spearhead 14:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  These band should also be removed then. Lets make an article that actually reflects it's title... Isilioth 09:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cradle of Filth 

message: I changed "Carpe Tenebrum"'s country of origin from Australia to Norway, assuming this was just an accident.  CT is a side project of dimmu borgir/astennu, who are clearly not from Australia.
:Thanks for catching that. I might go through the list later and see what else needs fixing. --Dayn 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for this would be that Carpe Tenebrum appears to be a solo project of astennu, who was Australian until he moved to Norway (i think) sometime in the 90s. So i guess thats why the band "originated" in Australia. Isilioth 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carpe Tenebrum 

message: All the bands that say "influenced by black metal" or "a mix of black metal and x" shouldn't be listed as "black metal". Make a new damn list for bands influenced by black metal. -iopq 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about I just delete half of the bands 

message: I edited the list layout, I hope you people like it (I think it looks better), inspired by the list of avant-garde metal musical groups.
I've done it by using a macro, so if there is a consensus on this layout, I'll change the other pages too.--Emmaneul 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag & Layout 

message: I've been trying to help with the lists of metal bands and I like how this list states if a band played the black metal style early or recent next to the name of the band.  Should it not also state (in the same place as (early) or (recent) preferably) if the band plays a mix of styles.  For example, Finntroll and Enslaved mix black metal with folk metal and viking metal (in that order).  So perhaps it should say next to the name the other style.  For example- Finntroll (folk) -just as it states (early) next to some bands.Navnløs 18:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra tags

message: I have added the expandable list feature to the list of thrash metal bands. I hope it is implemented on all 'list of x-metal bands' articles.
Weltanschaunng 13:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though the lack of uniformity (in format) of all of the "list of x-metal bands," from each other, I find disturbing.Navnløs 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expandable list feature 

message: I have seen / heard about much popularity with this band despite their underground nature.  Wondering if anyone has enough information to start an article on them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.41.165 (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do just that here. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woods of Infinity 

message: Should bands like Unexpect be added for the sake that they play black metal (along with many musical styles)? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not.  There's a ton of bm bands that play a combination of style anyways.  BM is usually into experimenting. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avant-Garde bands that incorporate strong black metal influences 

message: Are they actually black metal or do they just have that aesthetic/image? (King Diamond's "corpsepaint" and the band's album covers) I would like to know. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good question.  It's definitely obvious that Mercyful Fate should be in there.  I'm not so sure about King Diamond, though.  I've only listened to some of his music and it's pretty dark, but is it black metal?  I don't really think so.  I think it has more in common with power metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[King Diamond (band)]] 

message: have been removed in accordance with WP:FLAG. Do not emphasize nationality without good reason. There is no reason here. Nationality has no relevant to the criteria. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misused flag icons 

message: Someone's trying to change them again. We all know how that turned out last time. I do not want that shit to happen again and I'm sure no one else does. So, anyone want to tell Neon there why the list has flagicons and is formatted the way it is? Also, someone should go ahead and revert it to its last version. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:OWN. Any editor can edit an article. You do not own it. If you have a decent reason for emphasising nationality then state it here or it is violating NPOV. Do not encourage other to make disruptive edits as well, that's pretty incivil. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry.  I'm not breaking WP:OWN, though.  I just don't want there to be a huge edit war here like there was before. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well let us discuss it properly. Explain the emphasis on nationality, why that? why not the date they were formed? Nobody needs to know at a glance what nationality a band is. It makes no sense at all. Why are other attributes not there? it suggests that nationality has some bearing the genre of black metal. Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" is a quote from WP:FLAG. It is not neutral because you are suggesting that their nationality is of importance to their status of a black metal band. It gives nationality undue weight. --neonwhite  user page talk 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger-To All Metallers Concerning The Lists! 

message: Spread your opinion and cast your vote here on whether or not flagicons should be used in the metal lists. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say, if the purpose of the flagicons is to demonstrate nationality, then UK flags should unquestionably be used, rather than English. The specificity is rather unimportant; I'm sure there are many, many regional flags more specific than nationality (which in this case is British) but that's not what matters here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. England is a big enough area to merit it's own flag. If it's some smaller, lesser known country, then the UK flag would suffice. Very, very well known bands are from England. (i.e. CoF) Undead Warrior (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Wikipolicy on this though? They make rather a point about Britain/England (see WP:FLAG). I'm not convinced arguments about the size of the area or the status of the bands they produce have anything to do with it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags)#Correct Usage of flagicons]] 

message: Where is Silencer?? They, despite their obscurity, are well-known among black metal enthusiasts. If I recall, I tried adding them to this page before but somebody removed it.
http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=8476
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Pierce-Me-Silencer/dp/B00005TZL8
There's two links to prove their legitimacy. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this before. 70.16.195.154 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe it was because they had no article. On Wikipedia if a redlink is notable or encyclopedic enough it is kept and if it is unknown it should simply be left out. Besides this article is for bands that have articles not possibly notable ones without one, the redlink factor should be elsewhere like an album by an artist with an article that charted for example. Also, the band you mention needs two studio albums (see: WP:MUSIC), the only time bands with 1 album can be notable is if they received significant coverage from major magazines, music television airplay, charting, etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  02:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is right, though.  That band is notable in the black metal underground.  I've never listened to them, but I've heard a lot about them.  I even have this one black metal thing (it's kind of like a magazine...but not) where is has a thing in there about them claiming that Silencer has influenced the whole newer generation of bm or something and that without them certain bands (they mentioned Xasthur) wouldn't exist. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't know about this then but they still don't have an article though and there will need to be sources like the magazine thing you're thinking of. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I hear ya. I'm in no hurry, though.  I'll help if someone decides to make the article, but I'm not gonna make the article.  And no article on wikipedia = not being on this list, lol. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silencer 

message: I appreciate that this is going to be a hornet's nest, but I'm actually pretty unconvinced by the argument that unblack bands are not black metal; it smacks of POV at the very least. At the end of the day, it is not a matter for opinion, but should be down to sources. With this in mind, if an unblack metal band turns up in things like Gary Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Black Metal, then they should be on this list. To be honest, I'd personally be happier if we had references for every band on the list, but the unblack thing is just a bit silly. Obviously if we establish a consensus against a source-based approach to the problem, fair enough, but I thought I should at least bring it up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think they should be allowed on this list. For one, there is already a list of unblack bands. There is no need to have the band on two separate lists. Unblack stays with unblack. The black metal list is solely for black metal bands. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with bands featuring on more than one list; the number of bands that play in so-called fusion genres makes that inevitable. And the fact remains that unblack metal is not a separate subgenre from black metal, at least as far as sources are concerned; to claim otherwise is distinctly POV (though I entirely understand the antagonism within the wider black metal scene!). Obviously, genre is a somewhat wooly term anyway, but I'm not sure to what extent lyrical content enters into it when the sound is effectively identical. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no clear consensus among metal communities that black metal and unblack metal are the same or different. Yes, Garry Young might think that unblack is black, but other actual black metal artists think the exact opposite. (i.e. Dark Funeral, Gorgoroth) It is not a fact that it is not a separate sub-genre. That depends on who you ask. And let me take a look at Garry Sharpe Young. What makes his word law? He is a writer for Rockdetector and he created a book for black metal and heavy metal. I don't think that makes him an expert in the field, especially when he never played black metal. I understand that he makes many reviews, but that still does not make what ever he says the thing to be accepted. Anyways, the lyrical content seems to be a big enough gap to define the two genres. Black metal bands don't go and praise christ or god, and unblack bands do not sing about satan or other dark object. The music is similar, but far from the same. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, I totally hear you, even if I would err on the side of inclusivity in this matter. I suppose an equivalent issue would concern an NSBM band that didn't specifically sing about anti-religious issues. Would that make them a separate genre as well? I'm not sure; my opinions are not strong on the issue. Lyrical differeces do initially strike me as an extremely subsidiary factor in deciding genre, in this case and most other genres, but I may be being naive. One final remark though... as I've said in various places elsewhere, I tend to like the use of Rockdetector as a reliable source, owing to it being fairly specialist and published in print media independent of the source, in this case books, but easily as good as commercially-published print magazines as far as reliability goes. An excellent example of a decent source for this would be a specialist extreme metal magazine (Metal Maniacs or Terrorizer, say) printing a black metal overview, and including unblack bands. The problem with statements about "unblack" or "NSBM" being separate subgenres is that they're so fringe, it is incredibly difficult to find decent sources - and primary sources, such as other bands, for instance, are not really good enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have not come across the term "light metal" to describe unblack metal, and couldn't spot it on the unblack metal page either. I'm also not entirely sure what relevance it would have to the discussion. Also, if you start down the "things that fall entirely under the category of black metal" thing, your argument rapidly breaks down as we start excluding "blackened death metal" acts in order to create a separate "list of blackened death metal bands". Such over-genrification is simply not helpful, and in the case of unblack metal contentious as well. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think my general point is that it would be nice to get a consensus of editors over this issue. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unblack bands

message: It took me a  long time to actually get this page loaded, and it appears that the  vast number of sources from the article are to blame. I have a  suggestion that we split this article, or an alternative suggestion,  (though not very agreeable) is to remove these sources altogether. I  mean, as long as the genre is sourced on the band's respective page, why  should we even bother including it here?--F-22 RaptörAces High♠  06:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, If I don't get any replies objecting  to this in 48 hours, I'll split the articles myself.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠  13:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article should be split up but we need to get a  consensus on what the best way for separating the metal lists in general  is to be (as other lists have the same problem as this one). I think  the sources might be better off being removed and placed on the  respective band's page but if a band doesn't have a genre section it  could be pretty messy since an infobox generally shouldn't have sources  within it. The long running argument that might get in the way of us  removing sources altogether is WP:LIST. Without sources this article  is merely a list and would make most just on the verge of being  deleted. They have lived in the past but they may not survive another  AFD if this were to happen. The thrash  metal list steered us in the right direction of what a list should  incorporate but it would be hard to convert all of the lists, while  staying away from partial carbon copies from the respective band page or  the genre article in which the band is discussed. I think this should  have a more general or "metal-wide" discussion since it applies to many  more lists than this one (including non-metal ones). Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:METAL? FireCrystal (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: That's perfectly fine, as long as article size is taken care of, and makes the articles more accessible.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 03:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large  article size 

message: What does Carnifex have to do with black metal? They are generic modern -core stuff. Kvelertak has some black metal riffs in it, but is about 90% 'action rock' more than anything.85.157.155.247 (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have sources, they stay on the list. I'd not come accross the phrase "action rock"" before though, which gave me a giggle. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnifex & Kvelertak