Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 1

message: Heavy metal is by no means "white" music. It is heavily based on traditionally-black blues, and one of its pioneers, Jimi Hendrix, was hardly white. I just think that this is a silly distinction to make, and doesn't really add much to the article.
It could be noted that most fans and musicians of heavy metal are white, but it certainly is not "in opposition" to black rock and blues.
--AaronS 15:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To label music to ethnic groups is nothing better than labelling them negative stereotypes, and should be avoided. Metal does have strong classical (european) influences, however blues and soul originated from the soulful tribal music of african tribes, and these both play important parts in the development of metal. (You seriously think the Blues scale, Pentatonics, Hexatonics, Bebop scale came from classical music?) RZ heretic 09:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "White" music?

message: While beginning to add captions to the album covers, it occurs to me do we really need all these pictures.  I can see why many albums are on there (Zeppelin and Sabbath) but Celtic Frost don't get mentioned in the text but get an album cover.
I would unlink 
*Image:ToolAenima.jpg|left
*Image:KyussBluesfortheRedSun.jpg
*Image:QuietRiotMetalHealthalbumc
*Image:CelticFrostIntothePandemonium.jpgover.jpg
Comments? Jackliddle 00:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need all these pictures?

message: The references to early usage of the term by Dave Marsh and/or Lester Bangs are precisely the type of probably-apochryphal stories mentioned later in the article.  As we've discussed before, an actual reference to such a usage would be grand but is unlikely to appear.  I've removed this claim, as well as replacing a paragraph about the Burroughs usage that made little sense as written. Jgm 17:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin disuputed redux

message: How one adds article to the metal navigation bar (the floating "table" with links to different metal articles in Wiki)? MathKnight 18:11, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to add another link to the table, please mention it at MediaWiki talk:Heavy metal music.  To add the table to another article, type 
Thanx. MediaWikiTalk:Heavy metal music.  MathKnight 13:40, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Metal navigation bar 

message: Shouldn't Iron Butterfly get a little more notice than just a mention of their album title?  I don't know much about metal in general, but I thought that they were one of the major early bands.  I think I remember reading that Doug Ingles of Iron Butterfly had classical organ training.  Can anyone confirm that?  If true, seems like that would be worth mentioning in the section on classical influence in heavy metal. Isomorphic 23:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Butterfly

message: I'm thinking of submitting the Classical influence section of this article to Private Eye... Andy Mabbett 22:13, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseuds Corner

message: This is a segment of the taxobox (I don't really know why, but there it is).  It had a claim that heavy metal was sporadically popular in the US but consistently and hugely popular in Japan, europe, etc.  I don't buy it, and have simplified the statement (which again, I think is silly for a genre as fragmented, long-lived, and diverse as this one).  It's possible my simplification is too simple -- we can discuss here if needed.  Jgm 13:34, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mainstream Popularity" 

message: I believe the article needs a clear line of demarcation between hard rock and heavy metal.  This of course is based on my believe that there is a difference between the two.  I would point to Black Sabbath's darker work as being the first heavy metal - the song "Black Sabbath" being a prime example.  What distinguishes it, in my view, from hard rock is firstly, the lyrical content.  Hard rock tends not to concern itself with "heavy" subject matter eg: death, philosophy, Satanic themes, etc. nor have the same obsession with melodic chromaticism and tritone intervals.  While hard rock does use the tritone, it uses it much more in passing, as the "blue note" rather than a melodic staple.  That is basically the line I would draw.
Thoughts?
--Thedangerouskitchen 14:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard rock or heavy metal? 

message: In this article, I see no mention made of the band Queen. They're not one of the purest or premier "metal" acts, but the energy and sheer talent of their live shows truly did innovate what the standard was for live music events and influenced a generation of guitarists (Slash and Steve Clark) and especially frontmen (David Lee Roth, Axl Rose, George Michael, James Hetfield, Joe Elliot,endless list.) Also, their injection of humor was rather novel as well.
I'm a real newbie and have very little article experience, so i wouldn't dare try to fix this, but I'm hoping maybe a veteran Wikipedian can give this act a nod in the article, as I believe any expert will agree they deserve, at the least, just a mention.
: IMO there is little need for this. Whereas Queen, especially in their 1973-1978 years, did a lot of stuff that bordered on being heavy metal or perhaps even crossed the border, they have never been truly considered a metal band. They have had a wide influence, yes, and even influenced a number of metal bands, but on the whole their influence on metal has been mostly marginal. If any mention of Queen has to be made at all, it should IMO be related to their influence on the power metal subgenre with all of its bombastic anthems. Then again, this would maybe be more aptly fitting on the entry for power metal. Joost 02:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen 

message: Hey, I cleaned up the usage of the perjorative term "hair metal" while still keeping it in the article. It's a POV term that infers that the band has style but lacks substance- not true of all bands. I've also heard Van Halen described as "hair metal," so the definitions of it can be wide-reaching. However, I left it in the article, still somewhat prominently, as it is a widely used phrase by the general public. CinnamonCinder 00:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hair Metal" 

message: Nu Metal is intended as an insult to poser bands. I don't think it is a SubGenre of Heavy Metal. Tell me one band that would call themselves Nu Metal. Also check out the Nu Metal site and see how bands are shying away from the name.
:I don't see why any of that matters to nu metal being a kind of heavy metal.  Even if nobody in the entire world chose to self-apply "nu metal", that wouldn't change its classification.  I've never really listened to any nu metal, so I don't really have an opinion on it, but the fact that bands don't choose to self-apply it doesn't mean anything. Tuf-Kat 20:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Nu Metal is not metal.  If a guy is named Bob, that does not mean he has no arms and floats in a sea.  Just because some moron decided to call it that does not mean that it should be related to metal.  It is like spelling knife with a k, what is the k for?  To piss off kids learning to spell.  Nu-metal is there to catch the eye of somebody more affiliated with the mainstream who may be looking into metal, but is indeed not worthy of recognition in any of these sections but one:  The True Metal definition, just to demonstrate what true metal is not.
:I agree with Tuf-Kat.  What people think of a genre doesn't change what it is.  Nu-Metal, despite people who state otherwise, is a type of metal.  While the opinion of it is less than good, it grew out of metal.  How this happned is unsure - some cite Faith No More's "Epic", others believe RMC & Aerosmith and, to the same extent, Public Enemy & Anthrax started the trend.  Regardless, nu-metal should be included as a metal genre. 
Raven 1959 15:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nu Metal is not a SubGenre of Heavy Metal

message: I really can't understand heavy metal music. A few questions here:
*Why is heavy metal music so aggresive, with all the distorted electric guitars and loud screams?
*Some people associate drugs, crime, and occult with heavy metal. To what extent is this true?
*Are rock 'n' roll, oldies, and classic rock synonymous with heavy metal music?
*Is the hippie culture related to heavy metal music?
Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy metal is a broad musical genre, which is divided in many subgenres, each with singular motivations and ideas. The associations made with negative behavior are merely an extension of what is already seen on the media as a whole. Parents who cannot admit their lack of skill in educating their children need to put the blame on something, and heavy metal often becomes the culprit in such cases. Heavy metal, if anything, helps people control their anger, in the same way practicing sports does. As for drugs and the occult, yes, there are subgenres of metal which deal with those, stoner metal and black metal, respectively. Stoner metal is not a widely popular genre, and thus cannot be considered influential, and black metal is mostly taken as a joke, both by bands themselves and by fans of the genre. Of course it is taken seriously by some people, but there are extremists everywhere, that's an universal truth. Mainstream rock 'n' roll and classic rock are not considered heavy metal, unless you are talking about Black Sabbath and, some would say, Led Zeppelin. Hippie culture is unrelated to heavy metal. The ideals of heavy metal are, essentially, "Dress whatever you want to dress, act however you want to act, be yourself no matter what; but respect the guy next to you". Aggression on the instruments and voice can be found mostly on heavy metal subgenres such as death metal and thrash metal, but are merely used as means of expressing an emotion. In this case, anger. Heavy metal is generally appreciated by people who are not very religious, open-minded and why not say, slightly leftist, but exceptions are common. There is even a religious subgenre of heavy metal, in case you are wondering: white metal. Hope I could adress your concerns. --Sn0wflake 06:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is heavy metal music? 

message: As well-written and pleasing to the eye as this article is, much of the information is inaccurate or irrelevant and, on the whole, woefully incomplete. Even if the page includes the entire genre of Metal, rather than just the small sub-genre of Heavy Metal that includes bands like Black Sabbath and Mercyful Fate, information on bands like Queen and Toto doesn't belong within miles of here.  To preserve the text, much of it could be moved to the proposed history of metal article or to Metal music, and the rest (ideally, but this part is extremely low priority) merged with Classic Metal. 
I know that a litany of mistakes isn't going to be the most constructive or peaceful route to change, but it may well be the fastest and it's stuff like this that makes wikipedia a laughingstock in the metal community and leads god-knows-how-many newcomers astray. It's not a question of "purists" wanting everything their way, either, it's literally excruciating for anyone with a passing knowledge of metal to read something this bass-ackwards.  Imagine Miles Davis listed as a romantic composer or a bat listed as an insect and you'll get some idea, but it isn't only the glaring errors, the article flat-out ignores 95+% of metal, which would be fine if it were restricted to talk about the actual sub-genre heavy metal, but it doesn't even know what it wants to be.
Bands discussed in the heavy metal article that aren't metal (Deep Purple, solo Osbourne and Zeppelin, maybe, deserve a brief mention, the others don't): Mötley Crüe, Ozzy Osbourne, Deep Purple, Rush, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Blue Cheer, The Scorpions
Bands that don't have any conceivable relation whatsoever to heavy metal or purpose in this article: Spinal Tap (yes, I know, but they're parodying rock bands, except for maybe Sabbath, and their music is far, far from metal), Van Halen, Jimi Hendrix, King Crimson, Jeff Beck, Jethro Tull, UFO, Quiet Riot, Def Leppard, Ratt, Guns N' Roses, Nirvana, Alice Cooper, KISS, Aerosmith, Thin Lizzy, AC/DC, Dokken, The Cult, The White Stripes
Bands for which it boggles the mind to think someone believed they belong in this article (I can't see what use rehashing the history of rock and roll is, especially bands like The Beatles which don't come remotely close to hard rock, and AOR has about as much metal influence as, well, The Beatles): Grand Funk Railroad, The Who, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Yardbirds, Elvis Presley, Bon Jovi, Queen, T. Rex, David Bowie, Bauhaus, Joy Division, Toto, Europe, Survivor, Journey, Asia
 
If it's necessary, I could go into some of the more egregious mistakes pertaining to music theory (for instance, saying that most metal is derived directly from blues... yeesh).  But really, this article needs to be cut back to information about Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Motörhead, Mercyful Fate, Iron Maiden, Saxon, Budgie, maybe a few other NWOBHM or slightly obscure bands that I and I suspect no on here knows or cares about, and progenitors like Deep Purple or Zeppelin while all the main links are changed to the Metal music article that I'm compiling. SonoftheMorning 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is FUBAR

message: The comment about wearing black t-shirts in Islamic countries can be an arrestable offense I think needs documentation. I modified that comment in the Culture section with "in the most extreme cases," though now I think it should be either clarified/amplified or deleted. This is especially true given that in the USA wearing black is also seen as dangerous, think of the 1994 Arkansas child murders where the police & DA used the arrested teens' like of heavy metal music and black clothing as evidence of their guilt or Columbine where the black trenchcoats were seen as ominous signs of a murderous character. Rsugden 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the larger picture, that sentence is completely unnecessary and consists of a small exception rather than of a rule, so its removal would not be unfair. --Sn0wflake 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture and Islam facts 

message: Belated response to a user talk page comment by anon, presumably the author of #This article is FUBAR.  I just started a new job, with hours that are odd for me, so I have little time for wikiing.  Heavy metal is also not really my field of expertise, though I'm generally fairly knowledgeable in the subject.  I agree that information on heavy metal music and metal music is not very well organized, though I'm not convinced that the solution you describe is ideal.  That may be because I don't entirely understand what you propose.  My advice is to go slow -- this is a topic that many people feel strongly about, and drastic changes may be poorly received if they are not explained beforehand.  I'd suggest making an outline of just the section headings and the lead section  at a temp page like Metal music/temp and heavy metal music/temp -- that will give everyone a chance to look at the basic structure of what you're proposing and suggest changes.  I can't guarantee that I'll be around for more than cursory help, but that would aid other editors in seeing precisely what you propose.  Other than that, I also advise, if you haven't already, you review Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.  Many people use terms like "heavy metal" inconsistently and with varying definitions -- some of these people may be ignorant, but we must remember a hypothetical reader that comes across a reference to "heavy metal" and comes to Wikipedia for more information; even if that reference is using the term in a nonstandard or ignorant manner, we should explain how it is being used.  With that said, we also have an obligation to organize the information on all kinds of music in the most useful manner possible.   Tuf-Kat 07:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are very rough sketches of the first and most important of the changes as well as my plans to expound on the Metal music article: Metal music/temp and Heavy metal music/temp  The categories page would also be changed.  Feedback from any and all users very much appreciated, I am new here.  SonoftheMorning 19:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Nice writing, but I think you need to find some significant external references to support your re-definitions here (that is, the distinctions you make between heavy metal, metal music, classic metal et. al), which seem to me to be personal and idiosyncratic.  As Tuf says above, all of us have a different "music map" in our heads about where genre lines are drawn, and must be careful to avoid characterizing them as commonly-agreed-to.  Jgm 20:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the sub-genres, these are basically the accepted definitions by metalheads, most far more knowledgeable than me, throughout the online community.  All of them have a firm basis in the music (or are vital for clarity, in the case of "classic metal" vs. "heavy metal" vis-a-vis "heavy metal" vs. "metal"), but not necessarily one that is easy to express in words.  It's difficult to find legitimate sources that support these definitions (which are subject to change over time), as most books and magazines on the subject are wildly inaccurate, but I'll try to dig up at least a couple semi-professional-looking websites.SonoftheMorning 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should think the most logical way of distinguishing the genres is to gather them all at a Metal, which would then link to Heavy Metal, Classical Metal, and all other genres of Metal. Heavy Metal might be the correct name for the oldest kind of metal, but it seems to be partly "going out of style" as a name for all genres of metal. Today, Heavy Metal is most often used in the same way as any other genre of metal as a whole (Heavy Metal being, for example, Judas Priest, Black Metal being Darkthrone etc). To me, Death Metal is a subgenre of Metal, and not a subgenre of Heavy Metal. To me, and probably to many others, the chart of relation is: Rock - Hard Rock - Metal - Metal subgenres, or perhaps Rock - Hard Rock/Heavy metal - Metal - Metal Subgenres. 
Also, I suspect it would be quite a feat to find a "professional" work about metal and heavy metal. 
The quality of this article, however, is of a much higher grade than the metal_music page, so in the end it might be as well to use this page as the basis. Shandolad 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure who I'm responding to 

message: I can see various album covers, but why is "Kill Em All" there instead of "Master Of Puppets" or "Ride The Lightning"? Surely those albums are a lot more influential and innovative than "kill Em All". Also there isn't any mention of "Peace Sells...But Who's Buying?" and "Among The Living". Also how has White Stripes been influenced by heavy metal? Whoever wrote that hasn't listened to "Get Behind Me Satan".
: The album cover is provided by a contributor. He chooses one album he thought influential or representative. It´s a matter of taste, and he surely put something he thought were in the best interest of the article. In the cases of Metallica albums I really did not see a too strong point for changing Kill´em all for "Master of Puppets" or "Ride the Lightning" as all of them were very influential for metal. And while I agree about The White Stripes, perhaps one of Jack White´s many many influencies were metal, who could deny that if he states so? I did not know if he said something like that. If he didn´t then this is a personal conjecture based on poor evidence, so it should be removed, because White Stripes has nothing to do with Metal (unless, perhaps, in the use of the blues minor scale, which were the basis for old-style metal). Regards. Loudenvier 21:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion 

message: I've added New Wave of American Heavy Metal to the Afd page. Please check out the deletion  page and offer your thoughts. It would be much appreciated. I also removed it from the heavy metal template. --AaronS 03:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wave of American Heavy Metal 

message: "Cover versions of classic rock songs would become a standard part of many metal bands' repertoire. Notable is Mötley Crüe's version of "Helter Skelter" which very strongly brings to the fore the heavy metal undertones implied in the Beatles song."
I'm editing out this part because older rock cover versions aren't SO standard in Heavy Metal. A lot of bands do it, but just like, once in a while, and even so, it's mostly the older bands like Iron Maiden in their B-sides.
I have replaced it with one text that I found in allmusic.com --Eadl 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics

message: Hey, I cleaned up the usage of the perjorative term "hair metal" while still keeping it in the article. It's a POV term that infers that the band has style but lacks substance- not true of all bands. I've also heard Van Halen described as "hair metal," so the definitions of it can be wide-reaching. However, I left it in the article, still somewhat prominently, as it is a widely used phrase by the general public. CinnamonCinder 00:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hair Metal" Revisited 

message: * First of all, let me tell you, it is true that "hair metal" was used as a pejorative term but not by metal purists, but by grunge public, record companies and media during the grunge movement. The term was unfairly picked up by the thrash and underground metal public seemingly as a derogatory reference to the "Mainstream Form Of Heavy Metal Music" due to which the thrash bands have remained in the underground and could not gain popularity and album sales. The media, or the so-called "metal purists" never called the "glam metal" bands as "hair metal". In fact, terms like "hair metal", "glam metal","cock metal", "sleaze metal", etc. all came out during the 90s by the then burgeoning grunge revolution, which was understandably a backlash against 'Metal Supremacy Of The Charts'. The angry underground metal crowd (of that time) unfortunately, but readily and quickly latched onto the terms and further slandered '80s metal'. 
* In fact, during the 80s, all kind of Metal was called "Heavy Metal" !!!! After the mid-80s, another term was coined which was "thrash metal" which meant, bands which are thrashing heavily in the underground, but not getting mainstream attention (though still getting a good underground fan following). Tell me, why were Iron Maiden not called 'thrash', even though they were heavier than an average 'heavy metal' band of that time. It's because they were popular in the mainstream. Besides, as someone said above, those bands were way more "metal" than today's bands like Soilwork or The Used or shit like Limp Bizkit or Slipknot.
* A few years back, it was kinda fashion in the underground, that one should malign the 80s "Glam Metal" bands and/or their fans with words like 'posuer', 'crap metal', 'gay metal', 'pussy metal', etc. Doing this meant you're "KEWL". But now, thanks to people like the ones at [Metal-Rules.com] and bands like Children of Bodom, Angra and many others who openly cite "Hair Metal" groups as their influences, these things have lessened a bit. Still, there are fools like few of the ones above who claim the word "Metal" is their own authority and defame great legendary "METAL" bands. 
New Rock Star 12:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hair Metal" Replies 

message: I know this has been discussed, but I think it needs summarized and settled.  Please state your preference here, with a very brief reason why, and use the subsection "discussion" to discuss in depth. I plan to list this on "Requests for Comment" after a few days. 
Please use the following:
*Support merger "Metal music" into "Heavy Metal" music"
*Support merger "Heavy Metal" music into "Metal music"
*Against any merger
Ready...set....GO!!' maxcap 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Without being funny Joost, your plan would be easier to just rename the Metal Music article.
*Support merger "Heavy Metal" music into "Metal music" As such, the article Heavy Metal music both contradicts itself, and facts. Firstly, most metal genres are commonly known in Germnany and England, and possibly Finland. I dont know about other places, but still. Heavy Metal, also cannot be a subgenre of itself, and as such would need to have its article changed, and also have the template changed. Second, we are back to the age old argument of Heavy Metal is defined by a specific set of variables, and most forms of metal lack most of those Variables. And thirdly, and finally, just because something originates from something, doesnt mean it is that thing. We originate from Monkeys/Chimpanzees/Gorillas - would you then call all Humans as Monkeys due to our origins? Leyasu 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All forms should be listed, emmitting certain ones could be seen as neoglistic/biased. Leyasu 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every listing of sub-genres could potentially be seen as biased. There is no complete list of sub-genres, and trying to make one will result in more controversy than it removes. An encyclopedia should, among other things, strive to be concise, not provide the most obscure of details, but lay out a clear and solid overview of the subject. Some details may be delegated to specific articles, and I think an article with the more complete list of sub-genres would be suitable, because the main article would otherwise simply be too long (there currently already [i]is[/i] a warning "This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." on the edit page of Heavy metal music, so it really shouldn't get much longer). And what do you mean with 'neoglistic'? The closest word I know is 'neologistic' and I don't see how that makes much sense in this context. Joost 10:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was using what i thought was a version of Neoglism. Your right, creating one is a hard job, but listing the most common terms as they are now is the best way to go. It also lits all genres of metal. Fusion or otherwise. However, there still needs to be a article on the genre of Heavy Metal, as this being an encyclopedia, its foolish to claim all genres of Metal are Heavy Metal when they lack core features of it. Thats like me saying all boats are forms of Cars, even though they lack wheels, land propolsion, and other car like things. Say cars and boats are both forms of transport, and were ok because thats a fact. See the point? Leyasu 11:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be possible for you to give us us short description of  what exactly "heavy metal" is? Also, it seems to me that what you call "metal" is derivitive of power metal, black metal, and thrash/speed metal essentially, am I correct?maxcap 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment is that the whole articles comments should remain, and that the Heavy Metal article should then explain the difference of the genre, to that of the encompassing term. It should also explain how not all Metal genres are Heavy, or share the core features of Heavy Metal. It should also have the history greatly expanded to explain the influence the different genres have had on the Worldwide Metal Community/Scene and their affect on each other. Leyasu 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with [[metal music]] 

message: ----
yeah i think it should be listed under metal and have sub sets such as thrash doon ect....
By the way, if a merge is agreed upon, I offer to perform it. WesleyDodds 07:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All forms should be listed, emmitting certain ones could be seen as neoglistic/biased. Leyasu 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Every listing of sub-genres could potentially be seen as biased. There is no complete list of sub-genres, and trying to make one will result in more controversy than it removes. An encyclopedia should, among other things, strive to be concise, not provide the most obscure of details, but lay out a clear and solid overview of the subject. Some details may be delegated to specific articles, and I think an article with the more complete list of sub-genres would be suitable, because the main article would otherwise simply be too long (there currently already [i]is[/i] a warning "This page is 36 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." on the edit page of Heavy metal music, so it really shouldn't get much longer). And what do you mean with 'neoglistic'? The closest word I know is 'neologistic' and I don't see how that makes much sense in this context. Joost 10:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was using what i thought was a version of Neoglism. Your right, creating one is a hard job, but listing the most common terms as they are now is the best way to go. It also lits all genres of metal. Fusion or otherwise. However, there still needs to be a article on the genre of Heavy Metal, as this being an encyclopedia, its foolish to claim all genres of Metal are Heavy Metal when they lack core features of it. Thats like me saying all boats are forms of Cars, even though they lack wheels, land propolsion, and other car like things. Say cars and boats are both forms of transport, and were ok because thats a fact. See the point? Leyasu 11:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be possible for you to give us us short description of  what exactly "heavy metal" is? Also, it seems to me that what you call "metal" is derivitive of power metal, black metal, and thrash/speed metal essentially, am I correct?maxcap 20:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment is that the whole articles comments should remain, and that the Heavy Metal article should then explain the difference of the genre, to that of the encompassing term. It should also explain how not all Metal genres are Heavy, or share the core features of Heavy Metal. It should also have the history greatly expanded to explain the influence the different genres have had on the Worldwide Metal Community/Scene and their affect on each other. Leyasu 11:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The doom metal and stoner rock community gives all respect to Mc5 as do I but I am in complete in agreement they do not get the respect they deserve so spread the gosple brother.    
'''
Nerull Lives!!!!!!'''
: Wikipedia is not a Soapbox, please refrain from such comments in the future. Leyasu 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  check out stoner rock, doom metal 

message: Sorry it's taken me a bit to get around to perfomring the merge, but I've had some other things to take care of.
Here's my basic plan for the merger: the History/origins section of metal music will be merged into heavy metal music.  There's a lot fo overlap anyway, but the sections on the 80's, 90's and 2000s will benefit most from this merger.  Then I'll redirect metal music to Heavy metal music, and paste the genre list on List of heavy metal genres.  Then there'll just be some tweaking of Heavy metal music and that'll be it.  I'll be done sometime in the next day (I have to sleep right now).  I hope everyone finds this plan to their liking.  WesleyDodds 07:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then people work on extending the history and explaining the difference between genre and umbrella term used by the public, correct/? Leyasu 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I plan to do while merging the hitories.  But until we find an adequate source to detail the debate, all I can provide is a short paragraph acknowledging that a debate exists for now.  WesleyDodds 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Plan sounds ok to me. One quick question: should we raise the issue of metal fans attitudes towards 90s/00s fusion genres like Nu-metal and, more recently, metalcore? I know from my own experience there is a lot of (in my opinion justifiable) criticism directed towards these genres. I'm asking since Wikipedians are sometimes opposed to including such information (witness the page on the Simpsons, where what looked to me like an entirely reasonable section on the shows recent decline was deleted on the grounds of objectivity). Belzub 17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sort of debates about the "metal-ness" of certain genres should go into the "Controveries from within the genre section" or the individual articles.  I think it would mess up the flow of the prose if it's included in the History section.  WesleyDodds 20:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: When i said to expand the history, i meant to explain the rise of the different waves of genres, and their affects on each other, and the scenes associated with them. Leyasu 21:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the past Slayer´s frontman was asked to define Slayer: "Punk and metal, that´s what slayer is" was his answer. We all know punk IS NOT METAL, punk is to me a kind of opposite to metal. But how could you define Slayer´s sound any better? Nu-metal is another mix, a new mix. I almost despise all of the nu-metal bands. They seem to stick to a formula, and to go for "the more pop the better" attitude. But I can´t deny they share some metal characteristics. I think most nu-metal bands to be closer to Heavy Metal than most of Therion releases (I really can´t call Therion a metal band most of the time, although I like it very much :-). All this confusion is to say that nu-metal deserves a place in the history section, as it deserves a place in the controversy section too! Leyasu is fully correct (this time :-) ). Regards Loudenvier 05:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger plan 

message: Please, we must not start to remove every contributions made to the article. It´s normally better to let them in and wait for someone to improve over them, unless it´s a very, very bad contribution. If we start to remove all contributions that aren´t flawless we will scare away good willing people from this article, or perhaps from wikipedia. Let´s try to be a little more understandable from now on. At least some of the deleted contributions would better be dicussed on the talk page before deletion. Regards Loudenvier 17:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldnt normally remove a contribution, id copyedit it. More and more people are adding purely POV contributions, as which are getting removed. If you are skeptical of someone's edit summary, then check what they removed, and give your view to that editor on their talk page. Leyasu 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of contributions 

message: " Ozzfest has had many metalcore bands playing at the festival and has helped gain the genre much popularity. Some see this style as nu metal's successor, whilst others believe that it will become popular and fashionable in the same way as nu metal."
The last sentence sounds like it repeats itself. Shouldn't it be something along the lines of "Some see this style as nu metal's successor, whilst others believe that it's the antithesis." I have no opinion on this matter, it just seems to me that that last sentence just repeats itself for no apparent reason. It also seems like a POV issue, as it's basically disregarding metalcore as a genuine metal sub-genre. If that were the case, shouldn't the oppositions views be held as well? Jewofunk 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point. Mention it to user WesleyDodds if no users update it in the next 3/4 days. Leyasu 23:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metalcore Metion

message: The earliest memory of the word "Heavy Metal" in Rock was in a copy of "Hit Parader Magazine" around 1968 and referred to Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention and Jimi Hendrix.
24.44.76.210 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy Metal Men

message: I´ll try to post some of the parts I did no like. We could all do the same, so, afer a litle discussion we´ll end up with some basis as to how evolve the article further.
* Heavy metal singers have wide variety in sounds among them, from mid-range clean vocals, to high-pitched wails, to deep growls. The black and death metal scene tends to use distorted and guttural death grunts (exemplified by the band Possessed). Generally, it is hard to understand what the singer is "singing". Often, the text is considered to be too crude to be sung clearly (such as in Cannibal Corpse), but there are some bands (such as Eudoxis and Dark Shift) that will have more traditional lyrics obscured by the style of the singing.
** I think we should change it because it uses a sole example of metal singing (black and death) and developes it too much, mainly the subjective it´s hard to understand what the singer is singin... stuff. It should use more traditional bands, perhaps mentioning only singers as examples. As is stands it should be on the Death or Black metal pages.
I´ve read the entire article right now, in a litle rush, but I think it´s fine and can´t point without further inspection any more parts I really dislike. I think it´s a litle derrogatory over nu-metal (I tell you punk is the opposite of metal, yet punk was a heavy influence on Motorhead, Slayer, etc. So how could we disaprove nu-metal other influencies? You and I may dislike it, but we should not be POV on wikipedia...). Post the parts you dislike it, let´s discuss it here, and bring it back into the article later, revised, and hopefully, better Loudenvier 15:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some things I think aren´t good in the article... 

message: the recent edits to the article highlight one of the main problems with writing about the term 'metal'. i've been watching the happenings over the last few months, including the big change when metal music was merged to heavy metal music. now we seem to be back at square one with people arguing as to whether 'heavy metal'/'metal' refers to a specific sound or a grouping of styles. imo, the version Deathrocker is reverting to is better because it describes both original usage in the first paragraph and then the more modern general usage in the second (although i don't like the way some of it is worded; the flow sounds all wrong, and i don't agree that metal is not as "commercially successful" as the third paragraph makes it out to be (but whether nu-metal is a metal genre or not is an entirly other contentious debate). so, before things get silly (again), lets come to a concencus on this please. thoughts? --MilkMiruku 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we´re not going back to the old-feud Metal vs. Heavy Metal. That is settled. Deathrocker did not paid attention to the talk page. That´s it. And he changed too much things at once, I think this is the reason people keep reverting his edits. The section just above this one was a way to try to let people summarize their dislikes with/within the article. My complaint there still stands. I really hate that paragraph, when I get the time I will be changing it to use as examples Dio, Dickinson, Anders, LaBrie, Khan, etc, and will try exemplify singers from many subgenres. Loudenvier 21:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In fact Heavy Metal has two meanings. This article is meant to encompass both. It should start telling the origins and many things about those original bands. After that it should enter in the discussion of the subgenres it spawned. Simple, yet not easy. Loudenvier 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'metal' as a specific style or as a catch-all term (here we go again...) 

message: What does everyone think about putting text at the beginning of the page so when you open the edit page text appears asking you to discuss major changes on the Talk Page?  That way we can put off a lot of potential headaches.  WesleyDodds 05:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded text 

message: The first couple paragraphs of the Characteristics section needs to be overhauled in my opinion. It never really defines metal above guitar riffs and drum beats, which is obviously not the extent of metal. The main reason I ask this is because of many arguments at the Nu-Metal talk page and at countless band articles, where people consistently declare a band "not metal" based on their perception of it, mainly due to the fact wikipedia does not have a clear definition of metal. Theunknown42 01:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics 

message: hi, you might be interested to know that the above article about the early-80s Dario Argento horror film featuring a heavy score by Goblin (band) is currently a featured article candidate. as the editors of this article know what it takes to become featured, and argento's relationship with heavy metal is strong, it would be interesting to have your opinions. please vote "support" or "object" with your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tenebrae (film). thx. Zzzzz 11:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tenebrae (film)]]

message: If you visit the Thrash Metal article and look at the genre box, it mentions Black Metal, Death Metal and Groove Metal as direct subgenres of Thrash rather than directly from Heavy Metal, as they aren't direct subgenres... and they already appear more fittingly in the Thrash genre box as subgenres they should be removed from this one. - Deathrocker 21:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but heavy metal music refers not only to the original style of metal but also to metal as a root genre, so it would be best if all genres that are refered to as 'metal' are included in the genrebox. --MilkMiruku 22:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: hmm.. it is a toughie.. the problem as i see it stems back to when metal music was merged into heavy metal music and list of heavy metal genres. personally i'd agree that "heavy metal" is best used to refer to the earlier styles of metal and "metal" is best used to refer to all metal genres as a whole, and i would have prefered it if this article had focused on the early style with "Mainstream Dominance (1980s)" onwards going on metal music, but the concensus of wikipedians was that "heavy metal" = both (thus it's use in List of heavy metal genres) and that heavy metal music should be used to describe both uses. (i don't think it's worth getting worked up over at this stage in the game as it's too close to call anyway and there would be too much opposition to change anything anyway.). so to sum up, i agree with you, but beware, the concensus doesn't, and your changes will make the article more confusing than it already is. i'll leave it up to all the metal aficionados here to decide the fate of their article. --MilkMiruku 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are direct descendant of thrash, but they are all ultimately subgenres of heavy metal.  That's how all the infoboxes function.  WesleyDodds 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre box

message: What about average BPM in heavy metal and its sub-genres? Psychomel@di(s)cussion
Average bpm? Since funeral metal and grindcore are both in on this, you are not going to get very far trying to figure out an average bpm. marnues 02:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess there *is* at least a range of BPM to each sub-genre (Doom, Power etc.), right? Psychomel@di(s)cussion 19:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For genres like Doom Metal or Death Metal which define themselves partially by tempo, it does make sense to look at BPM.  However, many metal genres like Black or Heavy do not conform well to BPM and will actually probably resemble the average BPM of any rock song. Then there's grindcore, which does its best to have huge BPM.  I think there's one group which maed a song with a BPM of 1000. Its case specific I think, but definitely worth knowing in some of them. marnues 18:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BPM 

message: So, Battle Metal redirects here, Battle metal is a stub. And I recently created a Battle Metal entry, which is about an album by Turisas. It's quite confusing. Anyone knows how to fix it? (Sorry, I'm a newb.)
Óðinn 03:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prodded it. It is a non-nontable genre with few bands/ genrecruft.  Spearhead 15:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Óðinn 06:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle Metal