Talk:Underoath/Archive 2

message: Underoath's early work,I think you find, if you have an extensive knowledge of metal and 'core, is not even close to you're corporatised "emocore". It is, at tamest, melodic death metal, with grindcore, death metal, Un black metal or metalcore.
As for new post-taylor underoath, it is Post-Hardcore, Hardcore or metalcore. you'll find this if you read up on the genre and listen to the genre's. they have the thick guitars, blasting drums and long screamed and growled vocals of the genre. calling them "Screamo" is all wrong, considering they bear no similarities to the genre. just because they mix sing/screams with slightly softer hardcore does not make them screamo. by your crappy logic every band in the metalcore genre would be called screamo, such as killswitch, as i lay dying, i killed the prom queen and parkway drive. funnily enough these are ALL metalcore bands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.189.120 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre-Whore!

message: Do we need so many of them? I think the only ones of any relevance are the Official site & various profiles (Myspace etc) and maybe the AllMusic one. There's no need to have every interview listed and fan sites, maybe we could link to the Links page of underoath777.com because it has most of them anyway. XdiabolicalX 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. At least remove the 'mini-sites' in the external links section. PhilCosby 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I've noticed that die-hard fans of the old Underoath (Act of Depression and Cries of the Past days) are quite vehement in their proclamation of the suckiness of current Underoath; and that's fine, that's their opinion. But I'd rather they not spew their current-Underoath bashing on Wikipedia, what with our principles of fairness and objectivity in mind. Also, I waaaaayyy cut down on the Early Years section; I thought it was a little too much for an era when they sold, what, 5,000 copies of their first two albums combined? While in contrast, the sections on their notable history (when they sold hundreds of thousands of albums) were quite stark in contrast. If anyone disagrees with my actions, I am usually able to be won over by good arguments. Roofi's Publicist 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think that the early years are the stuff most people like to read about but I'm not too bothered. However I think it's people who have just heard the new stuff (i.e. "OMG EMOS!" etc) and don't like it who are doing the vandalism, or most of it. XdiabolicalX 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Coming from one who likes both underoaths, it all depends on your taste of music.  The earlier albums (AOD and COTP) were more hardcore, extreme, and raw.  It is a different sound from the current Underoath.  Fans of the Old UO may be negatively attacking the New UO due to their upset that a new screamo-er (correct me if this is not the new uo) band takes the name of the the once metal core-death metal Underoath.  The Old underoath may have sold less albums due to their genre.  Not many people may find the harder sound of Old underoath pleasing (altough i think its extraordinary). My opinion is that the Old is better than the new.  They had more complicated drum rythems (with DOUBLE BASS),beautifully written lyrics, stronger screams, DEATH GROWLS, WAY heavier guitars and wondreful riffs, and they were younger than the current UO.  But this is only my opinion.  I enjoy more metal, so it wouldnt make sense to critisize on a different genre that im not as interested in.  j_manz92 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there is entirely too much of a silly, nostalia-driven opinion spewing onto the newer underoath sections, about them "selling out", among other things. I have listened to Underoath since Cries of the Path, and I thank the lord that they finally changed, because they were among the cheesiest bands of the post hardcore/metal/anything with screaming genre.71.8.41.143 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please explain why, and sign your comments. XdiabolicalX 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Underoath 

message: The second paragraph of the Early Years section is reading very POV to me, re: 'Rave reviews' etc. I really can't be bothered to read it as it's not much of an interest especially how much this gets vandalised but does anyone else agree? Diabolical 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly, and frankly, I find a lot of the info from that section to be mildly interesting but unnecessary; I feel the article would flow better if we edited some of it (i.e. the numerous member changes, the "rave reviews", etc.). Anyone disagree? Roofi's Publicist 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned it up quite a bit, the opening was a mess & I deleted a lot out of the Early Years section & changed it to read easier although it would probably be better with a re-write, but it still looks like a school essay with lot's of unimportant explaining. Cleaned up the parts after that too although they weren't too bad. Diabolical 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I pretty much completely re-wrote the whole gosh-darned thing. I cut out a lot of stuff, but I feel that the article is in considerably better shape than previous versions. Feedback would be welcomed. Roofi's Publicist 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Which? Violask81976 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Underoath/UNderøath

message: um, all the shit that I have read about what Fat mike said being a rumor are bullshit. At St. Louis, he asked the crowd if they all saw Underoath, and after everyone cheered, he then said "Fuck them, they don't believe in dinosaurs!"
*Ugh, that still pisses me off.  I mean, even Christians believe in dinosaurs.  I'm a Fundamentalist Born-again Christian, and I believe in them.  They're described in the book of Job.--HappyBoy 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOFX Controversy

message: Really sorry to bring up the whole genre thing again. but i added Deathcore as a genre since Act Of Depression is labelled on wikipedia as Deathcore and they did used to be a deathcore band. so it only makes sense right? 
thanks for reading 172.214.9.213 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep it like that right now. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks. Underoath was definitely deathcore back in the day, but after their first two records completely changed. But I'm fine with it either way. xcryoftheafflictedx 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathcore

message: These great peopl are christian metal. They're  any kind of metal. Doppelganger 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, and we don't change things just because some joe-schmo says so. Underoath is a metalcore band that has went through an entire change in band lineup, and yes, they are Christian metal. Just because you think any band that doesn't sound exactly like Judas Priest is comprised of "motherfuckers" and not metal, we're not going to change anything because of your opinion. Xcryoftheafflictedx 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. I think they should stay in the Christian metal genre, at least in this article. Saying they aren't metal is like saying 50 Cent isn't rap. Just doesnt make sense. They have hardcore influences, sure, but their primary genre or style or whatever you want to call it is Christian metal. IronCrow 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  METAL? 

message: What about christian hardcore? underoath are actually mentioned in the christian hardcore page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.47.169.201 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never really though of Underoath as a christian hardcore band. It makes sense though. Christian hardcore sounds alright with me. Razorblade666 21:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian hardcore 

message: "*The lyrics to a multitude of the bands earlier recordings make reference to Dallas' wife dying in a car crash. It is thought that in "It's Dangerous Business Walking Out Your Front Door," However, "It's Dangerous Business Walking Out Your Front Door," was written by current frontman Spencer Chamberlain, while the older lyrics were written by Dallas Taylor. The story is concluded and it is made known that the man in the story purposely got into a car accident to kill his wife so that she could be with God. [citation needed]"
That section above was added into the article. I've removed it because there's no citation at all, and I can't find one to add. Until there's a reliable source identified for this paragrah or for any of the information within, it should be removed, I believe. IronCrow 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: Who added this?
However the band, during one of their most successful years, had multiple internal arguments including: what the record should be named, how many tour dates were to be aranged, and while one member struggled to find his sexuality. After the unpresidented success of their new albumn underoat decided to turn toward a more main stream sound. Also Aron Gillespie and Spencer Chamberlain decided to make public their underground affair. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin328 (talk • contribs) 
:It came from an anon IP that also put false information to the article on Korn.  I don't know jack about Underoath, but based on the anon IP's edit history, I went ahead and reverted the article.  --Jaysweet 22:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just some disgruntled modern music fan, I'm guessing. IronCrow 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait... What? 

message: Shouldn't the "NOFX controversy" section under background be placed before the "777" section since chronologicaly the NOFX thing happened before the "777" release? Razorblade666 00:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOFX Controversy

message: UnderOATH doesn't play screamo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.214.3.216 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Screamo

message: I am sick of the genre debate, but this has to be done. It seems that a lot of people in these discussions have a poor understanding of this band, purely because of their lack of informative media. I am 15, am a great fan of the band, and have been for a very long time, so let me explain...
====They ARE christian====
Underoath is a christian band, all the members are christian, and they pray before every show. Their lyrics also have a distinctly christian flair, although that has been toned down to analogies most of the time due to their wanting to reach the mainsteam audiences.
:Uhh, OK? ~Ambrosia- talk 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Badmouthing and false facts

message: Underoath is a christian band, all the members are christian, and they pray before every show. Their lyrics also have a distinctly christian flair, although that has been toned down to analogies most of the time due to their wanting to reach the mainsteam audiences.
:Uhh, OK? ~Ambrosia- talk 07:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They ARE christian