Talk:Black metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon Black metal is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Metal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Black Metal (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Black Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of black metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sub-genres and fusion-genres[edit]

I just realized this page makes no mention of sub-genres, fusion genres, etc. Most of the other metal subgenre articles have small sections about their sub/fusion genres (see death metal) with links to the main article of that sub-sub genre. This page should have that was well. I propose a section that talks about melodic black metal, symphonic black metal and blackened death metal under their own headings (like the death metal article. We can even have a small black/doom section (see doom metal, they have the section). I will start by adding that section. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for adding a section for the legitimate subgenres but this black/doom thing smacks of original research and neologism. After all, the entry itself states that "pure blackened doom bands are fairly rare, but bands such as" so-and-so "may be considered part of the style, despite their tendency to focus on black metal." Doesn't sound very convincing that this subgenre really exists then. The doom metal article apparently has many problems so I wouldn't use anything from it, quite frankly. --Bardin (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Adding subgenres is overrated, and inventing pseudo-genres such as “melodic black metal”, “symphonic black metal” and “blackened death metal” is stupid. The idea of Black Doom is not that new, though; I know flyers advertising Barathrum as jetblack doom-metal. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything you say is true and I agree. That being said, black/doom is a real genre. I'm sure sources could be found, but it might be hard. I mean, think about it. Both black and doom are very underground now. So bands that combine both are gonna be seriously underground and rare. But I know the genre exists. Argentum is a perfect example (though they do not have a page here on wikipedia). It's just really slowed down heavy black metal (but not gay like "dark metal" [the stuff where they combine gothic and black metal, like mid-period Rotting Christ or CoF or other gay crap]). But, yeah, I suppose it can be left out. But the other "legitimate" genres should be added as you said. So far the only ones I can think of are blackened death metal, melodic black metal and symphonic black metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Tell me where I can find Goth in Cradle of Filth’s music. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Its not original research. clearly lists blackened dooma s a genre, and they are in theory the experts.
Nortt is a very obvious example of blackened doom. actually isn't a reliable source, nor can they be considered experts just because they have a web site, and Nortt is funeral metal with black metal influence...Just because a band describes their music in a certain way doesn't mean that it's a legitimate genre. Mindless Self Indulgence describes their music as 'Industrial Jungle Pussy Punk', but you don't see that mentioned as a legitimate genre anywhere on Wikipedia. rzrscm (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Q: Should we add "Black and Roll" as a sub-genre? I've heard this term recently used to describe Craft, Off And Die, and some Shining recordings? Having trouble finding online examples of its usage though. E. Swann (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

depressive black metal redirects here but no mention is made of the subgenre.

Because it isn't a real subgenre with sources to back it up, which is why it redirects here just like typos tend to redirect to their correct article. rzrscm (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What about blackened death metal (redirected to here -- bands like Impaled Nazarene and Behemoth (band)) -- how should they be incorporated into the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dark Metal?[edit]

Howcome dark metal is redirected to black metal?first of all what they mean by dark metal is that the genre has lyrics having to do with gothic influences such as depression,despair,sorrowness,melancholy and doom influences that also have death metal influences and black metal influences bands like Shade Empire,Graveworm,and Thy Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it has been discussed ad nauseum. People argue over it and won't agree what it is. Also there are only a few sources that even say it exists. I agree, though. Dark metal is black metal fused with gothic metal, like mid-period Rotting Christ or even CoF (though they suck;I mean I think dark metal sucks anyways, but CoF is bad even for dark metal). If someone found some reliable sources supporting its existence then it could be made into an article. There has been a dark metal article on wikipedia before (about 3 times) but each time it was deleted. Too much WP:OR. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

well ive heard it called blathic metal or Blackend gothic ive heard of dark metal as a description tooMalacath (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lmao @ "blathic." I've only heard blackened gothic and dark metal. Mostly dark metal. I don't know why there's not much info about it on the web (that can be found easily, anyway). It is a real genre, although I admit there are not many who have played the style and it's a newer genre. Also, I don't think it gets a lot of attention because of a lack of fans. Everyone I know who knows of the genre doesn't like dark metal, and neither do I. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dark metal exists.It is experimental gothic-/doom-black metal. And it's from the post-black metal developments. However there aren't any realiable sources to describe what the genre's haracteristics are, cause it's a relatively new style with not many well-known bands to play it, so it doesn't have its own page. Xr 1 (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite your sources, please. Saying things like that without sources to back it up is like making laws with no police to enforce it. Zouavman Le Zouave 10:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was addressed to me, however I'll respond.
There are NO reliable sources about dark metal.The only place in the internet to provide some information about it is's why the arcicle of dark metal was deleted.I was actually against this deletion because in the metal circles, people say that or that is dark metal and give some explanations, as I did above.Also in the metal archives there are plenety of bands laballed as dark metal.But this could not prove anything.
I just gave my personal opinion.I think everything that has developed from black metal by some experimentation, like the music of Ihsahn or Samael, or Arcturus, is post-black.But no sources about that, just some tagging...

Xr 1 (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You could restore the article and adapt it according to the German one, which is sourced. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, that therefore reflects your personal vision on the musical landscape and not a reliable testimony made by a published expert in the matter. I think we should spend our time looking for sources rather than dwell on neologisms that still don't have established meanings. Zouavman Le Zouave 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This is talk page. everyone here can share their personal thoughts and views.It's made for this + I've already said there are no sources about dark metal so you could search but you'll find nothing.So, discussing further is rather pointless. Xr 1 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are sources, see above. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is from a previous version of Wikipedia's dark metal article, and is the most accurate I've seen. (all bulleted list items below are quoted from that article.)

  • "Dark metal is a subjective term used to describe metal bands from various genres that have combined traits from symphonic black metal, gothic metal, doom metal, dark wave and black metal[1] such as synthesizer use, acoustic guitar experimentation and/or operatic female vocals. The music can be described as an atmospheric, melodic, more sophisticated sound within the metal genre, and sometimes also with progressive touch. The lyrics are often introspective and poetic. Some dark metal bands also often incorporate death metal influences."

But dark metal is not a "subjective" term. If you really like metal music, you know that it's a term agreed by most metal fans, and a very necessary term. Much like another umbrella term "extreme metal". It should be noted that dark metal includes black metal, but NOT death metal. Again, if you really like metal, you know why. Dark metal should be sad, sorrowful, often slow, and just feels "down".

  • "The term is thought to have been coined by German Band Bethlehem, with their album Dark Metal from 1994.source"
  • "Other most important bands in dark metal genre, are Rotting Christ (mid), Thy Serpent, Deinonychus, Empyrium, Agalloch, Forgotten Tomb and Katatonia (early)."

Especially Agalloch, it's a folk metal (or neofolk, sometimes) band, but cannot be described by any better term than "dark metal". There's no universal definition on "dark metal". Some people think that "dark metal" is simply "metal music that is darker than the usual metal music". Maybe we need a disambiguation here. Pagen HD (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres are descriptive terms for music with specific sound. Simply: it needs to be a universal term to be a genre. Dark metal does not have a specific sound. It is applied by magazines, record labels and bands to cover a range of bands that sound nothing alike. Bethlehem, modern Katatonia, Madder Mortem, Rotting Christ, Novembers Doom and Throes of Dawn are all described as Dark Metal by various commentators but none of these bands sounds alike. Of these bands only Throes of Dawn are almost universally described as Dark Metal, simply because, more than any other band listed in this discussion, they have the most undefinable sound without being either progressive or avant-garde. Ergo, if Dark Metal exists, Throes of Dawn are probably the only Dark metal band... which is nonsense. Ultimately people love to use the term Dark Metal because they want to sound clever, diverse or distant from a particular scene (such as Gothic Metal, which is probably the most apt description for most of the bands listed). Also, saying "if you really like Metal" doesn't change the fact that you're just spouting your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea about Gothic Metal if you really believe those bands to fit in there. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand that the dark metal article was deleted because there was no reliable source. But why redirect it? Is there a reliable source for dark metal being the same thing as black metal? Pagen HD (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mock Black Metal[edit]

Should mock black metal have a mention somewhere. bands like immortal bacon throne, Asspounder and morbid anal fog are bands ive Heard of. although i dont think it is too "important" to include what are all your thoughts- Malacath Serve in Heaven or Rule in Hell (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's pointless. Scskowron (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I second that this is pointless, not to mention that Immortal bacon Throne are not a band, although Nokturnal Bacon Throne is a Morbid Anal Fog song. (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Anal Fog was a real Black Metal band that just happen to make fun of itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Melodic black metal[edit]

someone deleted this page. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Because of a total lack of sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre. The AfD discussion is archived here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I know it was deleted for lack of sources but some bands are directly known as melodic black metal and sound nothing like Darkthrone, Marduk, Mayhem or Gorgoroth and don't have symphonic elements like Emperor, Arcturus or Graveworm. So to my point: what about the odd source that clearly states that they are melodic black metal? If that is so, then shouldn't it be written as such but redirected here? That's just what I think though. Obviously I will get people telling me it's a "fantasy genre" or "it was deleted for lack of sources" such as above. In the underground however, it is a well-known genre. FireCrystal (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no sources to suggest that it is a genre. Yes, some bands are described as "melodic", but then you can find plenty of hits for "raw black metal" as well, and that's not a genre either. Ideally, when all these band articles are completed, then they should have a Style section which can discuss the use of melody in these bands' music, but you cannot conjure up a genre by pointing to uses of the phrase "melodic black metal"... you need sources discussing it as a subgenre. As per the AfD, these sources don't exist. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, we can wait some 20+ years before any real sources appear or that it gets rewritten in a way like folk metal has which would be great but what are the chances of that? If you think that melodic is used as a descriptor, I wonder why melodic death metal wasn't deleted along with it. Though I would guess it is much more known as a subgenre than melodic black and the article does need help but that's a different story. FireCrystal (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The thing about folk metal is that while there isn't a book or an academic essay that has discussed it, there are multiple sources out there treating it as a legitimate genre. There might not be an article page about folk metal on Allmusic but there are reviews on the site that clearly treats it as a genre: eg. "folk metal isn't some empty gimmick; it is a totally legitimate part of world music" here, "Pagan or folk-metal ... has become one of the fastest-growing subgenres in metal" here, etc. The same applies to melodic death metal (moreso since it's been recognized in books). I was not able to find any similar treatment of melodic black metal. Only four reviews on Allmusic even use the term and they just use it an adjective description: eg. "Lord Belial's mix of melodic black metal and powerful death metal". It's the same on eg. "Gehenna started as a melodic black metal band, and then evolved into a more aggressive black metal band". The use of melodic here is the same as the use of powerful or aggressive. That's different to something like "the entire melodic death metal movement" here. Some of the reviews on Allmusic even insert the term melodic death metal under quotation marks to make it clear that melodic isn't being used as just an adjective: eg. "a German band with a Swedish-style approach to what has been termed "melodic death metal"" here, "three of the terms that one hears in connection with death metal are "technical death metal," "melodic death metal" and "blackened death metal"" here, etc. There's even an article just on melodic death metal on --Bardin (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There actually is a master thesis about folk metal. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Melodic black metal must have article and must be accepted as Black metal subgenre. It is big difference between Symphonic black metal and Melodic black metal. There is some reason for discrediting of that genre but that almost the same resason for discrediting i can find for Viking black metal and Blackened death metal. Melodic black metal have scene, have his fetures. I am considering as a reliable source because they are credited on much other articles as a reliable article about Melodic black metal.Vater-96 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, isn't a reliable source, it is WP:OR. It should not be credited in other articles. Also, read WP:GENREWARRIOR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay if is not reliable one what do you say on - This is Blabbermouths article about Swedish Melodic black metal band Siebenburgen. At the beginning it says Melodic black metallers. P.S. I am not Genre warior. I have edited many articles and improved their quality. I just strongly intercede existence of Melodic black metal because it is really a subgenre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vater-96 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think thats enough, because Blabbermouth guys are surely careful about something what they write. I will re-create Melodic black metal article and add it to Black metal style.Vater-96 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
No, they obviously aren’t. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to have to say Blabbermouth is not a reliable source either. It is essentially a large forum, albeit a good one. Anyone who is registered can contribute, entries are anonymous and unsourced.--SabreBD (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Blabbermouth is for sure no good forum. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Depressive Suicidal Black Metal (DSBM)[edit]

If NSBM is given it's own section, shouldn't DSBM be given a section as well? -- Jack

NSBM is a pretty established concept, DSBM isn't. Dark Prime (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. Cdh1984 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
If there's no reliable references for it, it's not. zubrowka74 16:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Huge following that isn't being addressed here. It's most definitely an established concept. (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But none of those is a reliable source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambient black metal[edit]

It was suggested I bring this to this talk page. Given that "black ambient" was deleted at AfD way back when, I'm not sure exactly what this is doing on this page. Can anyone provide even a single source discussing "ambient black metal" as a legitimate subgenre? I know all of the bands listed, so I know what you're talking about, but a quick look through Google didn't seem to throw up any reliable sources. Anyone got any? If not, I'll go ahead and remove it as unsourced original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, anyone who listens to black metal has been aware of this style. It also seems to be frequently discussed/requested on extreme metal forums, with a Google search throwing up ~80,100 results. It goes without saying that reliable sources are scarce for anything black-metal-related – the main reason being that it's an underground genre. Give it some time and I'm sure we can come up with something. ~Asarlaí 15:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Red & Anarchist Black Metal section[edit]

I've removed the section because I think the term is a neologism. The one source for the term itself is unreliable and not really a source. Of course there are black metal bands with anarchist or communist themes, but that doesn't make it its own genre. Also, am I the only one who has a problem with those two terms together? Sure, anarcho-communism exists but, for the most part anarchy and communism are two very separate ideas. Most bands that espouse those ideas are going to talk about one or the other not both. That would be rare. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The term actually is an allusion to the Red and Anarchist Skinheads. While the latter are relevant, the “RABM” term isn’t, although there seems to be a community for it (including this weblog). --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
First of all, we're talking about ideologies, not genres. About the anarcho-communism thing, thats is just your opinion. It is not up to us to pick a name for this new black metal scene. I don't know who came up with this term, but I have read interviews of some anarcho and communist bm bands using this term with not problems. I saw some users adding this section and I think it is proper to acknowledge this "RABM" scene because, politally, black metal it is not just nazism. --Kmaster (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. I know that that was my opinion. That's not why I removed the section. I was just commenting on the weirdness of that. I removed it because I just don't think there are reliable sources for what you are saying with all respect. I've never heard of the RABM scene and I get that that may just be me, but like I said, the sources. I definitely agree with you that black metal is not just nazism. Far from it. Most black metal fans do not share fascist ideals. That's just a very small community. I'd even go so far as to say that most black metal fans are anti-fascist and anti-nazi. Some of the bigger themes within black metal is misanthropy, chaos, freedom and individualism. Fascism goes against all that. Nazism is all order and intolerance. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 02:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not Kmaster, but I'll reply here. I certainly agree with almost all of what you've said above; though I don't see any problems with the "Red & Anarchist Black Metal" term. It's just like "Red and Anarchist Skinheads" (which can relate both to redskins and anarcho-skins). If the "RABM" term is a neologism and should be avoided - well, let it be so, but I don't see any reasons why even the brief mentions of RABM bands should be deleted. At least we have sources for them (and NOT only webzines and myspaces). Black Kronstadt (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The term just isn’t relevant; and besides, politics aren’t Black Metal. --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

i started the section RABM. a similar section already exists in Spanish Wikipedia and anyone can go and see that i didnt create it. i might only have added information there. on the reasons for the inclusion of this section i think enough has been said by black kronstadt and kmaster and even by the same person who erased it in the first place who recognizes such bands. anyway ill try to add more references to streghten the reliability of the information there.--Eduen (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a neologism; you've added it twice, under two different names, which I think is a pretty strong indication that the term is not in widespread usage. The "sources" you've included consist of Myspace and Blogspot, neither of which would ever pass WP:RS. You need something in a print magazine or book, published by an independent, third-party source distinct from the bands. There *are* some websites that pass WP:RS, but that doesn't include any of the metal webzines out there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Even Encyclopaedia Metallum? There are over 10000 links to it, so I guess it's widely used as a reliable source. Same for Acronym Finder. Black Kronstadt (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Metal Archives should never be used as a source. I'll set about getting rod of those you've mentioned shortly. Ditto for Acronym Finder. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

well i can accept the criticism of those kind of references. now i hope you dont believe i invented that thing. just putting red and anarchist black metal in google you will get a lot of different pages from different places talking about it in those exact terms. If you put National Socialist Black Metal you will get similar references as far as "reliability".--Eduen (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing in Google that would pass WP:RS, but if you find anything, please feel free to bring it here (preferably to the talk page first). Regarding the National Socialist black metal page, whilst there are many problems with that page (most of it is original research synthesis, for instance), it still contains many reliable sources to demonstrate its notability. "RABM" has nothing; like I said, you really need some print sources... music magazines and the like (not fanzines! Proper, commercially published ones!) are the way forward. If those don't exist, then the subgenre isn't notable enough to be worth mentioning, even in passing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
No offence, but your version of a RABM section is certainly worse than mine. Your edits doesn't even mention such well-known bands as Panopticon or Sorgsvart, and the only links you had are the Myspace and Blogspot links. Of course blogs aren't reliable sources (even if it's my blog :)). However, I still can't understand why the bands' interviews and their official websites aren't reliable sources. The subgenre in question is fundamentally uncommercial, so I think it would be very hard to find any mentions of RABM in commercial magazines. But I've read Wikipedia:Anarchism referencing guidelines and it clearly states that articles on anarchism-related topics are likely to rely more heavily on self-published sources (fanzines, etc.) than would be acceptable for most other Wikipedia articles. At least I see there are no problems with references to Profane Existence, which is an uncommercial fanzine too. Black Kronstadt (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

i guess we could start by readding the section on leftist and anarchist black metal avoiding the neologism RABM as the title of the section (which doesnt mean it couldnt be mentioned inside the section. In spanish wikipedia they titled it "anarchist and communist black metal". As far as references what black kronstadt suggests are good solutions. Editing anarchism realted articles i have found those kinds of problems. Black Metal on itself is a very underground and anticommercial kind of music and worse if it is leftist or anarchist. For example in the article Punk ideologies they have small sections on adherence to specific ideologies across the political spectrum from nazi punk to anarchist punk. If the black metal article already has a section on ideology, it must talk about leftist and anarchist bands just as it speaks about fascist bands or apolitical bands. I guess a section on "satanism" might also be a good inclusion on the ideologies section and in some web forum on RABM i heard there is some band or people speaking of "anarcho satanism". Maybe also neopaganism. Of course anarcho-satanism might need some more good references to be mentioned (who knows? i might be able to find it in an interview) but the existence of leftist and anarchist black metal bands, i think cannot continue to go unmentioned in this article.--Eduen (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

f it's so "fundmentally uncommercial" as to not be mentioned in print magazines, then there's not a snowball's chance that it's notable enough for a mention on Wikipedia. Don't really care about the "anarchism project referencing guidelines", as they have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Find sources that pass WP:RS or stop wasting everyone's time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, WP:ANCITE is Wikipedia policy. Zazaban (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I need to apologize for not so carefully reading Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system before - it could save our time indeed, because now it's clear for me why you're wrong. First of all, there are no rules that impose the mandatory use of the commercial print media for references - neither in Wikipedia:RS, nor in Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, it's clear that electronic media are acceptable, as long they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: "Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria" - Wikipedia:SOURCES. Same for non-commercial zines and other self-published sources - they aren't ultimately banned by any rule, but: "Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found" - Wikipedia:Verifiability. Well, I can understand some of these policies in a wrong way since my knowledge of English is far from perfect, but there is one more strong proof of my correctness:

"Example related to WP:RS: "Source X is not sufficiently credible for this article on music – the author doesn't have any peer reviewed papers in a music journal!" More generally, this example shows removal or marginalizing of notable viewpoints (breach of WP:NPOV) on the grounds that the cited sources do not meet the editor's named standard [even though they do meet the communal standard]. Wikipedia:Reliable sources anticipates that reliable sources with differing levels of reliability and provenance may coexist, and that reliable verifiable sources of reference material will often be available from different types of source, not just one or two preferred by a particular editor. Not every notable view on music is documented in a music journal; not every notable view on scientific topics is documented in science journals"

- Wikipedia:Gaming the system. That's exactly our case. You're definitely following an overly strict interpretation of the policy, which is against the guidelines. Black Kronstadt (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is "gaming the system", and whilst some electronic sources are acceptable per WP:RS (you'll note the hundreds of references I've added to, say, list articles from Allmusic, MusicMight and Google Books links), Blogspot and Myspace don't pass muster. You've yet to name even a single RABM band that woul qualify for an article under core WP:N guidelines, so how you can claim this "subgenre" is notable is beyond me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, Iskra (band) and Wolves in the Throne Room already have articles, and they both are considered RABM. Yes, these articles are poorly sourced, but I can't see any notability problems with them. I'm not sure about Panopticon or Skagos, but Sorgsvart is certainly notable enough for an article (judging from WP:MUSIC guidelines). And BTW, Kmaster's version of a RABM section haven't any Myspace or Blogspot links (it even haven't any EM links). Moreover, what about Justin Davisson's paper "Extreme Politics and Extreme Metal: Strange Bedfellows or Fellow Travelers?" (you can get the PDF here)? There are mentions of some RABM bands (namely WITTR, Sorgsvart, Order of the Vulture, Fall of the Bastards, Timebomb and Blood of Martyrs), and I guess it's a reliable academic publication. Black Kronstadt (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
As those bands aren’t Satanic, they do for sure not play Black Metal. Besides, it is new to me that Wolves in the Throne Room’s albums feature socialist or anarchist lyrics or manifestos (similar discussion: de:Diskussion:Wolves in the Throne Room#Streichung der „linken“ und „ganz andere“ Äußerungen). --217/83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Struggling to find sources describing WIITR as "RABM", although the fact that they're anarchists seems well-established; it's the existence of RABM as an established and legitimate subgenre that is in question and I personally can't find any evidence of this. The academic reference is certainly very interesting and I shall read it thoroughly later (although it also does not use the phrase "RABM"), but I've never come across the ID Press, so have no idea whether they was WP:RS; shall look ito. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've never heard nor read the RABM, but that could be because I live in Tasmania... I have definately read WITTR referred to as Eco-Black Metal, both in print (Unrestrained issue 36 pg. 36) and on the WITTR site in the past but it appears that particular Artist Statement has been removed. I believe that the term was invented by the band to refer to themselves - making it a Peacock Term? ZWM (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked a question about Inter-Disciplinary Press here. Looks like the other paper from that page is a reliable source, and the paper by J.Davisson isn't obviously unreliable, but it may depend on how respected he is as a commentator on this subject. Additionally, I've asked the same question about Acronym Finder, but nobody could give me the answer. For me it is a reliable source, since WP:RS accepts electronic media that have enough editorial oversight. If it isn't, then we can call it just "anarchist black metal" (like it was done in Russian and Spanish Wikipedias), without mentioning "RABM" at all.Black Kronstadt (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Still nowhere near enough to satisfy either WP:N or WP:RS for a music article. You need multiple sources from, essentially, commercial print media. No-one doubts that leftist black metal bands exist; however, there's no evidence that it's remotely notable as a subgenre. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. As the one who started this thread years ago, I now realize I was somewhat wrong. No, it's not really a subgenre, but it is definitely an ideological movement that is gaining momentum and notoriety within the black metal scene, mostly as a counterpoint to NSBM. Although there is a tendency for RABM bands to add punk (especially crust punk) elements in to their music. Navnløs (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Atmospheric Black Metal and Depressive Black Metal[edit]

Depressive Black Metal (DBM) is a new form of Black Metal. Me and many other people don't accept to put DBM Bands into Ambient Black Metal/Black Ambient. Also need a new section for Atmospheric Black Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's called "Depressive Suicidal Black Metal" (DSBM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And DSBM != "Ambient Black Metal". Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same. Musically, they have a fair bit in common. However, the vocals of DSBM tend to be more 'extreme' (i.e., shrieked) and the lyrical content is often much darker. I think it's worth addressing more in depth at least as a major subgenre of black/ambient, if not as its own genre. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Find a source and feel free to include. If you can't, don't. Simple, really. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what do you members of the local edit mafia consider to be a reliable source? Don't link me to some guidelines page; they don't address the issue adequately. I can find a number blogs and such which regard DSBM as a genre. But the thing is, you all don't seem to agree with them. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Books discussing the subject, news articles, major reviews etc. No blogs. Nymf hideliho! 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Blogs aren't going to cut it. Find an article or interview published by a reliable source such as a music web site, and we'll consider it. Whether we agree with them or not isn't the issue, the issue is whether it's a reliable source and not the opinion of a small group. Somebody tried to add a section on it yesterday, and all it did was describe black metal in general and in no way differentiated it from "DSBM". rzrscm (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Eco black metal?[edit]

At some point, "eco black metal" was added to the Stylistic divisions section. However, the one source provided is an interview with Wolves in the Throne Room in which they describe their music as part of an "eco-black metal consciousness". I really do not think that this is a reliable enough source to keep this fringe genre around in the article. The blurb as it stands sounds very crufty ("Cascadian Black Metal scene"?). As such, am am going to boldly remove this bit from the article. If anyone disputes this, please discuss. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I totally agree. Someone just added it and I was not removing it because I thought there was some agreement about it. Feel free and revert it. Vater-96 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not a subgenre. There is a movement within the black metal scene by a number of newer bands (moslty influenced by WitTR) that are more environmentally concious and eschew other more traditional "evil" lyrics in favor of nature-oriented lyrics and play in an atmospheric style (again very infl. by WitTR). Not really a subgenre, though. Just a bunch of bands really infl. by WitTR who are trying to start their own black metal movement which has basically lost its teeth in favor of a more indie-hippie direction. Not that I'm saying that's a bad thing, or a good thing. It just is. Navnløs (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Black Metal's obvious grindcore influences (blast beat, sloppy technique, environmental "concerns" and anti-establishment thought in lyrics) can rule out the idea of "Eco-" as a sub-genre entirely. Those newer bands are just going back to the roots before "Lords of Chaos" (which focused on the ir/releigious aspects)was printed. ZWM (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

What the heck? Tell me where old Sodom, Venom, Mercyful Fate etc. lyrics showed “environmental ‘concerns’”. And even though many second wave bands were inspired by forests (I mean Black Metal bands, not Pagan/Viking etc. bands), they still were no ecologists (at least not generally, I think Fenriz is). --217/83 13:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblack metal/ Christian black metal[edit]

A section should be added (probably under ideology section under NSBM) about unblack metal. Navnløs (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there a section about tis at some point ? Perhaps it was deleted. zubrowka74 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but there definitely should be a section for this. Navnløs (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ha, I was right, here it is. It was deleted by this edit without any explaination. Objections to its reinstatement ? zubrowka74 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Should never have been removed. Navnløs (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Subgenres according to Rate Your Music[edit]

From Rate Your Music (RYM: Black Metal Black Metal:

    Atmospheric Black Metal
    Depressive Black Metal
    Melodic Black Metal
    Pagan Black Metal
    Symphonic Black Metal

I think Depressive Black Metal and Atmospheric Black Metal are well known subgenres. Gazaneh (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Rate Your Music is not a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What about "Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazaneh (talkcontribs) 09:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because the staff isn't professional, and the content is user generated in any case.--¿3family6 contribs 11:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As Black Metal is a rather niche genre you will have a hard time to find "reliable sources". But these subgenres do exist without doubt. In the German wikipedia there is a subsection about "modern developments in black metal". I think it's worth mentioning these various Atmospheric/Ambient/DS/Shoegaze/Hipster/US/Post/... subgenres. But even though I regularly listen to this kind of music I'm not able distinguish them clearly, someone with more insight should write it. If you measure relevance by number of bands, sold albums, size of concerts etc. this modern black metal is far more relevant than NSBM (but probably less media attention for obvious reasons). Bands like Krallice, Wolves in the Throne Room, or Liturgy are mentioned in several main stream newspapers and magazines (just google). DvHansen (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You may know about my objections to the so-called “reliable sources” guideline, but that doesn’t mean I would accept this site as a reference. If you want these bands you refer to to be mentioned, come up with these “several main stream newspapers and magazines” and not comments like “just google”. --217/83 14:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't care about the specific bands or someone's favourite super niche subgenre (and I doubt there are any notable differences between Atmospheric, Ambient, Shoegaze, etc.) but the article almost completely ignores the last 10-15 years of black metal, anyway here some reliable source I found within a minute:
Good sources, but none of them really clearly support a definable "subgenre", just modern directions in black metal. They do, however, highlight one part of the article that is curiously nonexistent: modern developments. The article's narrative of the history seems to stop after describing the Second Wave; one would get the impression that black metal kind of just disappeared after Varg's trial ended in 1994. This should definitely change. Seems to me that people have become too hooked up on including/removing subgenres while simply ignoring meaningful expansion of the article's prose. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
That's what I have in mind. A subsection about modern developments including DSBM and the various "hipster" subgenres. DvHansen (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
You need an article specifcally about "DSBM" in a reliable source, or it can't be included. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't care if we refer to it as a subgenre or simply write something like "bands like [...] incorporated a more dark/depressing sound with lyrics focussing on suicide, depression, and stuff". But it's a notably development in BM. DvHansen (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Any "modern developments" section should be about the general progression of the genre (cultural prominence, etc.) from 1994 on and should not overemphasise alleged "subgenres". Stylistic innovations may be discussed as appropriate, but genre-warrior label-slapping should be avoided unless reliable sources discuss it. That may seem "unfair" for a lot of underground scenes, but there needs to be some set of standards for inclusion around here, and opinions of individual editors don't cut it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that more recent bands and their popularity should be mentioned. Disagree that any of the above exists as a legitimate subgenre, and cannot find any reliable sources discussing them as such in any detail; note that you need an article about the subgenre, not just a usage of the term in relation to a particular band. And seriously - "hipster bacl metal"?! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
"Hipster BM" is just a term used by self declared "trve black metalheads" to describe the various new developments in BM that don't use the violent images from the second wave. DvHansen (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you don't have any reliable sources discussing that as a legitimate subgenre. It sounds like a pejorative term to me, rather than a "genre". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No one wants this term in the article, I just use it (and DSBM) to describe what is missing in the article. Call it "new wave of american bm", "ambient", "shoegaze", "post" or whatever. All these terms essentially describe the same: A new (and quite successful) development in BM within the last 10-15 years incorporating ambient, post rock, and whatever else. Most of these new bands also ditched the silly and violent imagery of the second wave. DvHansen (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
No, all of these terms need to be avoided without sources discussing these stylistic progressions; please note (again) that descriptions of specific bands are not relevant. We need journalistic discussion of these progressions in general.Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
These terms are already used in e.g. Deafheaven and Wolves in the Throne Room, so I assume there are already reliable source. DvHansen (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Also the above article from Die Zeit mentions "shoegaze" and "post rock". DvHansen (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
DvHansen, this is an absolutely ignorant comment, considering Black Metal’s roots. As I stated somewhere else on this talk page, these bands leave Black Metal’s tradition and aren’t even Black Metal by not being Satanic; I know nowadays journalists still label them that way, but Black Metal’s tradition is that of bands like Rotting Christ, Mayhem, Archgoat and others, which had no common style, yet were considered Black Metal bands due to their Satanic background. Like Erik of Watain stated: “To be honest, I haven't seen anything anywhere that can compete with our scene in Sweden. Especially not in the USA! I spit scornfully at their feeble attempts of being 'innovative' and taking Black Metal into the living rooms of normal citizens. Fuck you!” (WATAIN. Black Metal Militia. In: Slayer, no. 20, Blood Fire Death, 2010, p. 9.) And no, I do not oppose bands like Shining (so-called DSBM, though Kvarforth used the term “Suicidal Black Metal”) or these “hipster” bands or however you call them being mentioned (as long as you provide references), but your comment on the roots. --217/83 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe not TRVE KVLT black metal, but the genre at large isn't ideologically/lyrically restricted to Satanism except in the pretentious eyes of purists. Discussion of that sort should be saved for elsewhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Not anymore than the comment I replied to. And my reply is not “pretentious” but referring to the tradition ignored above. --217/83 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Erik's quote was good for striking a GRIM pose and having a good chuckle, but demonstrates little as far as we're concerned here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
No comment. --217/83 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to point out (like it's been done on other metal related talk pages) that Black Metal is already a sub-genre of Metal. "Depressive Suicidal", "Melodic" or "Pagan" are only styles of Black Metal, maners in which it can be played like you would say "mid-tempo black metal". That said, I think it should still be mentioned in the article, just not as sub-genre. A "recent developments" section has been suggested and I second this. zubrowka74 17:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I added some information on the development after Euronymous was murdered. I had already added all the information on the Norwegian style becoming dominant, now I moved them to a new section and added a few sentences about the Jungian interpretation of the church burnings leading to the development of NSBM. Maybe I can add something about the suicidal bands and these newer ones influenced by Shoegaze and Post-Rock, of course not in the stylistic divisions section. --217/83 19:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Progressive Black Metal as a page here?[edit]

Should the people here on Wikipedia have a page for progressive black metal? There is more and more bands that are popping up that are becoming that, or they are evolving to that particular genre in general. It is not a original research, I know that by listening to it, for about six months now. I thought there was supposed to be a page on this particular page, but of course, the people have to argue on the genre--and they do not get a page under way, because of what the "true" genre is supposed to be... Just like the progressive death metal and the technical death metal page[s] that are separate, for once on Wikipedia; it will never happen to that because the people are too lazy to define of what they it is actually, and they just state what the music has in store for them, in their own opinion. Like this, for example: "Extreme progressive jazz-blues black metal." What is that supposed to be in general when people do that? I know that you are supposed to listen to the music, but really?... Furthermore, bands like: Opeth (first two albums only), Agalloch, Enslaved, Krallice, Nachtmystium, Virus, Alcest, Sigh, Sunn O))), Arcturnus, Deathspell Omega, Drudkh, Oranssi Pazuzu, Cobalt and Negura. Those are prime examples of bands that I can find as a source for progressive black metal, without the "original research" label that Wikipedia implies for them. panicpack121 17:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, second-party sources that describe such a genre? If not, then it is original research and will not be included. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have links that I have found, but I don't know if that they're actually reliable, you get what I'm saying? Here are the links--just tell me if they are not up to Wikipedia code or they are up to Wikipedia code and whatnot:

There is the links to that. Try to see if it is verifiable for Wikipedia. panicpack121 2:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC).

The only reliable sources in that list are, The Boston Phoenix, Pitchfork Media, National Public Radio, and Popmatters (these are all excellent!). For progressive black metal, the review only says "progressive," not "progressive black metal," so using that as a ref is original synthesis, Pitchfork Media and Popmatters are the same way, and NPR only mentions chord progressions, which has nothing to do with the style of metal at all. The Phoenix source is actually a good case for mentioning psychedelic black metal, as it actually discusses what psychedelic black metal is, instead of just slapping the label on a band. Anyway, that's my verdict.--¿3family6 contribs 15:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man for that. It took me awhile to find links for the genre of progressive black metal--but still, I thank you for telling me if they are actually verifiable or not. panicpack121 19:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Generally, you want something that is not self-published, that is written by a professional, and, depending on the source in question, editorial oversight. WP:RS should help you get an idea. Glad to help.--¿3family6 contribs 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, we can ignore all of the webzines. None of the others talk about "progressive black metal" as a genre. We had the same issue years ago with "melodic black metal" and "brutal death metal". The adjectives are simply being used as descriptors, not as evidence of a separate musical subgenre; you would need reliable sources talking about the "subgenre" in detail in and of itself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Blackgaze / Black metal with shoegaze?[edit]

Would this be relevant within this article? Bands like Alcest and others would fit in this. I'm sure there's plenty of written material out there on this offshoot of both genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide references to that written material, then it would be relevant. Make sure that the material meets the requirements of reliability though.--¿3family6 contribs 03:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The name "Blackgaze" is only used by the websites like Rate Your Music. This fusion genre has black metal, post-metal (post-black metal), and shoegaze elements (shoegaze black metal). Winter Gaze (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I never read the term “Blackgaze” before today, but those bands may be included if written material is provided. Most of those bands don’t actually play Black Metal, though; as I stated above: Rotting Christ, Mayhem, Archgoat and others had no common style, yet were considered Black Metal bands due to their Satanic background. Non-Satanic bands used other terms back then, because their music was and is therefore not Black Metal. --217/83 14:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a common genre in the metal music since 2010. Blackgaze is a name that used by some metal music fans, But it's not a common or accepted genre name. Bands like Alcest perform this type of music. People call this music: shoegaze black metal, shoegaze post-black metal, shoegaze post-metal, ..., and finally Blackgaze! But in my opinion; Alcest-ish music and sound is post-metal with shoegazing (or shoegazing with post-metal) plus some black metal elements. Current Alcest works and similar bands fit into the post-metal and shoegaze category. Winter Gaze (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
You can even have black-country chamber music or electro-deathwave, as long as it's referenced by reliable sources. zubrowka74 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. exactly. I agree with you. Blackgaze/Shoegaze black metal is a new term/name and if it has usage in the reliable sources, we can use it in the Wikipedia. This new term is something like "depressive black metal" or "atmospheric black metal". They are common in the metal community and fans, but not in the professional reviews or websites like Allmusic. Winter Gaze (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Terrorizer magazine frequently refers to Blackgaze, as well as depressive/suicidal black metal, as does Zero Tolerance magazine. Would these be reliable sources, if I were able to dig them out? Note: The writers for these magazines often contradict each other, and some might ridicule 'overly-specific' genre names in the very same issue that they are used straight. (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, see the list of references you can use Baz posted here. --217/83 18:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Article structure[edit]

I think it is nonsense to separate the stylistic divisions from the characteristics and the ideology from the lyrics by putting the history section between them. I also would like to start a paragraph on the Greek style but am not sure where to include it (not the history section!) nor how to merge the stylistic divisions and characteristics sections, so I thought I should ask first. --217/83 13:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not agenst shifting Stylistic divisions, but I think Ideology should stay wher' it is. The Ideology section is big; it would dwarf the rest of the Characteristics and would be giving undue weight (especially to Unblack Metal and NSBM). The Chracteristics section should be an overview of the most common black metal traits. ~Asarlaí 17:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Disagree Stylistic divisions and Chracteristics are kinda diffrerent sections. Stylistic divisions shows all subgenres of this genre and why they are different from the original style, while Chracteristics section gives an overview of the most essential and important traits of the genre at all. Chracteristics gives a more general view of the genre, while Stylistic divisions is totally specific to each subgenre.
At last, almost all metal artcles has a separated section for their own subgenres, so why it shoud be different with Black Metal's article? ABC paulista (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even “guitars” if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent “general Black Metal” defined by the Norwegian style’s elements. That’s just wrong, but I’m to blame, too, because that’s where I started the War Metal section. But thinking about the structure, I see it is the wrong place. Symphonic Black Metal and Black Doom can be seen as stylistic divisions of whatever kind of Black Metal (e. g. Barathrum’s music is not “Norwegian-esque” at all but rather comparable to Necromantia, as done by the former label), but not the Greek and War Metal styles; they are on a level similar to the Norwegian one, only that they haven’t been mistaken as “the definition of Black Metal” later on. If these were included in the characteristics section, I would have no objection to keep it separated from the stylistic divisions. And I don’t know about “almost all metal artcles” [sic!] because I don’t watch all of them (and I have more of these on my German watchlist than on the English project). --217/83 06:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I kinda agree with the "Greek" statement, but there's nothing on the War metal section that shows the existance of some divergence with the First Wave style or even with the Norwegian one, only describing about how the subgenre born (thus not having elements describing any characteristics). I belive that it's better to keep War metal on the stylistic divisions section (since it's considered as an subgenre of black metal, and all subgenres must be on that section), but it would be interesting putting some notes about War metal strucuture on the characteristics section. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As explained above, War Metal (Finnish bands, Blasphemy etc.) is no more or less a subgenre than Greek or Norwegian Black Metal. It’s just not that easy to find references, but I am planning to look for some reviews that may help in this case. --217/83 13:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Arent Greek and Norwegian BM scenes rather than styles or sub-genre ? Sure, they might have distinctive element but take exemple from the Thrash article : Bay Area Thrash has it's distinctive sound and it's still a scene. zubrowka74 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just like zubrowka said. Greek and Norweian ones are just regional scenes that have some particular characteristics within the genre, but that is only applied to that scene with few exceptions. Just like Swedish Death Metal, Teutonic Thrash Metal, Bay Area Thrash Metal, Finnish Doom Metal, etc. But War metal is a substyle, a subgenre of this one, sharing some common characteristics of the main genre, but introducing something new. However, a subgenre like War metal is not related with an particular region or scene, being spread around the world without a niche, like anothers subgenres (Stoner metal, Sludge metal, Death/doom, Deathgrind, Viking metal, Deathcore, etc.). ABC paulista (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you see the problem when you replace “Norwegian” with “Norwegian-inspired”? That’s just one way to play Black Metal, which many falsely believe to be “the style of Black Metal” or something. With bands like Blasphemy and Archgoat, War Metal is obviously not a regional scene, but neither on any level subordinated to the Norwegian or Norwegian-inspired style. Again, see above: “It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even ‘guitars’ if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent ‘general Black Metal’ defined by the Norwegian style’s elements.” --217/83 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
So, the problem isn't with War metal position in this article, but with the idea that it's passing to the readers. Beacuse the Norweigan scene is, by far, the most important and influential lack Metal scene, obviously it will take some amout of notability in the genre at all. But, if the article is leading people to believe that the Nordic style is the "true", original one, so there's something wrong with it.
So, the correct thing to do isn't move War metal to another section, but reconstruct the article to eliminate this misleading idea.
Also, if War metal, Norweigan style and Greek one are both considered being part of the "Black Metal family", so they must have something in common to make part of the same genre. Otherwise, at least one of the three above isn't a kind of Black metal and is on the wrong article. ABC paulista (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you understand the problem. I do agree the Norwegian scene and style became the most influential form of Black Metal, but the problem is there is so much more to Black Metal than the Norwegian sound. I hope you don’t actually wonder what War Metal, Norwegian and Greek Black Metal have in common; that is not the music but the content, which is Satanism (remember Mercyful Fate). Again, see above: “It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even ‘guitars’ if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent ‘general Black Metal’ defined by the Norwegian style’s elements.” As I explained here: “Bands such as Rotting Christ, Mayhem and Archgoat had no common style, yet were considered Black Metal bands due to their Satanic background. Non-Satanic bands used other terms back then, because their music was and is therefore not Black Metal.” And these quotes are just about the second wave; for the first, just see Mercyful Fate. --217/83 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... So, there's a giant confusion about what is Black metal. Black metal's concept as an ideological movement and Black metal's concept as a music genre are mixed in the artcle, what, in my opinion, is a big mistake. There must be a way to separate these entities.
But still, even if there's nothing common between War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal, there's some characteristics that can be applied for both Greek and Norwegian Black Metal. The same goes between War Metal and Norwegian Black Metal, with other characteristics. Symphonic black metal shares some traits with Viking metal and suicidal black metal. And so it goes on... Until we found that some traits are more common than others! And that's what serves the Characteristics sections: Synthesize the most common and defining characteristics of a genre.
And then, we'll find out that most of these trais are present in the Norwegian Black Metal, and that all other kinds of Black Metal share some sound similarities with the Norwegian scene. That's because it was the Norwegian scene that made Black Metal a distinct genre, separating it from it's "father", Thrash Metal, and "brother", Death Metal. In the first wave, Black Metal was way more ideological than stylistic. Even the sources here states that the first wave bands were almost all Speed and Thrash Metal bands with satanic lyrics, in an epoch that there was no distinctive boundaries between Thrash, Death and Black metals. It was only in the second wave that Black metal earned unique traits that separated it from another subgenres. That's why the Norwegian scene gets so much attention. ABC paulista (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes with what most reliable sources say, giving more prominence to the majority view but also mentioning the minority ones. The majority view is that 'black metal' is defined by a set of musical traits (shrieked vocals, tremolo riffs, asf), and most sources agree with this view. The minority view is that black metal can be any kind of metal so long as it's "Satanic". This would mean that every metal band who has written "Satanic" lyrics is black metal. A smaller minority hold that only genuine Theistic Satanists can play black metal. This would mean that bands such as Burzum, Darkthrone, Immortal, Satyricon, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Venom (who coined the term 'black metal') are not black metal and never have been. ~Asarlaí 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
More or less. There are a few more views; e. g. some are even more specific, holding that only genuine Devil worshippers (what some call “Christian” Satanism) can play Black Metal. And “that black metal can be any kind of metal so long as it's ‘Satanic’” was originally not a minority view. And even those who believe that Black Metal was defined by a set of musical traits probably still list releases as Black Metal in some cases, e. g. if they come from older bands like Archgoat. --217/83 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I still have to look for some more War Metal-related references, but it’s not forgotten. --217/83 13:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There are not many. --Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg, formerly active using the static IP adress 12:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Janaza fake?[edit]

The information regarding the Middle-Eastern band Janaza should probably be removed due to the controversy surrounding the artist, and especially since no citations are given in the first place. The picture of the artist that has been circulating was found out to have been stolen and manipulated, and not much is known about the artist's legitimacy. (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oriental black metal[edit]

I've been thinking mentioning Melechesh, Salem, Arallu, Al-Namrood and similar bands in this article – proposed text here [changed link] (adapted from this). What do you think? Please, suggest me what should I add, remove or reword in that text. Nite-Sirk (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I know their names (of course) but not every mentioned band’s music, and I don’t know about Oriental Black Metal being mentioned as USBM, NSBM, DSBM and all these other nonsense terms (though you didn’t claim that). Is there any such thing as a common musical style (see e.g. Greek bands) e.g. due to scales they use, or something else they have in common besides being Oriental and being called Black Metal? If yes, they deserve a mention in the subgenre section, but I don’t think so. So I would include them somewhere in the history just as I included NSBM, the USA, those who “went deeper into the abyss”, and others. There is a Middle East section, so maybe you can find some way to combine these (I think only Salem predated the second wave [as did Mortuary Drape, who are mentioned in a paragraph about Italy in the post-second wave section], and most bands came after it). --217/83 06:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
My idea is precisely to add these somewhere in the history section. Since Salem and Mortuary Drape were formed in 1985 and 1986, respectively, they probably should be mentioned in the first wave section; Langsuyr, Melechesh, Odious, Arallu and Al-Namrood should be added before the paragraph about the anti-Islamic bands. Would this be okay? And now that I think about it, this article also needs to mention Parabellum, Reencarnación and Inquisition from Colombia. Also, the article about Ayat needs some work. Could you help with sourcing it? Nite-Sirk (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If the phrases about Salem and Mortuary Drape refer to the time after 1986 (as I assume), it’s better to add them to the section about the time between the first two waves, alongside Morbid Angel (formed in 1984 as you know), Tormentor (formed in 1986 but notably mostly for their second demo released in 1988), Master’s Hammer etc. For the rest, do as you want. If there is any problem, we can still discuss this, can’t we? I’ll see what I can do for the Ayat article; there is nothing on the German Rock Hard and Legacy sites but I found a Metal Hammer feature. I will probably add it to the article this afternoon or evening. --217/83 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Just added some information about Sabbat (Japan), Parabellum, Reencarnación, Salem, Mortuary Drape, Sigh, Melechesh, Arallu, Odious, Al-Namrood and Langsuyr (diff). What do you think? And thank you for your changes to the Ayat article. Nite-Sirk (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it really adds to the article. Notability should be the determining factor here—that is, have these bands sparked a major movement within the genre or within their respective countries, or are they just marginal curiosities? Singular bands may be notable enough for their own articles, but I'm not sure that namedropping a bunch of bands just because they happen to be from other countries is really all that relevant. Maybe a few are significant enough, but this seems like an awful lot, and the number of redlinks is somewhat concerning. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Which of the bands I added do you feel aren't notable enough for the history section? Nite-Sirk (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Lothar.
Nite-Sirk, I appreciate the work you've done, but you've added far too much detail on these bands. The amount of detail should depend on the band's notability. Venom and Bathory—two of the founders of black metal—have a paragraf each, which is more than what bands like Darkthrone, Immortal and Emperor have. If we can't show why a band or a group of bands is noteworthy, then we shouldn't be namedropping them. A lot of trimming needs to be done. ~Asarlaí 13:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Is better this way? Nite-Sirk (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I would keep in a mention of Sigh. They are important not only for black metal but for experimental metal as well.--¿3family6 contribs 18:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just restored and expanded a paragraph about Sigh. Nite-Sirk (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Early Mayhem/ex-Death Metallers[edit]

One would think an entry on black metal would mention that Mayhem started in 1984 and had demos and an EP in 1986 and 1987, the article kinda makes it sound like they started in 1990 or 1991. I also think it is worth mentioning that many Black Metal bands (Darkthrone) and musicians (Grishnack, guys from Immortal, etc) played death metal before "converting" to black metal. Gary Sargent, (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Gary Sargent,

Correct. The article about the early Norwegian scene mentions that Darkthrone played Death Metal before A Blaze in the Northern Sky, but the rest is still missing here (as are other things, see section on War Metal above). --217/83 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)