Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 2

message: I typed it in expecting Tchaikovsky's 1812, Wellington's Victory, and the whole sub-class of obscure classical pieces nobody can ever  neatly categorise as anything else. And I end up here, in spite of there only be being two instances of the world Battle in the entire page on heavy metal music (the only one of significance being the quoting of the influence of "battle hymns" - not even one line). Any thoughts on at least a disambiguation page, since a "list of battle music" page wouldn't be hard to set up.
Graldensblud 23:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, that is rather amusing, however the reason is pretty simple. "Battle metal," either a pseudo- or heavily unknown subgenre of metal once had its own page, and so "Battle music" redirected there. Following its deletion, the term was redirected to "heavy metal music," since it is relative to all metal subgenres. I agree that this is incorrect and should be dealt with -- I suggest you redirect "Battle music" to wherever you feel most appropriate, or simply request to blank the page. --Ryouga 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does "battle music" redirect here?

message: Wikipedia FAQ clearly states no links to commercial sites.  The people who keep reposting this link work for AMG and are serving their own interests and not the whole of the metal community or the Wikipedia editors.
Anon October 18, 2006
:All Music Guide links are OK on Wikipedia. They are the main source for the bulk of the music articles on the encyclopedia and the All music Guide link is included in most of the album infoboxes used by the Wikipedia Music Project. Further to that, All Music Guide is used so extensively throughout Wikipedia that it has it's own AMG template for quick additions into Wikipedia music articles and therefore it stays as a valid external link and can be added to any/all music related articles. 156.34.142.158 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference, and it helps those interested in the topic to research more about it. I'm the one who originally added the link and I do not work for AMG. Reliabilty is preferred to rest on professional sites rather than fan ones, and that's the most adequate online resource. Please do not remove it again without discussion. WesleyDodds 04:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove link to All Music Guide

message: I've been watching this article for a while, and it seems like people are too focused on particular bands. Some major figures such as Sabbath, Priest, Maiden, and Metallica are candidates for more lengthy discussion, but couldn't minor figures just get put on to a list at the end of each history section? Or maybe put a link to a more detailed article with a list of bands? Anon August 14, 2006
"Plus, Rhapsody of Fire have used many classical string instruments and have created a new style which they call 'Film Score Metal'." This band does not need to be mentioned. Not only does the sentence sound illogical in the course of the paragraph, but Heavy Metal bands have been using string instruments and other classical elements long before 1997, when their debut came out. To me this a plug to get this band on the heavy metal history page so theyve been removed.--Tomtheebomb 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's Not About Your Favorite Band

message: Queen have been recognized as pioneers of heavy metal. Queen(1973), Queen II(1974), and Sheer Heart Attack(1974) are heavy metal. A Night at the Opera, News of the World, and others have heavy metal on them. Thay have mixed heavy metal with arena rock, glam rock, progressive rock, punk rock, and even opera. - Mtmtmt 05:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's true.  But your point is . . . ?  WesleyDodds 06:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen 

message: is too short and really says nothing about the genre except that some people don't like it, list a few band names and mention the connection to grunge that only has to do with a few alt. metal and nu metal bands.
:The appropriate venue to list your contentions is the Alternative metal page.  WesleyDodds 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the article on alt. metal 

message: A spammer keeps adding this poor quality site to the links. If you have a look at their edits, their sole purpose on Wikipedia is adding this site to links of bands pages .  - Deathrocker 19:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Metallian"

message: I question the influence of classical music being pervasive enough to warrant it's inclusion as a primary influence in the genre box. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? maxcap 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's being used as a generalization for all those periods, and I'm fully aware of it's influence on guitar playing; do you feel that this influence is enough to cite it as a primary influence, like it's being used in the genre-box? maxcap 01:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Classical Music does not belong in the infobox! It is most certainly not a stylistic origin of heavy metal music, nor even an influence on all metal, but only an influence specifically on prog-metal in the mid 70s, and few other genres, such as speed metal and power metal, that sprang up in the mid 80s. (Okay, and Iron Maiden, I'll admit). If it's considered proper, someone could possibly add an "Other Influences" section (as opposed to origins) and put Classical Music there, along with Punk Rock and whatever else. --Rosencrantz1 20:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Classical music has had an incredible influence on the ideals of all forms of metal, in addition to a direct musical influnece on at least hundreds of bands. Ours18 07:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical Music in the genrebox

message: I think the two were significantly relevent enough during the 90s to warrant a mention in the article, and perhaps a mention of the high level of heavy metal influence in Alice In Chains music too.
It wouldn't really fit in with the nu-metal section, anybody have any ideas? - Deathrocker 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Danzig Alice in Chains are examples of Alternative metal; Danzig influenced by gothic rock, deathrock and punk (with Glenn Danmzigs history in The Misfits and Samhain (band), and Alice with grunge/alternative rock. Both were part of the wave of alternative metal that also included bands that would eventually influence nu metal. Type O Negative were part of a brief revival of early heavy metal that Danzig are arguably also part of - Type O Neg's metal was slow and scary more than fast and angry, like Black Sabbath. I'll edit the article now. --Switch 00:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I just noticed that Pantera aren't really mentioned either, and I remimber them being massively popular in the early 90's, maybe something could be worked together with all those bands? maxcap 01:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, a brief mention of groove metal happening via Pantera should be included too. --Switch 05:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on Type O Negative is probably a little too thorough for this article's scope.  A sentence or two should be fine.  WesleyDodds 04:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Danzig (band)|Danzig]] and [[Type O Negative]]

message: To have the subgenres abreviated in the info box as so...
 
If somebody is just reading through the article, it could be confusing, as it says "Folk" rather than "Folk metal" as a subgenre, and "Glam" rather than "Glam Metal", for example. Shouldn't it be fully typed out, to avoid confusion for those who are just reading this article? 
- Deathrocker 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So unabbreviate them if it makes sense, but dont violate policy and projects in the process. Ley Shade 23:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the "poll" is inherently biased. maxcap 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention all the fusion genres are removed, which are supposed to be included in the infobox.  Plus, as far as I remember, the original Wikiproject discussion only concerned the footer that's placed on every genre page, no the main infobox that tries to tie everything together and is inherently more detailed and informative.  WesleyDodds 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The poll was advertised on this page, and messaged most everyone who was doing work on this article about it as well. If they chose not take part before closing, thats their problem. Consensus still stands. 81.157.94.111 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't advertised very well, and this link doesn't show this page linking in. I would think it would be evident to someone who refers to NPOV as consistantly as you, that the poll is biased. It's like polling conservative Christians on the validity of evolution. My biggest problem is the same as Wesley's, the fusion genres, they need to stay. Regardless of how "true metal" they are, they are related enough to warrant inclusion. Plus, and this is important, it makes exploring wikipedia fun. maxcap 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with the Fusion Genres is that most of the ones listed are either Non-Existant or not fusion genres. 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternative metal - Christian metal - Funk metal  - Grindcore - Industrial metal - Metalcore - Nu metal - Rapcore - Stoner metal - Symphonic metal Out of these which do you consider non-fusion or non existant? the only ones I question are syphonic metal, christian metal ; rapcore is probably more derivitive of alt metal, as is nu-metal. I don't know anything about stoner metal so i can't say. maxcap 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stoner metal should be listed under subgenres.  It's not a fusion with anything.  WesleyDodds 06:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It´s interesting, but Symphonic Metal is to me a tangible and clear sub-genre. So, I think it´s better to try to enconpass all so-called subgenres, because it´s better to include something wrong than missing something right :-) Loudenvier 16:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, I'm just completely ignorant regarding Symphonic Metal so I can't voice any sort of educated opinion on it. Same with stoner metal, except that I own a couple of Clutch albums.maxcap 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it wise....

message: I lost some data in the process of archiving, and I'm not able to edit a previous version to move it over. Can anyone help? maxcap 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message at the village pump hopefully someone will fix it, sorry folks. maxcap 01:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! thank you maxcap 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   lost some data (yikes!) 

message: We need to seriously discuss what should be in the external links section of this page.  Links keep getting removed and inserted on a regular basis by both registered and unregistered users.  WesleyDodds 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Metal is a genre, heavy metal is a sub genre
:Actually, Heavy Metal is considered as a subgenre in spoken language; today. But originally (in 80's) it's the full name of whole metal genre. It's better to use original one. While refering the early metal, we could use Classical Metal instead (which we did in here). --EpiC-- 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, don't you mean "Classic", not "Classical"? Either way, I would say much of "classic" metal could be called something else. e.g.: Black Sabbath doom (or proto-doom) metal, Iron Maiden proto-power metal.
Don't make us go through this debate again. :D (You see, quite a while ago there was a big argument about this exact thing. It took a long time for a decision to be reached, put it that way.) :P 
--FrasierC 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uh 

message: Heya I created a template page for the genre box. Could someone replace the one on the main page with it (my browser cuts the bottom of the page off).
Just  click edit on this section and copy from here and paste to the main. Thanks! maxcap 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I have removed this section, with the following reasoning:
- This is an extremely new phenomenon; it is yet to be seen whether or not it will have any impact on the genre, especially to a degree that would warrant its placement in the main article.
- Many of those so-called "revival" bands that were mentioned do not "take influence from the original 1970s and 1980s pioneers of the genre" nor do they play in that style.  Rather, the music itself is much more in line with the sound of stoner rock (or, sometimes, stoner metal) sounds, already established as a sub-genre/movement in its own right in the 1990s with artists like Fu Manchu and Kyuss. The Sword, for example, insist that Black Sabbath is not an influence ; the official Myspace page for Wolfmother cites zero heavy metal bands among their list of influences  and they openly claim that they were never influenced by any "'70s rock" band, nor have they ever intended to sound like one. 
- The leading bands in this so-called "heavy metal revival" wave come from outside the genre, with a pedigree based in the indie-rock or modern hardcore scenes. Their audiences, accordingly, can mainly be found within the indie-rock (and even hipster) crowds. The phenomenon they represent is not part of heavy metal as a genre and a movement, but has more to do with the general trend towards irony-laden retro-isms in the contemporary music industry as a whole.  To illustrate by comparison - if bands like Franz Ferdinand or Bloc Party are not mentioned in the post-punk article (and rightly so!), neither should their "metal" counterparts be mentioned in the heavy metal one.
- In heavy metal circles, both the credibility of these bands and their "heavy metal" identity are widely contested.  This sudden "revival" (much celebrated in certain media outlets) is generally seen as fiction, concocted by industry PR men and out-of-touch music critics for the purpose of having something to package and sell as "new", ignoring the fact that actual traditional heavy metal has never really ceased to flourish within the metal scene in its 30+ years of existence; for examples of this attitude and for further reading, see , ,  (search for "boswell" especially), , .
Trends that have proved immensely more important and influential to heavy metal than this, like 1990's Scandinavian black metal or even the Gothenburg scene of melodic metal, are either mentioned in a sentence or two in the article, or not mentioned at all; in light of this - and of the reasons listed above - having this section is ludicrous.  Unless there is a really convincing counter-argument, I posit that it should stay out of the article.
- 80.178.76.86 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I going to throw my view on this, even though I'm new. I'd say ther has been a movement of many new bands playing Trad. Metal these days, but the deleted examples certainly aren't the ones I'd have used. I don'think the movement is that notable, it's small even within Metal, but bands like Twisted Tower Dire, Ironsword, Battleroar, etc. And older bands like Overlorde and Attacker reformed and releasing new stuff in the past few years. It might be worth a line or two, even if it's not that big/important. But certainly no more if most views are against the idea. Dace59 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I agree with your point regarding the bands you mentioned.  However, they represent a phenomenon entirely different from the one which was trumpeted in the "revival" section (with bands like Wolfmother, The Sword, 3 Inches of Blood, Early Man, Witch, The Illuminati, and so on).  New bands like the ones you mentioned, and older bands like Pentagram and Manilla Road which have existed for decades and are still going strong, are proof that traditional metal has always been alive and well - they should be separated as clearly as possible from this new, hipsterized pseudo-"revival" wave. 80.178.76.86 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  3 Inches of Blood are fun sometimes, but hardly a major or moving band. As for the others, I've only heard Wolfmother and they certainly aren't a Metal band. The others are apprently Doom/Rock/Stoner hybrids. Guess other people need to make their views know on this. I'd be all for noting Trad. Metal staying strong and the influx of new or reforming bands into the genre, certainly. Dace59 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that it's kind of trendy and nostalgia/irony ridden; it's jumping the gun a bit to dedicate a section to the article. But isn't it a bit superficial to say that because a bands audience is associated with another genre their music is that genre? That sort of offhand rejection is just as shallow as the trend don't you think? maxcap 20:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, the less irony has to do with music the better, every use of it just sticks out as hipsters trying to look smart and be cool (But that's my rampent POV so moving on...). But on the point, wouldn't it be better to be using bands that are Metal, without a doubt? Rather than trusting to some media claims. Or using bands that bring up cries of "but they're not Metal!" I'm looking at the likes of Wolfmother on this one. EDIT:- I realise this would need wiki to list enough notable good examples to use and such. Dace59 20:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: maxcap: Yes, that would be rather inaccurate - that is why I noted that there is a certain disparity between those bands' scenes of origin (indie-rock, modern hardcore punk, etc) and the music that they actually play (stoner rock/metal). The  point is, though, that most of those aforementioned bands cannot truly be classified as traditional heavy metal, on purely musical grounds.  And even if they could, their position as "revivalists" is debunked by their own words, by the fact that both the style that the actually play and the style that they are supposedly "resurrecting" have been thriving for a while now, and by the fact that the very talk of this "revival" seems to originate from circles that are out of touch with the actual happenings within the genre.  Add that to relative lack of impact/notability - and that's the gist of what I was saying. 80.178.76.86 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A classic metal-sounding band charting high doesn't necessarily mean anything, but if you have access to the articles you mention, please cite them.  It'll make things so much easier.  WesleyDodds 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not doubting its veracity.  I meant cite it in the article.  WesleyDodds 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my opinion that there has been a resurgence in popularity of traditional metal recently, but none of the bands mentioned (Wolfmother, The Sword, 3 Inches of Blood, Early Man, Witch, The Illuminati) are part of it to me. Wolfmother are a proggish indie rock band, and most of the others are similar - influenced by metal, directly or indirectly, no doubt, but not a "revival" of traditional metal (as if it had died). A resurgence in popularity for bands like Pentagram has been seen though, so that deserves a mention. -Switch t 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The so-called "mid 2000's Traditional Metal Revival" 

message: in the section dealing with the development of metal in the 1980's, why has death and thrash metal been mentioned whist doom metal been left out? Nemesis, Pentagram, St. Vitus  and WItchfinder General were produceing doom *very* early in the 1980's! Furthermore, Doom may be argued to be one of *the* first directions metal took (Black Sabbath) when it was in its 1969 fledling state (see Black Sabbath's debut album with eponymous song - its not even written in pentatonic or hexatonic blues scales!) Doom metal remains a vibrant style today, and developed (esp. in the UK) through the 1990's (eg. Paradise Lost, Anathema, Count Raven, My Dying Bride, Type O Negative etc.)
Why we are on the topic of forgotten sub-styles, where is the technical metal/techno-thrash (eg. Voivod, Watchtower?) The discussion of Black Metal seems cursory at best, and is in fact completely absent from the discussion on developments during the 1990's, and from the section on cultural influence - most insufficient considering the church burning and murder crime wave that began in Norway in the early 90's: This became international news. 
I myself tire rapidly of obsessive and idiotic over-taxonymising of music and art in general, but these are well-recognized and influential developments in Heavy Metal, and not just the preserve of DJ lexicon or a handful of  obscure bands.
"Forgotten sub-styles"? When did Doom, or any real part of Metal roll over and die? Dace59 13:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: scope.  It's not the job of this article to go into detail into every subgenre of metal.  That's what the template and links to other articles are for.  Plus there are recommended size limits for articles (due to browser capabilities) and this article is about 10KB past it; adding stuff about doom metal would be unnecessary and hinder readability. WesleyDodds 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are limits, obviously, but Doom Metal is not - as you appear to imply - some obscure "subgenre". Other metal styles are mentioned at this point in the article (eg. both Thrash and Death) and it is true that Doom pre-dated both these styles and has been developing  concurrently since the late 1960's, as the above comment correctly asserts. The point about the eponymous song "Black Sabbath" is an excellent one: Black Sabbath were one of the grandfathers of heavy metal music, and it was in this Doom style that they first expressed the new terrain that they were transversing. I agree that we don't need 500 words on doom right here, but it definately needs to be at least mentioned - if only so that you can mark-up the words "Doom Metal", add your link, and fulfil the "function" of this latter article...
Dusksailor 15:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Sabbath weren't a doom metal band.  If anything they were just the inspirations for it. WesleyDodds 07:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from *that* perspective, they weren't a Metal band either, but rather "just the inspirations for it" - to borrow a phrase from you. After all, Black Sabbath were referred to simply as "rock and roll" at the time, by themselves, their listeners and by the music press. If we can apply the label of "heavy metal" to Black Sabbath in retrospect, then surely we can also identify them as a "doom metal band" with the benefit of hindsight. At any rate, many listeners and musicians today - and during the 1980's - describe the band's music as doom.Dusksailor 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iommi's solo albums and Black Sabbath's Master of Reality album are about as doomish as you could get. Vegetaman 18:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Doom Metal (and other important sub-genres) missing from history section? 

message: As it stands right now, Mercyful Fate is only mentioned as the originators of the corpse paint in the underground scene. Anyone into the underground scene in 81-84 knows that Mercyful Fate was one of the most important bands, along with Venom and Celtic Frost. The barrage of riffs, shifting song structures and strong rythem section is what spawned Thrash Metal in the first place. The Neo-classical guitar work raised the bar for guitarists everywhere! King Diamond's shifting 7 octave vocal range raised the bar for metal vocalists. Everyone knows they were Metallica's ( And Megadeth's ) biggest influence. Their heavy Satanic lyrics at the time were new, unmatched ( and legit ) and heavily inspired black and death metal. Also, I'll go out on a limb and say King Diamond's extreme way of screaming falsetto is what created the Black Metal guttural screech ( along with Chronos and Tom Warrior's vocal style ). Surely, Mercyful Fate deserve a atleast a small paragraph to themselves.
:Yes, Merciful Fate are important in their own right, but Metallica's and Megadeth's "biggest"     influence? "Everyone knows" you say? I think you are out on your own there! Ever heard of Diamond Head? Or Budgie or Motorhead or Iron Maiden for that matter? Lets not get carried away to prove a good point. I also think that yes, you are way out on a limb with the claim that King Diamond "created" the BM vocal style. He vocal style seems to receive amused dersion from the majority of metal listeners, especially those into the more "extreme" forms of metal, back then and today. More likely that KD was initially attempting to mimic the NWOBHM style of vocals that his musical compositions are clearly derivative of. Have a listen to Merciful Fate demos, and I think you'll hear an attempt at a much more convential NWOBHM vocal style there. Goodness, you might as well claim that Rob Halford or Robert Plant "created" the BM vocal style using this argument!
Dusksailor 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed that claim about KD's "7 octave vocal range"! Haha, that would "raise the bar" as you put it for the human race! Seven octaves? Surely you jest. Raise the bar for digital pitch shifting technology perhaps, but this is beyond the verified capacities of any known human male voice. And while we are on the point of "raising the bar", guitarists had many much more accomplished classical guitarists to inspire them long before (and since) King Diamond quit playing soccer and Merciful Fate started recording in the 1980's! Dusksailor 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercyful Fate? 

message: A complete retraction and apology is expected thank you very much Mr/Ms "Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer", and pronto. Dusksailor 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still waiting for an apology and retraction, and I think that the concealment of your own Wikkipedia identity is both hypocritical and cowardly, and undermines your credibilty and hence the strength of any claim that you have made. Your failure to respond or provide any evidence merely compounds your position, and makes it difficult for others who may in the future correctly identify the activities of the aforementioned banned user should he or she reappear here. 
Dusksailor 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: retraction and apology expected from [[User:Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer|Leyasu Sockpuppet Killer]] for unfounded accusation

message: *Metal music/temp nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal music/temp.
*Gothic Metal/Rewrite nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothic Metal/Rewrite.
Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gothic Metal/Rewrite &  Metal music/temp nominated for deletion 

message: Please remember that Fair Use images should only be used as a last resort where critical commentary is required, not just to "illustrate" an album anytime it is mentioned. Only one image on this page had an explicit relevance to the text. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: Maybe we should consider adding some musical samples to the article like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_hop_music has.
:I've thought about that too, but looking through what was already uploaded proved somewhat lacking in regards to hat might suit this article, barring Metallica and Iron Maiden.  Someone should upload some clips for this article, though.  All soundclips would have to be fair use (30 seconds or shorter) and inserted pertaining to context where appropriate (see Elliott Smith for a random example) to adhere to Featured Article guidelines.
:Suggestions:
*Ozzy Obsourne's "Mr. Crowley" for "Classical influence" section.
*Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" for "Origins"
*Van Halen, Judas Priest, or Iron Maiden for "Classic heavy metal"
*Metallica's "Master of Puppets" for "Underground metal"
*Korn's "Blind" for "Alternative/nu metal"
:Contributions would be much appreciated  WesleyDodds 08:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree
I don't know how to encode a file in ogg format, but would be willing to contribute.  I think I still have that Korn song around here somewhere from when I owned it.  One suggestion though: Black Sabbath would be a much better choice for "origins" and Slayer would be a better choice for "Underground metal."  Metallica were much more known at that point than Slayer and stylistically were quite different from everyone else; something like "Angel of Death" was a bit moe typical for thrash at that time. Ours18 00:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As I see it, they certainly aren't now, but they were for some time in the 80s. Slayer might be better though, as they not only were thrash, but were a sort of proto-death metal. Any in-between recordings with elements of both thrash and early death would be good for "underground metal". -Switch t 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music Samples 

message: Could there be a cross over between grunge and metal? - User:Cronus (band)
Yes, like Seether, but they are post-grunge, alice in chains is metal at times APACOlypse27 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Mudhoney? Yes, probably. Grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock, bringing grunge/metal fusion bands under the banner of alternative metal. --Switch 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grunge Metal

message: Out of curiosity, why were the characteristics removed? I liked them, and I see no reason for their removal. Lehi 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism.  The section's back now. WesleyDodds 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics

message: I know that he says he started the trend, but could we get a source from it? Would a listing of Metal:A Headbanger's Journey count? Desdinova 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dio started devil horns? 

message: I edited this entry a while back, in particular as regards the early 80s history. There was some discussion below about my part about cross-fertilization with punk rock and the NWOBHM, but it lost focus; let me restart that here and also bring in glam, which is not OK the way it is now, in my opinion. If I don't see any comments here in a week or so, I'll have a go at rewriting.
First a general comment: there is a lot of bickering about which band should be mentioned here and there. I think in a general entry like this, no one band should be favored, but there should be a link to a "list" page. The individual bands mentioned in this entry should only serve to characterize trends and developments. 
So, why am I adamant that Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are the appropriate representatives of the NWOBHM? First, I am aware of the fact that Judas Priest is older than Iron Maiden, in fact this was part of the discussion back then (don't know how far back you guys read). I think most written metal histories would agree it makes sense to say both groups spearheaded the NWOBHM. I'll try to dig up some canonical reference, although unfortunately in this business many of the well-written ones are out of print. But it is clear from their albums; the NWOBHM was not just a musical direction, but a movement (lyrical themes, fashion etc). Just take a look at the Priest album British Steel and contrast it with Rocka Rolla, the Priest album that was brought up as an argument that Priest were not part of the NWOBHM. The two albums (BS and RR) might as well have been two different bands. The NWOBHM was characterized by short, energetic punk-like anthems (cf. Breaking the Law), as opposed to slow, soft epics of the 70s. It's true that Judas Priest are older than most other NWOBHM bands, but around 1980 they changed and updated their style, both visually and aurally, in a timely fashion to co-author this new and hugely influential chapter in metal history. 
Probably a separate entry on the NWOBHM needs to be worked out to clarify this, but a summary should remain under this entry.
So, I'd be happy to defend this point of view to death; Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are the main representatives of the NWOBHM (Now Motorhead are brought up, they were an influence but not like Maiden and Priest). And it happened very quickly "around 1980", as I had written, but I'd be happy to be more specific, say 80-84 or so should delineate the "early 80s". This part can clearly be improved but it was criticized for the wrong reasons.
And about glam: Calling Motley Crue and company "the most popular" seems ridiculously LA-centric. Someone kept writing things like this also a few years ago. "Most popular" in terms of what? Record sales? Just take a look at the sales lists. Musical influences? Hardly -- that should be measured in terms of which later bands (mentioned in this entry) quote the supposed influence as their personal influence. Even bands with roots in LA like Metallica were not particularly influenced by glam, whereas the NHOBHM influence is a well-documented (e.g. their covers) and unmistakeable influence on e.g. their first album. In my opinion, for these reasons glam was not a particularly important part of metal history, and should be afforded a correspondingly small amount of space. Gustav Marcus 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk and glam 

message: Uriah Heep was the first band in the world who played "a progressive heavy rock". It was the father of the genre called "progressive metal" which was formed in the 80s. Heep should get a lot more attention because of this in wikipedia although it never sold as many records as the bands like Purple, Zeppelin or Sabbath did. The band's influence to metal music have been significant.
Loijaa 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be, but they don't belong in the lead section.  WesleyDodds 10:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uriah Heep