Talk:Avant-garde metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Experimental metal)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rock music  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Metal (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Music/Music genres task force (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Avant-garde 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 


Added Dol Ammad[edit]

I added Greek band Dol Ammad to the list of example bands. The fourteen-piece choir alone probably qualifies them for avant-garde as opposed to conventional prog metal. Irene Ringworm 01:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

Can someone also add Agalloch to the band list? I believe they are very influential in this genre. ( i don't know how to edit wikipedia )

-anon

Inclusion question[edit]

What about Fantômas, The Melvins, and Faith No More? -leigh [[user talk:phthoggos|(φθόγ--IAmSuchALoser (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)γος)]] 09:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Those three bands fall along the lines of alternative metal or alternative rock, the 2nd probably being more "sludge metal". Whether one thinks they're "avant-garde" or not, it really comes down to the definition/history reflected in the avant garde metal article - strictly, Fantômas, The Melvins, and Faith No More are much, much closer to alternative metal than avant garde metal and do not belong as example bands.--Danteferno 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree on what you said about The Melvins and Faith No More but I really think Fantômas is avant-garde (metal).
The Deftones are a strong example of the comfortable, ridiculous umbrella term that is Alt. Metal. Fantômas is absolute avant-garde and I would argue their music never, ever delves into alternative. Danteferno is mainly right about Melvins and FNM. --Pixel Eater (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Metal Storm http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/article.php?article_id=161

Encyclopaedia Metallum http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=1383

Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fant%C3%B4mas_(band)

Last.fm http://www.last.fm/music/Fant%C3%B4mas 11 @ http://www.last.fm/tag/avant-garde+metal

Prog Archives http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1499


Emmaneul 21:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that The Melvins deserve a brief mention here because they were really avantgarde in 80s metal, despite that they are nowadays commonly labeled as "sludge", "doom", "alternative metal" or whatever. Avantgarde metal bands as Isis, Boris, Neurosis etc. cite 'em as their huge influence, so I think they should be included. Nothingagainst 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Afd Notice[edit]

This article was nominated for deletion. There was, however, no consensus to delete. A full review of the discussion can be found here. Tomertalk 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In light of the article being kept, those who nominated it to be kept, now have the onus on them to overhaul it. Due to the article contradicting seven others, and being a pet name. The article needs to make itself far more clear, far more definative, and stop being someones pet name for their favourite bands. Lest this will be nominated for deletion again in another month or so. Leyasu 08:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Avant garde metal[edit]

I just wanted to add a few thoughts about Avant garde metal. I wasn't here when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avant garde metal this article was up for deletion so I will respond now (in an effort to improve it so that it doesn't get nominated for deletion again!).

Just like avant-rock or alternative rock there has to be a different kind of genre for many of these bands. They simply can't fit into something like black metal (although some of them have black metal background and influence). Most of these bands are described in their articles why are they considered avant-garde and not under some of the more known metal genres.

Although there has to be a proof that this genre exists (WP:No original research), avant garde metal is quite obvious. It is derived from the term Avant-garde (read this article, it is verified for a change) itself and heavy metal music. The combination of those two (Avant for experimentation, unusual characteristics and improvisation, and metal music (you should all know about this!!!)) naturally forms avant-garde metal.

Maybe the problem with this article is because not many people are familiar with this subject, but that doesn't mean that the article is for deletion. It seems to me nobody has problems with symphonic metal and I never heard of anything like that before, and it's not verified also. It's easy to keep something that is obvius and delete other things. But why avant-garde metal isn't that obvius to some as symphonic?

I would also like to ask those who voted to delete the article have they listened to any avant-garde metal band? Their works are quite unique and experimental and explain themselves. There is no need for a critic or a verifiable source for that (the music is the source itself!).

Also if you put them into another genre (or a couple of them) you would have the same problem as with Children of Bodom. Of course this does not mean that Chilren of Bodom is avant-garde metal, it is just a comparison.

I think this is it for now, thank you for your patience (if you read this you certainly have it!). Please leave a comment or two on this. Death2 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avantgarde is a adjective meaning 'Experimental'. Last time i checked every band experiments. Its not a genre, just a cross reference. These bands do nothing that links them together except incorperate minor features into another style of music to give themselfs 'an edge', which all bands do regardless. And i put it up for deletion, as i know most of all the bands, and their sound is not definitive of genre. If i choose to use a woodwind instrument rather than a string instrument in my Mozart cover, have i really just changed the genre of the whole thing? No, i havent, i have simply adapted something to have 'an edge'. Avantgarde is fine, as long as it states what it is, and isnt simply a made up genre. Ley Shade 22:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree you with in some ways, I mean this is definitely an obscure genre, but there are bands that do not really belong to anything but it, I think most notably being late Sigh, which really took away from black metal. Celtic Frost was really more important in death and thrash, so I can understand them being an exception (ie a good example as to why someone might not consider this a genre). Right now it isn't explained to badly but could use reworking. --Ryouga 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between avant-garde metal and post-metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.63.231.145 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Winds[edit]

I think Winds should be taken off. They lack the complete experimental structure that most of the other bands, epitometically Age of Silence, have. They're pretty obviously neo-classical.

I agree, the only mention I can find "Avant Garde" is here on their page at The End Records and that's on about being signed to AvantGarde Music (which is mostly a Black Metal label). All the links on the bands wiki page list them as Prog/Neo-Classical Metal and both their albums certainly match that. Unless there's some massive difference in stlye on their EP and someone has support I'll remove them. Dace59 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User template[edit]

Is there a user template for Metal Arts? I would like to proclaim that I make metal into art, but I can't find one.

--Trentjohnson 14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite surprized[edit]

My real life name (Ethan Mittel) is mentioned in this article. Thank you for the recognition of my works in the field of metal music. --Insineratehymn(talkcontribs) 23:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Difference with alternative[edit]

I think the "Difference with alternative" part is really vague and it looks like the only big difference is that avant-garde metal is considered more ‘metal’ than alternative metal. I don’t think that is correct. I think the main difference is that:

  • AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres. Hence AG metal is often less accessible
  • AG metal often is musically more adventurous, AG musicians tend to avoid cliché’s and be ahead of their contemporaries (avant is French for before, garde is something like “establishment”).
  • Alt metal is less pre-occupied by being ‘art’ and therefore leans more towards popular music and leans less towards classical music en jazz.

Anyone agrees? Then I’ll rewrite the "Difference with alternative" part. --Emmaneul 13:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I'll explain later.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


As I said I disagree mostly. Let me explain on each point.
  • Your first point: AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres. Hence AG metal is often less accessible
There’s a confusion here: of course a major part of AG metal has extreme metal roots. That’s correct. But it doesn’t mean this is necessarily a relevant common trait of every band playing experimental metal. For example Fantomas doesn’t have any black or death roots.
And there is no doubt they are classified as AG. (http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=1383) not Alt…
Actually experimental metal/avant-garde metal is a cross-genre: Basically it implies that metal mixes with some experimental structures.
While statistically bands with extreme metal background are the ones who do it the most, theoretically any other metal subgenre can also be associated with experimental structures, not only extreme bands.
Hence the fact that the extreme nature of many bands is not necessarily a relevant representative trait of the genre.
This is exactly the same confusion with prog definition. People believe that every prog band is meant to sound like Dream Theater, but can we tell that Opeth (which is also considered as prog as well) has the same sound as DT? No, it associates death/doom basis with prog structures while DT associates traditional heavy metal basis with prog structures.
I didn't say anything about extreme metal roots, I deliberately wrote "AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres". Fantomas is no doubt avant-garde and influenced by extreme metal genres (like the omnipresent grindcore-ish, doom metal and thrashmetal influences on The Director's Cut).
You said "While statistically bands with extreme metal background are the ones who do it the most", that implies that generally "AG metal is more focused on... ...extreme (metal)", doesn't it? Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Your 2nd point: *AG metal often is musically more adventurous, AG musicians tend to avoid cliché’s and be ahead of their contemporaries (avant is French for before, garde is something like “establishment”).
I agree more or less with that point. But for the sake of accuracy let me specify some things
I’m French, so concerning the word “Avant-garde”…more exactly it’s a word which refers metaphorically to the military term advance guard or Vangard. (that is to say the forward division in an army)

(Written by Oliver Side from agm.com as a comment.) I'm also French, and I was the one who came up with the new etymological interpretation of the avant-garde as "Avant les gardes", or "Prior to the guards", in my article "What is Avant-Garde Metal?" (July 2009), which has been deleted from Wikipedia by I don't know who, but probably by someone who didn't like my article. You will not find any other article or book specifically defining the word itself like this, and I think it's a very accurate definition, musically speaking, the guards being the genres, and avant-garde music being genreless. Now when you write, about avant-garde, "more exactly it's a word...", I fail to see how you could seriously mean that. "More exactly", according to what and to who? To you? To some definition you read in some dictionary? In which way are you an authority on the subject, inasmuch as to decide what this concept is "more exactly" related to? As soon as one goes through the literature both in philosophy and aesthetics about the concept of avant-garde, it's quite easy to understand that there is absolutely NO consensual view to be found. Every thinker has his/her own way to interpret this borderline concept. Of course you take the "usual" and the most general (i.e. meaningless) definition of avant-garde, the one which can be found in dictionaries, "for the sake of accuracy". Isn't that exactly what everyone should try to avoid, whenever we try to "define" the avant-garde? In fact, to define the avant-garde like this couldn't be more inaccurate, since it restricts the concept to so little. If you really want to be an authority about avant-gardism in musical expression, write your own article or book or thesis and present it to us, then we will be able to know what exactly you mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.178.188 (talk) 06:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

But I agree with this: AG musicians are meant to be ahead of their contemporaries.
But saying they tend to avoid clichés is a non-neutral pov. Better say they tend to avoid standard or traditional ideas. Anyway I don’t see the point specifying this in that part, as everybody agrees about this and It’s already suggested in the introduction.
However if you only want to specify that it is musically more adventurous, I agree.
Indeed, "tend to avoid standard or traditional ideas" is better Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Your 3rd point: *Alt metal is less pre-occupied by being ‘art’ and therefore leans more towards popular music and leans less towards classical music en jazz.
I disagree, even though subjectively I’d like to agree. But I have to stay objective.
But arguing Alt is less “art” than AG is wrong. And is a non neutral statement.
Anyway metal IS popular music no matter the subgenre, even if it implies experimentation or is influenced by erudite music.
The only music that can be considered as erudite music (or “art music” as some say) are classical, contemporary, and to jazz to some extent.
The term erudite music is NOT a vague notion, it has strict criteria. And metal (even AG metal) doesn’t match them. Metal is definitely from a popular tradition.
Experimentation doesn’t automatically make music into erudite form. Erudite music is linked to written codified tradition and strongly refers to strictly defined theoretical considerations.
For example every erudite avant-garde composer from contemporary music has a clear theory of his own musical language before composing (for example Boulez or Xenakis), it responds to a certain number of empirical observations. They have a perfect mastery of musical theory and a deep conscience of the historical evolutional process in music
While popular music works with instinct rather than with strict theory. This is one of the main differences between popular and erudite music/art music.
Even prog metal, despite some more advanced knowledge in musical language than the average popular musicians, can’t be considered as erudite.
I was didn't say AG metal is erudite music/art music. My point was: Alt metal leans more towards popular music (hiphop, alt rock, punk), AG metal leans more towards classical music en jazz. I think Diablo Swing Orchestra, maudlin of the well's/Kayo Dot's, use of instruments (clarinet, saxophone, violin), unconventional song structure, are reminiscent of jazz and classical music. Something not (or a lot less) present in music of e.g. Jane's Addiction, Faith No More, System of a Down and Marilyn Manson. Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


4. My point
What I meant by implying that avant-garde metal is considered more ‘metal’ than alternative metal, is the fact AG bands responds to one of the common traits of metal.
For the comprehension you have to be aware that the common traits of metal are not necessarily heaviness or screams as some believe. Hardcore music is heavy yet it’s not metal, traditional Heavy metal, goth, symphonic or power metal bands may use clean voices instead of screams yet they are still metal.
The most common trait that defines true metal is a specific groove. This groove finds its basis in dynamics and staccato patterns. In other words most of the true metal subgenres share a specific dynamic rhythmic feel. For more explanation about that groove see heavy metal groove
Of course this groove may have several variations according to genres, but still it is there in every genre.
Now most of Avant-garde metal bands do keep this groove while Alternative doesn’t necessarily.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you give an example riff? I have no clue of this HM "specific dynamic rhythmic feel". To me it seems that this 'groove' is not HM specific, it's (rock) guitar specific. In HM the groove is often present but not only in HM. It's part of many (hardcore) punk, and even reggae guitarist have riffs conforming to this groove (e.g. Bob Marley - Could You Be Loved). And alt metal bands too (Rammstein, Faith No More, System of a Down). Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still very curious Emmaneul 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, sorry, I'm writting a extensive reply..so it takes a little time. I hope to post tommorow.Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 10:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Take your time Emmaneul 10:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)



Thanks for the clarifications.Interesting and relevant objections indeed. It's a pleasure to discuss with you.
1. Your point: I didn't say anything about extreme metal roots, I deliberately wrote "AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres". Fantomas is no doubt avant-garde and influenced by extreme metal genres (like the omnipresent grindcore-ish, doom metal and thrashmetal influences on The Director's Cut).You said "While statistically bands with extreme metal background are the ones who do it the most", that implies that generally "AG metal is more focused on... ...extreme (metal)", doesn't it?
Yes it does, and you’re correct, but saying “AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres” (at least stated like this) could be misleading because it could let people think this is a necessary defining trait of the entire genre, whereas it is only a very frequent occurrence.
As I said theoretically avant-garde metal may be associated with any metal subgenre (not necessarily extreme) even though as I say statistically it’s often extreme.
Yes, Fantômas was indeed influenced by extreme music in Director’s cut, but that’s less the case in an album such as Delirium Corda. But anyway your objection was perfectly relevant, let’s say that wasn’t a good example.
Let’s take another example: Atrox, the band was definitely an avant-garde metal band in their early career. And in an album like Contentum there’s no significant extreme influence, unless you consider the occasional use of double-bass drum as extreme.
Beside one should take in consideration there are bands that indeed focus on extreme and there also are bands who basically have extreme roots.
And both aspects can be met together in a band. But that’s not always the case: many bands with a black background shifted to some softer mood in an avant-garde context.
It’s the case with Ulver for example, even if they had basically an extreme background, in an album like the Marriage of Heaven and Hell they don’t particularly focus on extreme metal.
The same goes with Arcturus, they may have a Black metal background but in albums like Sham Mirrors or la masquerade infernal, they don’t extensively focus on some extreme side of music. Even though a few songs like Radical Cut may still have some clear black flavour.
The same goes for Peccatum they had basically clear references to black metal (what isn’t surprising considering the presence of Ihsahn) in their earlier career, but they evolved to some softer side where goth and ambient influences are more prominent than extreme. Even though there still are a few patterns with clear a Black metal flavour.
Ok, in the last two cases we still can say, they still have black influences, but I wouldn’t say they extensively focus on it.
So this proves you don’t necessarily need to focus on extreme metal to be avant-garde metal.
So yes, you’re right, statistically AG metal is more focused on/influenced by extreme (metal) genres. But that’s not necessarily an ultimate characterizing, neither a crucial differential trait with Alternative.


2.I didn't say AG metal is erudite music/art music. My point was: Alt metal leans more towards popular music (hiphop, alt rock, punk), AG metal leans more towards classical music en jazz. I think Diablo Swing Orchestra, maudlin of the well's/Kayo Dot's, use of instruments (clarinet, saxophone, violin), unconventional song structure, are reminiscent of jazz and classical music. Something not (or a lot less) present in music of e.g. Jane's Addiction, Faith No More, System of a Down and Marilyn Manson. Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying it leans towards art music is misleading either. I wouldn’t say AG leans towards classical music and jazz. I would rather say they get inspired by them and borrow some elements of them. besides ultimately AG with their experimental nature is generally closer to contemporary music or avant-garde jazz than traditional Classical music even though they still use tonality.
But still AG doesn’t lean towards contemporary music, but are rather inspired by it. Btw guys like Ishahn frequently claimed being inspired by it. And Fantomas Delirium Corda shares many similarities with the aesthetic approach of the contemporary music.
But still they are not and don't lean towards Art music.
Art music is characterized by very high compositional, musical language and theoretical exigencies, whereas popular music like AG is freer in their compositional approach and they don’t have specific theoretical concerns. They just use their instinct just like most of the popular music.
And I disagree Classical structures are very conventional. The most frequent structures in classical such as the ABA’, the rondo or the sonata structures are the most common and traditional structures in music. They may seem unconventional to popular music which is used to the common basic verse/chorus song structure but they are absolutely not unconventional.
Most of classical music is linked to tradition and common admitted forms, except maybe with some cases in the late classical and guys such as Liszt who created a very free genre (the tone poem) whose structure is very free. But these structures are very controversial in the classical world, and are often regarded as less noble genres. As the very essence of pure classical is to use traditional and balanced structures.
As for the Jazz it depends on the genres. Some jazz style may frequently use very traditional structure. But some may use less conventional, that’s right.
That’s rather the contemporary music which uses almost exclusively unconventional and even chaotic structures.
But I agree with you on this though: AG is often characterized with unconventional structures. Which can be regarded as a differential trait with Alt which generally uses conventional structures.
But still AG metal only leans toward popular music. The use of Unconventional structures is not what makes a music be or even lean towards art music.


3.Could you give an example riff? I have no clue of this HM "specific dynamic rhythmic feel". To me it seems that this 'groove' is not HM specific, it's (rock) guitar specific. In HM the groove is often present but not only in HM. It's part of many (hardcore) punk, and even reggae guitarist have riffs conforming to this groove (e.g. Bob Marley - Could You Be Loved). And alt metal bands too (Rammstein, Faith No More, System of a Down). Emmaneul 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


It seems there’s indeed a misunderstanding because Could You Be Loved absolutely doesn’t have this groove. I think the misunderstanding lies in the fact you only focused on the dynamic part of the description. But I mentioned staccato as well. But ok, my description was not enough precise to be understood.


But yes that groove indeed comes from rock, but heavy metal developed it in an unique and distinctive version.
Let me describe it fully:
1. heavy metal generally tends to use rhythmic patterns with small rhythmic cells ( 8th or sixteenth)
2. The rhythmic patterns often focus on the fundamental (often used as a pedal point) or the root of the chords, and repeat these small cells over and over within the bar or several bars( when used as a pedal point)
3. In most of the metal genres they are frequently played in staccato (with Palm muting) which gives some off-handed /sharp rhythmic feel. (Exception being black metal which tends to play their tremolo patterns in legato. ( without palm muting)
4. The heavy distortion associated with the staccato reinforces the feeling of sharp/ Off handed feel.
5. This rhythmic pattern is associated with drums patterns that hit binary division beats. The drums either beat the 4 right beats of a 4/4 bar or at least a binary subdivision of the those 4 beats. (just like it is the case with Death, Thrash or black) . In other words traditional Heavy metal tends to uses the classic rock drums patterns with a bass drum beat on the first and 3rd beat and a snare beat on the 2n and 4th beat. But this basic pattern can be used as a diminished/faster version. As extreme genres tend to use what we call a rhythmic diminution of this basic pattern such as the skank beats and blast beats (which are respectively rhythmic diminutions by two and four of the basic drum pattern) They give a feeling of acceleration and the guitars patterns are played in eighth notes instead of the basic 4th notes of traditional heavy metal. Which is just a rhythmic subdivision of the basic pattern as well?


In its most simple and basic form the traditional heavy metal rhythmic pattern is based on a 4/4 bar where the 4 beats are alternatively hit by the bass drum and the snare. And the guitars plays low palm muted repetitive 8th notes. Like this:
Example of a typical heavy metal rhytmic pattern
An example would be the opening riff of You got another thing coming by Judas Priest or the verse of The Gods made Heavy Metal by Manowar.


But most of the time the guitar pattern is exposed to many variations thanks to ornaments, different rhythmic cells, syncopated variations.
Example of a typical heavy metal rhytmic pattern with basic variations
An example would be the first riff of Orion by Metallica.
Specification: all my examples are in the F# tonality but obviously this doesn’t mean that every metal pattern is in F#. In the case of Orion for example the riff is in E minor.
The thrash and speed metal involved other variations of that grooves by accelerating the speed and using the rhythmic patterns in rhythmic diminution by 2: the skank beats
As already said the classic thrash pattern just makes a rhythmic diminution of this basic pattern and plays it faster.
So a 4 beats figure with a bass drum/ snare alternation in fourth notes is reduced on two beats in 8th notes.
Example of a typical thrash rhytmic guitar pattern
Example of a typical thrash drums pattern
Just like the heavy metal one this basic pattern can have many ornamental variations on it. That’s the case most of the time. An example would be the main rhythmic pattern in the verse of Angel of Death by Slayer.
Speed, thrash and power metal and other genres make also extensive use of double bass drums patterns which reinforce the off-handed /sharp rhythmic feel. So well that they can create that distinctive feel even without the guitar dynamic pattern over it.
Example of a typical double bass drums rythmic pattern


The death metal and Black metal pushed forward the variations of Thrash by using the rhythmic patterns in rhythmic diminution by 4 of the original drum pattern: the blast beats in sixteenth notes. So a 4 beats figure with a bass drum/ snare alternation in fourth notes is reduced on 1 beat in 16th notes. And the guitar makes an extensive use of tremolo picking to play the fast patterns.
But death generally makes many chromatic ornaments, and black generally rids off the staccato picking, as the machine gun’s sound of the drums by themselves create the off-handed /sharp rhythmic feel
Example of a typical heavy metal rhytmic pattern
The prog would often make variations of that groove through odd time signatures for example the main riff of Stream of consciousness by Dream Theater in 5/4.


Now concerning Rammstein, well of course they have it constantly (at least in their first three albums): the best striking example would be the main riff of Bestraffe Mich.
But Rammstein is industrial metal. Yeah some consider Industrial as alternative be it. But I don’t . At least it depends which band. and the Indus like early Rammstein and late Ministry have strong rhythmic metal roots.
As for Faith no more they are alternative and they indeed use that groove time to time.
( I have many examples in head Digging the grave would be the best example, but Surprise you’re dead, the interlude of The morning after, the riff of Caffeine, the ending part of Zombie eaters are good examples too) But I have also even more examples where they don’t use it at all. Almost the entire album of King for a Day doesn’t (except songs Digging the Grave and the Gentle Art of Making Enemy). They rather use some other elaborate rhythmic patterns.
It is much rarer than in traditional metal where this groove plays a prominent role. Now in Faith No More just like many other alt metal bands such as Red hot Chilli ¨Peppers, Rage against the Machine, it less prominent. But they may use it much less than traditional metal.
Concerning System of A down, they indeed use traditional guitar palm muted patterns, but the drums often play more syncopated rhythms without caring the traditional binary divisional drums patterns.
Now when I take an avant garde metal band like Ram-zet this kind of groove is absolutely crucial in their songs. (take Pray or the final thrill). The same goes for Fantomas in their furious parts (Such as the fast part of the godfather) or Peccatum (the first part of Parasite my Heart) .
All in all that groove is less prominent than in traditional metal, but much more present than alternative metal. Alpha_Ursae_Minoris 14:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Difference with progressive metal[edit]

Vote for deleting that part. It's original research and non-neutral point of view. It uses analogy for explanation. How is that usefull to the article? It's not even clear, and there is text contradicting it afterwards. 201.62.129.180 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. First, please read carefully that part before incriminating it for everything and nothing
2. the argument of that part is absolutely not original research, it is based on a fully sourced article. The only part that might be considered as a OR is the specification concerning the Mittel's analogy. You want to delete that nuance? Be my guest..
3. There is no contradiction! Because there's a nuance which is added to the Mittels analogy concerning the common use of tonality, doesn't means it contradicts the general analogy.
4. I don't see where it is non neutral. No opinion is stated here in this part only formal description and explanations.
5. Because some musicological references terms used there may seem unclear to you, doesn't mean it's not coherent.
6. I don't see what's wrong with analogy. Metaphores and analogies are frequently used in musicologic research to illustrate a point. Now the analogy used here is not the argument itself, it's an illustration of the argument. And I don't know any rules that prevent to use analogies as an example. Frédérick Duhautpas 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking specifically about mittel's analogy. Maybe I have the wrong idea about original research, but I don't see how having a "fully sourced article" is enough for it being established notion. The part itself is okay until the analogy(and after that).--201.62.129.180 13:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you took in account my second point at least.
Now may I suggest you to focus your attention on some of the others points notably:
the 6th point concerning the analogy
and the 3. and 5. points concerning what follows the analogy.
I repeat it: this analogy is NOT meant to make a notion by itself, it JUST illustrates in more metaphorically terms what was already said in the first part. So I dont see what's wrong when an analogy is used as an illustration of an already exposed notion.
As for the part that follows, I insist it does NOT contradict it, it just adds a nuance. The fact that AG metal may still respect at least some common basic rules (tonality principle that is) doesn't mean it doesn't break many others...So there's no contradiction. Yes AG and Prog both still use basic tonality principles, but still AG breaks many conventional rules much more than prog. And Prog generally refers to theory in their unconventional approach whereas AG is much less concerned by admited theory and rather refers to instinct. But sometimes instinct may be conform to some Theoretical aspects. That's what happens with their use of the tonal basic principles. Frédérick Duhautpas 15:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Duhautpas: There's no need to try to belittle somebody who disagrees with you. Consider the possibility that he, as well as myself, are capable of reading and understanding the analogy and your reasons for including it and - gasp - still think it doesn't belong. For one, go read the article on metalstorm. Because an article lists "sources" doesn't mean that it is "sourced". I find the metal storm article to be nothing but opinion, with references to other open source databases. This is far, far from verifiable. Without further numbering my reasons, I support deleting the analogy as it adds absolutely nothing to the article, comes from a questionable source, does not follow its own internal logic, and is at best confusing. Just because something may seem clear to you does not mean it is coherent!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.176.188.201 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  1. I hear your views and I don't necessarilly dissmiss the possibility, but you're not providing any verifiable sources to your OPINION as far as I can see.
  2. Just because you disagree with a source doesn't necessarilly means your sole view is more VERIFIABLE. Unless you value your opinion as being superior per se to be sufficient.
  3. You find this source is not reliable enough? Fine. Then just find some much more verifiable and reliable sources which invalidate all these claims. And I'll gladly support your views as to erase this part. Until then, I'm afraid your request to delete this part on the sole basis of your disagreement will not be sufficient. I agree this article is not made by a musicologist for example. But this is not a blog either. Such a site can be used as a sources. So you just can't dismiss the source that simply.
  4. On a side note I do not bellitle anyone here. Basically, I was quite surprised by your accusations, I thought you probably minterpreted something. but when reading back the stuff, I realized it was a bit too defensive but I didn't mean to bellitle anyone. So all my appologies to the person concerned. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a contradictory and pathetically biased statement in this article:

"While Mittel's analogy may be useful and clearer for some, it is not entirely true. While avant garde indeed ignores many conventional habits and is less concerned by theoretical considerations they still refer intuitively to some basic principles of the tonal language (the common musical grammar almost all western music uses) even though they tend to deviate very much from it."

Whoever wrote this is simply trying to discredit the term "avant-garde" and doesn't understand the concept of Tonality: all music follows the principles of "tonal language" as they put it. Genres are never distinguished upon their use of atonality, rather, to distinguish genres we find specific combination of many musical properties, not just one.

Personally, I believe nearly every metal band incorporates different "tonal language" -- again, i'm not using this term as a serious synonym for tonality, but as a reference to the statement above -- to their music (often in the same song), via post-production effects (Dream Theatre, Opeth, Pain of Salvation) or guitar tunings (Behold...The Arctopus, Meshuggah) or whatever else is out there. Also, the quote from Ethan Mittel shows that avant-garde metal is not improvisation per sé, but structured via improvisation, it says nothing about tonality.

In any case, The blurb definitely does not belong under "Differences from Progressive Metal"; it needs to be moved "Origin and debates about the term", and definitely re-written to specify what this shared tonal language (between Prog Metal and Avant-Garde metal) is.

As far as i'm concerned, the statement is up there for whoever wishes to use it, but I'm going to delete it to avoid any further confusion.

Tonality is completely moot in this portion of the article; it's not an issue.

List of avant-garde metal bands[edit]

The List of avant-garde metal musical groups has been deleted... (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_avant-garde_metal_musical_groups)

So we might start a list of key artists. The following list contains artists that were on the list (might not be very recent because I retrieved it from the google cache)--Emmaneul (Talk) 08:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A-E[edit]

   * Finland Aarni
   * Norway Age of Silence
   * Norway Arcturus
   * Poland Atrophia Red Sun (ca. 2003)
   * Norway Beyond Dawn
   * France Blut Aus Nord (recent work)
   * United States Buckethead
   * Finland Callisto
   * France Carnival in Coal
   * Switzerland Celtic Frost
   * Norway/Sweden Cronian
   * United States DÅÅTH
   * France Deathspell Omega (later works)
   * Sweden Diablo Swing Orchestra
   * Sweden Diabolical Masquerade
   * Norway/United Kingdom Dødheimsgard
   * Greece Dol Ammad
   * Italy Ephel Duath
   * United States Estradasphere

F-J[edit]

   * United States Fantômas
   * Norway Fleurety
   * Canada Gorguts
   * Norway In the Woods...
   * United States Isis

K-O[edit]

   * Sweden Karaboudjan
   * United States Kayo Dot
   * Indonesia Kekal (later albums)
   * Austria Korovakill (formerly Korova)
   * Poland Lux Occulta
   * United States maudlin of the Well
   * Norway Mayhem (ca. 2000)
   * Portugal Moonspell ("The Butterfly Effect" album)
   * United States Naked City
   * United States Nuclear Rabbit

P-T[edit]

   * Sweden Pan.Thy.Monium
   * Norway Peccatum
   * United States Pinkly Smooth
   * Norway Ram-Zet
   * United States Sculptured
   * Japan Sigh)
   * Norway Solefald
   * Australia Stargazer
   * United States Stolen Babies

U-Z[edit]

   * Norway Ulver (ca. 1998)
   * Canada uneXpect
   * Finland Unholy
   * Norway Ved Buens Ende
   * Sweden Vintersorg (ca. 2002)
   * Norway Virus


This list is definitely better than the current one. But still, imho most sub-genres of heavy metal are already inherently avant-garde. So it's pretty much pointless to have an article like this. And personally I think, avant-garde metal has exclusively been attributed to mostly experimental BM bands, more so than any other stuff. 94.55.235.57 (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Experimental metal[edit]

Why does experimental metal redirect here? Avant-Garde certainly IS experimental, but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Kidburla2002 14:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

YES, they are, Avant-garde metal and experimental metal ARE the same thing. Frédérick Duhautpas 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
We should just call it indie metal. Death2 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • not really since indie rock and experimental rock aren't the same thing, the same goes for metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talkcontribs) 04:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no such a genre Indie metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.23.199 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Opeth[edit]

I intend to delete Opeth from the list of notable avant-garde metal bands. I don't consider Opeth as an avant-garde metal band. It is rather a progressive death/extreme metal band. And most of the sources I can see so far confirm my feeling. Frédérick Duhautpas 19:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Opeth are not Avantgarde at all Karpsmöm 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Opeth Definitely isn't avantgarde. It seems that some people just overstate their use of different chord progressions, in unconventional way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka (talkcontribs) 16:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Voivod and Gorguts[edit]

I think Canadian bands Voivod and Gorguts deserve a mention to this page. Voivod pioneered the use of dissonance, strange time signatures, and strange time structures to metal. They are probably one of the first Avant Garde metal bands along with Celtic Frost. Gorguts also deserves to be mentioned, listen to there album "Obscura" and you'll understand what I mean.

Therion[edit]

Hey, could Therion be included as Avant-garde metal. At least they are inspired by Celtic Frost, the one of the best knowable foundations. For example their most experimentalious record Symphony Masses Ho Darkon Ho Megas, has avant garde qualities, due to strange guitar work, sympho tones or in generally sound of Into the Pandemonium. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, Therion occasionally displays experimental structures. That's a fact. But here, the list of this article is not meant to be a comprehensive one of every metal band including some (occasional) experimentations, No, this is a list of CRUCIAL avant-garde metal bands. Now despite the experimentations of Symphony Masses Ho Darkon Ho Megas Therion is far from being a crucial band in avant-garde metal. On the other hand there is no question they are a crucial band in symphonic metal. Frédérick Duhautpas 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed[edit]

"At the same time despite a large amount of eccentricities, unorthodox and unconventional traits, avant-garde still saves a certain number of specific traits of Heavy metal (most particularly its specific groove) unlike alternative."

Seems to me that some black/death metal fan was trying to weasel in an opinion about alternative metal not being metal at all. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 02:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have absolutely have nothing against alternative nor do I favor Black metal. Before making that kind of wrong supositions may I ask you to read that discussion above, where I extensively argued why. discussion aboutthe difference with alternativeFrédérick Duhautpas 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Meshuggah[edit]

As experimental metal is regarded to be the same as avant-garde metal here on wikipedia I think Meshuggah needs to be added to the list of key artist. Their last few recordings (f.e. I (EP) and Catch Thirty-Three) are very experimental and Meshuggah is referred to as experimental metal by numerous websites.

  • blabbermouth.net "Swedish experimental metal band Meshuggah"
  • blabbermouth.net "Swedish experimental extreme metallers MESHUGGAH"
  • www.mtv.com "Swedish experimental-metal legends Meshuggah re-upped with Nuclear Blast this week"
  • www.nuclearblastusa.com "It is impossible to talk about experimental or avant-garde metal without mentioning this truly groundbreaking act: MESHUGGAH"
  • www.metal-observer.com "Welcome to the second part of their experimental phase and also the last according to the band"
  • www.bbc.co.uk "and yet more Swedes, in the form of experimental metal masters Meshuggah"
  • www.nashvillescene.com "which draws on the brutal, experimental-metal legacies of acts like Meshuggah"

I have added them to the list. Kameejl (Talk) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative metal bands need separate list if included as "Avant Grade metal"[edit]

This list will always be subjective, but inclusion for some of these bands is just a little too questionable. Otep? Meshuggah? Dog Fashion Disco? What next, are Korn going to be added on this list because they use bagpipes in their music? LOL. There's some obvious dispute mentioned by others, so rather than a complete removal, just separated the list...fair enough.--Danteferno (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is also about experimental metal, it's even seen as synonym (I don't agree with that btw), so it's perfectly OK to have less 'wacky' :) acts in the list. Kameejl (Talk) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why the "disputed" section works. Realistically, the alt/nu metal bands should be removed entirely from the list, but maybe some reasoning from the 'yay' side could shed light on things.--Danteferno (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Have I ever advocated we should include any alt or nu metal band in this list? No.
On the contrary, it is a nonsense to include alternative bands in a section dedicated TO AVANT-GARDE METAL bands. That's why I removed this section and called it a POV. To me any bands considered as alt should simply be removed. Here's my point. They should not have a section appart, they should be removed.
Kamejl, I'm ok with anything labeled "experimental", because as you pointed yourself, it is synonymous to avant-garde metal. My point is I'm not ok with things labeled as Nu or ALT in this section. Here' the problem in this issue.
Frankely speaking I would never have seen Messhugah in this list. But kameej provided many sources calling it experimental, I don't change anything. But I really fail to consider Messhugah as an Avant-garde metal band.
Either bands are plainly recognized as AGM either they are not. But I don't think we should have a section aside to be convenient with people who consider alt metal bands as avant-garde metal bands. In my opinion, each time a band generate controversy whether it is AGM or Alt, then it should be provided sources supporting the fact they are real AGM.
As for Peccatum, I totally regard them as a AGM. I removed your edit without noticing I was.
Concerning Fantomas, I'm sorry but they are commonly regarded as a AGM band exclusively, So I don't think they should be classified as alt metal at all.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As a reaction to Danteferno:

I don't think the disputed section will work if it's done like it is now. Firstly, what is alternative metal? There are different definitions. The bands you separated from the list don't fit the alternative metal genre because they are far more experimental then all alternative metal I know. Only OTEP fits the nu/alt metal description (and therefore may be removed from the article). Secondly, as far as I know, Fantomas is the definite avant-garde metal band and needs to be in the list. Thirdly, Meshuggah certainly is experimental metal (see sources in the section above) and can be in the list.
My concerns are the following:
  • Experimental metal is metal that is experimental (obviously), Avant-garde metal goes further than being experimental. Meshuggah is extremely experimental, but avant-garde? No.
  • The different meanings and inconsistent use of avant-garde metal:
  • "ahead of their time": bands like Celtic Frost, In the Woods... who played music that is not that unique anymore, but were peerless at the time of creation. This is the true use of avant-garde metal but nowadays, classifying these bands as avant-garde does not make sense.
  • "10 genres in 1 song": bands like Mr. Bungle, Estradasphere and Dog Fashion Disco play dozens of genres, preferably in 1 song. That makes them experimental, avant-garde to some extent, but are those bands avant-garde metal? Some of these bands don't focus on metal but play metal occasionally (alongside the myriad of genres they play). I think that isn't enough to make them an avant-garde metal band (experimental music/rock is more fitting).
  • "avant-garde + heavy metal": bands like Fantômas that have musical traits from avant-garde music (experimental 'art' music), music that defies all common notions of music, combined with metal traits. I think this is the best definition of avant-garde metal (and I believe that's what this article is all about).
  • "unconventional metal bands": experimental bands like Ephel Duath, Gorguts, Kekal, that combine several genres, sometimes incorporate unconventional instruments, have a unique sound, and therefore are hard to classify. This includes modern black metal acts like Solefald, Deathspell Omega and Blut Aus Nord.
If it were up to me, I would put all the "10 genres in 1 song" bands and other bands less focussed on extreme metalin a separate list. The "unconventional metal bands" should be put in an experimental metal list. In other words, I wouldn't split the list like it is now so I'll revert it (and remove OTEP).
But whatever I say, the biggest problem is the lack of sources. AGM is regularly used to describe bands but there aren't a lot of descriptive sources around. I've read the AGM chapter in Sound of the Beast but it's pretty different from what's described in the article, including different bands. Kameejl (Talk) 12:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Important?[edit]

The list of "important" avant-garde bands is slightly misleading. This can confuse people into thinking that only the bands on that list are worth anything. I"m going to change it to "noteworthy" instead. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

That's ok for me Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference with progressive (part 2)[edit]

There is a contradictory and pathetically biased statement in this article:

"While Mittel's analogy may be useful and clearer for some, it is not entirely true. While avant garde indeed ignores many conventional habits and is less concerned by theoretical considerations they still refer intuitively to some basic principles of the tonal language (the common musical grammar almost all western music uses) even though they tend to deviate very much from it."

Whoever wrote this is simply trying to discredit the term "avant-garde" and doesn't understand the concept of Tonality: all music follows the principles of "tonal language" as they put it. Genres are never distinguished upon their use of atonality, rather, to distinguish genres we find specific combination of many musical properties, not just one.

Personally, I believe nearly every metal band incorporates different "tonal language" -- again, i'm not using this term as a serious synonym for tonality, but as a reference to the statement above -- to their music (often in the same song), via post-production effects (Dream Theatre, Opeth, Pain of Salvation) or guitar tunings (Behold...The Arctopus, Meshuggah) or whatever else is out there. Also, the quote from Ethan Mittel shows that avant-garde metal is not improvisation per sé, but structured via improvisation, it says nothing about tonality.

In any case, The blurb definitely does not belong under "Differences from Progressive Metal"; it needs to be moved "Origin and debates about the term", and definitely re-written to specify what this shared tonal language (between Prog Metal and Avant-Garde metal) is.

As far as i'm concerned, the statement is up there for whoever wishes to use it, but I'm going to delete it to avoid any further confusion.

Tonality is completely moot in this portion of the article; it's not an issue.


If you think a part should be deleted because you feel it is biased. That’s fine. That’s one of the wikipedia principles. But please may I ask you to expose your point without making value judgements on a person you don’t even know.
I don’t mind if you delete my imput, as I realize fans of popular music are generally unfamiliar with notions of musical language. And such comment apparently is more confusing than clarifying eventually. Since people like you apparently came to believe this part was meant to contradict Mittel or to discredit avant-garde when nothing like this is meant…Then there must definitely be something wrong in its wording.
However I disagree with the way you try to belittle my imput with judgements of values, hasty conclusions and despising comments. (ie: “pathetically biased”, “Whoever wrote this is simply trying to discredit the term "avant-garde", “doesn't understand the concept of Tonality “)
Me, I’m trying to discredit avant-garde? Please may I ask you to consider principles of wikipedia such as Wikipedia:Assume good faith.Me biased against Avant-garde music? Me trying to discredit Avant-garde? I’m an ardent proponent of Avant-garde music, so I have no interest into discrediting the term.
Frankely speaking I fail to see what you exactly understood. But it is clear you didn’t understand what I meant. It is possible this is my poor English. But I think it’s rather a lack of context
It is not meant to be contradictory: I put this part and the mittel anology at the same time
So my intentions are absolutely not to contradict it, but to nuance it more clearly.

And doesn't understand the concept of Tonality: all music follows the principles of "tonal language" as they put it. Genres are never distinguished upon their use of atonality, rather, to distinguish genres we find specific combination of many musical properties, not just one.

Don’t worry about my non-comprehension of what tonality is, I have a degree in harmony and I a Phd in musicology. Anyway who cares who I am, this doesn’t prove anything. Just like any human I’m not necessarily safe from being mistaken. But in this case I believe YOU are not familiar enough with things about tonality and atonality.
Tonality is the traditional standard language that most of Western music uses. That’s correct . But You are complete wrong in generalizing this fact to any music. I don’t know where you heard that “every music uses tonality”. But this is simply an untruth. As the most radical tendencies of avant-garde music are precisely characterised by rejection of tonality. Sure, there’s no doubt, most of the western music does uses tonality. And sometimes even atonal music may occasionally use certain inflections of tonality. (that’s the case of a famous atonal composer like Berg most notably). But claiming all music follows the principles of "tonal language" is simply wrong and denotes an obvious lack of knowledge in music aesthetic and history.
Ever heard of such modernist music like expressionist music? Expressionist music IS precisely characterized by the rejection of tonality. This is one of the basic fact that any specialist of avant-garde music knows. And any modernist trend of art music that followed it (Including dodecaphonism, serialism, post serialism, stochastic music, concrete music, spectral music) also rejected tonality. And THIS rejection of tonality is a common characteristic of their style!
If you are so sure there is tonality everywhere I'd like you to show me where you find tonality in post-tonal avant-garde works such as Penderecki’s Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, XenakisMetastasis or Pierre Boulez’s Le marteau sans Maître (to take ones of the most famous non-tonal works).
Rejection of tonality IS precisely one the mark of avant-garde modernist music in history. Even avant-garde jazz music like Free jazz rejects tonality. So I do state with a perfect conviction that rejection of tonality is a defining characteristic of any radical avant-garde music.
Only moderate avant-garde/experimental music (Postmodern music that is) revive tonality.
If you still think I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’ll be glad to give you any sources for this to support what I'm claiming.
This said now let me explain what I tried to say. It never was meant to be contradictory with Mittels. But to nuance some things.
Tonality is the traditional standard harmonic language in western music for over five centuries. Using it is precisely inserting a dose of tradition into music, even if the music is experimental and non standard.
Mittels claims Avant-garde metal uses imagination instead of convention. That’s correct but my nuance IS while avant-garde metal mostly use imagination it generally saves a very important element of musical tradition: the use of tonality.
In other words, I was stating that avant-garde metal while being daring and imaginative still doesn’t only use its imagination as Mittels put it, but also uses traditional elements like using tonality.
In this regard avant-garde metal is closer to the ideology of moderate avant-garde music like Post-modernism than radical modernism. There’s nothing biased in observing that. Personally I like any kind of experimental music. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

---

"I was stating that avant-garde metal while being daring and imaginative still doesn’t only use its imagination as Mittels put it, but also uses traditional elements like using tonality."

I recognized this. Perhaps I should typed "And shouldn't be using 'tonality' in this context" as I DEEPLY offended you (I would pummel my past self before he typed that shit above, if that makes you feel any better). My point was, that this "nuancing" (as you put it) is perhaps too picky and somewhat useless (in defining "avant-garde metal)

...To me that section of the article was equivalent to saying "Univers Zero construct hierarchical melodies, with tonal centers, once and a while..."

Do what you want with it now

As far as "tonal language" goes it's all the same boat to me; pitches constructed are tones in a language. "Atonality"..."Tonality"...both refer to different types/methods of organizing pitches... It's a communication of tones. Had I known an academic type would berate me, I would've stated "In My Opinion" or some such...

Or maybe it wasn't necessary:

"Controversy over the term itself" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality

If you can't tell, I don't spend my time on Wiki, nor do I have the passion for it as some do. But I'm glad to see this article actually shaped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.25.77.125 (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, discussing over this issue is useless considering the recent changes made by Bardin. Anyway I agree that this nuance wasn't particularly essential to this topic. This is precisely why I said I didn't mind if you deleted it. I was just arguing about the fact it is quite ironic you accuse me of trying to discredit avant-garde...
Anyway concerning this Controversy you pointed out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality
This is probably my poor capacities in english but I fail to see what this controversy is supposed to do with anything you basically were arguing. I'm sorry but this "Controversy over the term itself" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue you defended (when claiming that "every music uses tonality"). This controversy is about the NAME of the language, not the language itself. While history kept the name "Atonality" for this type of non-tonal language, the initiator of this language, Schoenberg disagreed with the use of this word. Btw, this is precisely because of the vagueness of the term that could encompass different types of harmonic approches, that I generaly tend to use the term "post-tonal" instead. Anyway as I said this issue doesn't really matter here in this talk page now. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

Does anybody else even bother to check things? There was a source cited fairly extensively in this article. Click on the link. The first thing that should give it away is the website. Metalstorm.ee relies on submissions by users. Just like the more well-known metal-archives. The second thing that should attract one's attention is the "Guest article disclaimer" placed right at the very top of the article in bright yellow. So what is a guest article on metalstorm.ee? No prizes for figuring it out: guest articles are contributions by users. This particular contributor is not anonymous. He provides a name: Ethan "Insineratehymn" Mittel. Click on his user page. He even provides some photos and information about himself. Oh look, he was born on 19 September 1990. The article was published on metalstorm.ee on 21 November 2006. He was a 16 years old kid when he wrote that article. And this is being used as a source on wikipedia? Not to sound all ageist but that is just absurd. I realize that the article he wrote is pretty impressive for a 16 years old kid. Lots of interesting points he made. Doesn't change the fact that it's a 16 years old fan of the genre contributing an article to a website based on submissions by users. Doesn't change the fact that this is anything but a reliable source. If nothing else though, the very first line of the article should have tipped anyone off: he quotes the definition of avant-garde metal from wikipedia. A definition that was not supported by any reliable source here but instead falls under original research. This is actually a case of unverified information on an article being cited by an unreliable source and being cited back on the article page.
I have removed that unreliable source and every other piece of original research that was on this article and replaced it with a few paragraphs of info that I got from the avant-garde metal website. I am not very familiar with the genre in question, only knowing a few bands on the list. Yet I can whip out a few paragraphs worth of information that's fully referenced by sources that are actually reliable. I have little interest or desire to expand this article any further though. So feel free to add more to this article. I will be popping back in every now and then though to make sure that any contribution to this article fits in the wikipedia policies of verifiability, no original research and reliable source. If you want to specify the cultural or stylistic origins as something other than varied, I would expect to see something to back up any entry. An account of the genre's history should suffice. --Bardin (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point, nothing to add...Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Given that you were the one who originally added that article by the 16 years old kid, I can only be grateful that you think it's a good point. --Bardin (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
No need to be sarcastic. I humbly recognize and assume my mistake. I was unaware of the system of metalstorm. My fault. I'm also grateful that you corrected it and I will take lesson of this mistake. Be sure you'll not see me again making such a mistake in the future. Nevertheless note that when I added this quote, I'm absolutely certain that this disclamer wasn't there. It was added later.I think this fact can be verified by asking to the site and by comparing the dates if needed.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"put back in some things that were previously removed for no good reason, they need improvement, not deletion"

Please Navnlos, before restauring what Bardin has removed, read what he wrote here. Moreover concerning what you were saying while some OR is sometimes tolerated by consensus in some article, if some user decides to remove them there's noway to do anything about it. He's just applying the wiki rules. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There are ways to fix that poop instead of deleting it. But I'll do that in my own time, I guess. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Avant-garde metal/Workspace[edit]

Started the above page. It's an older version of this article and I believe information can still be gleaned from it (hell, I just added a few things back into the article a while back that's stragiht from the older citation and was sourced). So let's take what we want from it and source it and then we don't have to use the rest. Purely for verification purposes. Hope this helps. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Some unknown band[edit]

I tried to add my band's myspace page to the avant-garde metal wikipedia page and it was quickly deleted. I was told I needed a reliable source to claim that it is an avant-garde metal band. This is b.s. The entire avant-garde metal page is b.s. And the worst part is the discussion page. None of you understand the concept of metal, the notion of avant-garde, and aesthetics of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.251.62 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you don't understand the mechanics of Wikipedia. I guess you're talking about this edit. First, your band has no article on Wikipedia and therefore alone is not legit to be featured in this list. Second, see WP:COI. Third, your entry was technically wrong. If your band is notable enough one day to get an own article here, your fans may include you to the list.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Behold The Arctopus[edit]

they're classed as A-G metal in their wiki article and certainly fit the description. added. RPTechnic (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

System of a Down?[edit]

What would System of a Down be considered? Are they Progressive Metal or Avant-Garde Metal?Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

--Neither! Alternative Metal at best, and this really isn't the forum to ask, do ya think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.0.7 (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no way in hell are they neither and only people who aren't aware of experimental or progressive metal think they're alternative metal.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

In order to fit in a sub-genre of metal, a band must first actually be metal, which SOAD is not. Drink bleach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.78.74 (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll will warn the above IP editor that they should be civil and not engage in personal attacks. I'm not even going to get into the whole neutral point of view and verifiability arguments. And as the list now has its own article now, concerns should be addressed there.--¿3family6 contribs 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
For all you keeping track at home, 'not metal' is an insult used by metalheads to express disdain for a band or genre. It has nothing to do with the band or genre's actual status as metal or not metal. Very rarely, metalheads will attempt to claim non-metal bands they like as metal or metal-influenced, once again regardless of their actual genre and influences. 175.38.204.40 (talk) 07:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Massive List[edit]

OK, before I start gutting the list on the basis that almost nothing on there passes WP:RS, I'm just going to give other editors a day or so to explain how avantgarde-metal.com might pass? It appears to be a webzine (hence no chance of passing); the website includes a section titled "print mags" but there's no indication that they were published by a third party... if they weren't they fail under WP:SPS. Either way the list needs hugely trimming in line with other metal list articles. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's you who erases avantgarde-metal.com? How might it pass, you ask? Well, it's the first website to be 100% dedicated to avant-garde metal, including interviews with very important composers from the "genre", reviews of avant-garde metal albums, as well as other special articles. It's been existing since 2007. All the bands listed on Wikipedia as agm bands, have been featured on avantgarde-metal.com. The website doesn't claim to hold the truth, but I think it would still be important for potential avant-garde metal fans, to know about it, if only to learn about new original bands playing metal. What else do you want, to have it pass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.178.188 (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't posture and we don't pose as the centergate to the truth about avant-garde metal, it's just that we're a bunch of experienced longtime explorers of the alternate definitions of metal music. If you are a fan, please encourage our website only as a portal to exploring the genre, and if you're not a fan of that kind of music, well, I wonder why you're willing to apply so blindly the Wikipedia god-given laws regarding verifiability. If we interview Vicotnik, and Vicotnik says avant-garde metal is close to his heart, and metal history (look for the reviews out there) agrees to the fact that 666 International was indeed ahead of its time, musically, lyrically, visually, conceptually, etc., and we publish this online - how verifiable is this for you? As any other publication, we have writers writing reviews, and this could never be objective, but what about interviews? Isn't the newcoming explorer of avant-garde metal interested in finding out what the artists themselves behind such music have to say? Do we mislead him, or do we indicate a false, unverifiable source, by giving him the opportunity to read directly to the source, so to speak? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.178.188 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you write for the site... read WP:COI, and also WP:SPAM with regard to the comment, "If you are a fan, please encourage our website". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Heavy trimming of list[edit]

Any inclusion on the list needs either the explict use of "avan-garde metal" or "experimental metal" in a reliable source. Many on the list do not an will be removed. If, say, MusicMight lists the genre assay, "Avant-garde, Death Metal", that is not enough, and any attempt to claim otherwise is pure WP:SYNTH. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Animals as Leaders?[edit]

Is Animals as Leaders too new to be considered a notable experimental metal band? Although they are new, they showcase many qualities of the genre and I believe they are a quintessential example of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.254.2 (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then you need a reliable source saying that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sleepytime Gorilla Museum[edit]

This refers to Sleepytime Gorilla Museum as "avant-metal". Now, normally I would go with a specific citation - either "avant-garde metal" or "experimental metal" - but in this case, I think it could qualify as a citation. What else would "avant-metal" refer to other than "avant-garde metal"? --LordNecronus (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Avantgarde-metal.com[edit]

Why is someone systematically removing any reference to Avantgarde-Metal.com, as well as the reference to Oliver Side's article, "What is Avant-Garde Metal?". AudioDreamer (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not space for promoting your webzine; they get removed per WP:EL, the relevant guideline. Constant addition is simply spam. You want to establish notability, find some third-party reliable sources talking about the site in detail and we'll talk further. Until then, you persistent spamming is becoming disruptive. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, with regard to Side's credentials, if you wish to cite him on the topic, his words need to be in a professional music publication or a peer-reviewed paper or book... not his own website (see WP:SPS). Out of curiosity, do you have any personal connection to the site or Side? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a collection of links, then how come there are 23 links leading up to websites (how reliable is this?) which feature reviews of bands considered by the authors of the reviews (god knows who) as avant-garde metal? Except for the book, all the references cited are not from professional music publication or peer-reviewed paper or book. By the way, there is NO book called Avant-Garde Metal written by Ian Christe and published by Harper Paperbacks, so this is at best a misrepresentation of reality. In fact, Christe published "Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal", with a section about avant-garde metal. He published it in 2003, and during the last 7 years or so, a lot has happened in the real world of Avant-Garde Metal, while nothing new has happened in his book. Wow, what a reliable source eh. In this context, why avantgarde-metal.com, the only website specifically and explicitly dedicated to the study and diffusion of avant-garde metal, could not be added at least to the links? Furthermore, it is a fact, avantgarde-metal.com does exist, so why could it not appear in the Wikipedia body text on avant-garde metal, not as advertising or promotion (which you seem to believe is my intention in putting the links), but as essential information for any avant-garde metal fan, fin connaisseur or not. Look around on the internet, there is no other website called avant-garde metal or studying the properties of avant-garde metal as such, in and of itself, both musically and conceptually. According to the reality of musical knowledge on avant-garde metal, and the body of work now existing on the subject, which Wikipedia is supposed to represent the most honestly on this page, avantgarde-metal.com should be known for its serious work in the development of media knowledge about this unique and present-day musical movement. What do you think? I think that by preventing me to publish this information on avant-garde metal, you are being an "Anti-Avantgarde-metal.com" Warrior, which is close enough to the Genre Warriors you pretend to be against. AudioDreamer (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the article of Mr. Side, who has recently become chief editor of avantgarde-metal.com (long after our first trials at getting Side's article here, in fact since July 2009), once more I fail to see why it could not at least be linked somewhere on the page. Look around on Wikipedia, many MA and PHD researchers are putting up links to their work, in the case someone else who is also doing research into the same area, might be interested. This is common sense, really. What's wrong with that? I don't understand. So even if I was Side, who I'm not, there wouldn't be anything wrong about this. I mean, is Side's paper unofficial, because it has been professionally edited by our working editors, and seriously written by a professional philosopher of our time, who not only weirdly happens to enjoy avant-garde metal, but who also has worked to give it some sort of philosophical contextualization, something which had never been done before? Again, what's wrong with that? Please discuss it honestly with me, as I want to understand your point. AudioDreamer (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy you are not grasping is WP:RS. The avantgardemetal.com material has never been printed by a third-party source, unlike, say, MusicMight or Allmusic; that is why it is inappropriate. I'm unclear as to the reference you make to PhD students and the like... you appear to be comparing apples and oranges. If Side's thoughts are published somewhere by somebody else in a professional, i.e. commercial format, then we can talk. Wikipedia is not concerned with "truth" only verifiability by reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed Tiamat[edit]

I removed Tiamat. From my judgement, there is nothing Avant-Garde about them at all; all their songs just sound like regular gothic metal. Their wikipedia article does not list them as Avante-Garde Metal, and the citation listed was a link to a bio about Opeth. If someone can find a better source there is no problem with putting it back on the list, but it doesn't seem to be obvious that Tiamat belongs on the list, and the citation given was completely unrelated. The only place I can find the words "Tiamat" and "avant-garde" in the same place are avant-garde-metal.com and A Deeper Kind of Slumber, which is really more post-metal than avant-garde metal. 24.2.51.248 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get what the issue with the citation is. It's a reliable source that refers to Tiamat as "experimental metal", which according to this page also counts as a citation for "avant-garde metal" (The line in question: "The album created a huge buzz among progressive metal fans, who had begun to lump the band in with other experimental metal bands like Tiamat."); it shouldn't matter whether the article is actually on Tiamat. It doesn't matter whether other Wikipedia articles refer to the band as part of this genre, either. (As a sidenote, not all of Tiamat's songs sound like regular gothic metal at all; their early stuff is death metal, Wildhoney is part progressive rock, and much of their later stuff is gothic rock with hardly any metal influence.) --LordNecronus (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One guy says Tiamat is not Avant-Garde Metal from his judgement, while the other guy says yes it is, according to a review found online. What is objective about the first guy's judgement? What is objective about the other guy's review? What is objective about this conversation? Yes indeed, Tiamat have been considered by many to have had an impact on the avantgardization of metal during the nineties. Study your metal, man. It's neither a personal judgement nor a review which will change that. But "considered by many", what is objective about that? One of the problems here is that we have people from very different backgrounds, sometimes with not much of an idea about the history of avant-garde metal music, but with big egos and therefore with ideas even larger than their actual knowledge. I'm not saying Tiamat are Avant-Garde Metal nowadays though, cause they're not. But they've been seen by most printed metal magazines you will find from the nineties, as quite experimental for the time, not that they were the only ones. Now what should we do, feature them or not? Who has an objective answer to that? Here is a 2007 review of their Wildhoney album: http://www.avantgarde-metal.com/content/reviews2.php?id=124 AudioDreamer (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Iwrestledabearonce[edit]

→Iwrestledabearonce has avant-garde metal in their page, why are they not listed as one of the bands here in this page? Jw, they'rea notable worthy band, so why can't they be in the list as well?←--IAmSuchALoser (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


Nvm, i added them myself, they are very avant-garde, check them out if youd like.

Benea Reach[edit]

I added Benea Reach, only to have the addition reverted. Is it a question of whether they should be classified as avant-garde metal, or whether they are notable? The latter I can understand, but the former I cannot. The review says that "You'll hear everything from doom to metalcore to avant garde to math metal." If this does not qualify it as avant-garde metal, then as far as I can see the given sources for Ulver and Maudlin do not qualify, as the sources do not explicitly call them avant-garde or experimental metal, Triptykon should not be included because it says that the album is beneficial to fans of avant-garde metal, not that it is avant-garde metal. Again, if Benea Reach is an issue of notability, I will concede, but if otherwise, some other bands should be removed as well.--3family6 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore this, I have moved way past this.--¿3family6 contribs 03:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pentagram?[edit]

It's been a while since I last checked this article, and I personally feel that the list of avant-garde metal bands has taken a turn for the worst. However, I'll try and ignore most of it, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies regarding citations, and concentrate on one artist that I think I can argue for the removal of: Pentagram.

When I first saw Pentagram listed, I laughed, assuming it was the American doom metal band that has fuck-all to do with anything experimental or avant-garde. Then I remembered that there's more than one metal band called Pentagram, and that I wasn't sure which band was listed -- was it the aforementioned American band, was it the Turkish band that I've never listened to, or was there some other Pentagram that actually plays avant-garde metal that I've never heard of? I clicked on the source and found that the page is unavailable for viewing, meaning there's nothing that reliably backs up Pentagram's inclusion.

So, what I'm asking is: until a reliable source has been found that actually calls them avant-garde metal or experimental metal (that I can also actually read), could Pentagram be removed from the list? --LordNecronus (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's odd. I was able to access the source when I found it about a week ago or whenever it was when I made the edit. I can assure you that the quotation is accurate, and though I thought it a rather odd statement, a reliable source is a reliable source. I'm leaving for a vacation tomorrow, so it might be a few days before I can try and find out if someone actually has the book or some form of access to it to confirm the accuracy of the source. Why Google Books no longer shows it I haven't the faintest clue.--¿3family6 contribs 02:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Source is working now, it definitely refers to Pentagram as "avant-garde metal". However, I still feel the need to argue this. The article actually features a definition for avant-garde metal ("Avant-garde metal, also known as experimental metal, is a subgenre of heavy metal music characterised by the use of innovative, avant-garde elements, large-scale experimentation, and the use of non-standard sounds, instruments, and song structures." - and it's sourced) that we're completely ignoring (and contradicting) just to add any old band that's referred to as part of the genre, regardless of whether they actually display any traits of the genre. Adding Pentagram to this article is like adding Nightwish to the list of black metal bands just because Allmusic refers to them (incorrectly) as "symphonic black metal"; it's very obviously incorrect because the bands themselves don't display, in their music, the traits necessary to be defined as part of those genres (ie. Nightwish isn't musically extreme, Pentagram isn't experimental). --LordNecronus (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
First, the allmusic reference for Nightwish is a genre tag, and those have been deemed unreliable by consensus, mostly because they are unattributable to an author. But for the main point, 1) the article does go on to say that "there is no convention or criteria to exactly define the genre" and 2) claiming that Pentagram is not avant-garde metal even though a source says it is, is an example of original synthesis, unless there is a source that says that Pentagram is not avant-garde metal.--¿3family6 contribs 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Instead of continuing to argue with you on this, I'm going to ask about something else: which Pentagram is being talked about? There's more than one Pentagram, and there's a chance the Pentagram being talked about in the source isn't the doom band (that objectively isn't avant-garde, regardless of whatever rules you try and counter me with). Unfortunately, the source just says that Pentagram (a Pentagram) is avant-garde metal without going into further detail; I assumed it was the doom band because they're the most popular Pentagram and therefore the most likely to be mentioned, but it's unclear which Pentagram is being talked about. Perhaps we should confirm which Pentagram the author is talking about before we put them on the list as a "notable" avant-garde metal band? --LordNecronus (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point, I'll need to do digging.--¿3family6 contribs 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I have found. The Indian band called Pentagram isn't considered metal, and it is fairly obscure, so we can pretty much rule that band out. Now, the book could be referring to the Turkish metal band, but it is known internationally as Mezarkabul, and the book would almost certainly refer to it by that name. In addition to that, the big name Pentagram recorded a cover for a Syd Barrett tribute album. So, basically, all the evidence points to the American band.--¿3family6 contribs 14:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Going by that info, it does seem that the author is referring to the American band, but it's just baffling to me; why would he call such a straight-forward band "avant-garde"? I'm tempted to find some way to contact the author so that he can hopefully clear this up and explain why he mentioned Pentagram, but that's probably not going to make much of a difference with the article. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List?![edit]

What the f*** is going on with the list of bands? We could remove 90% of listed bands...Vater-96 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be much less painful to rewrite the whole article. This is sad... very sad. — NikFreak (leave message) 22:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NikFreak. P.S. Sorry for the "inappropriate" vocabulary for Wikipedia.Vater-96 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Over half the bands listed are sourced as "experimental metal." Personally, I think that "experimental metal" is a broader term than "avant-garde metal," but I haven't found a reliable source to confirm this, though there is at least one that claims that the two genres are the same.--¿3family6 contribs 01:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you thought that merging "experimental metal" and avant-garde metal was wise, than explain terrible ratings under the article. P.S. "Experimental metal" is not real genre! It is imaginary genre same as Dark metal etc. Vater-96 (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't merge the the styles, they were merged a long way back, before I'd ever even heard of either style, and it doesn't matter anyway, as the merge is sourced. If anything, my recent edits actually separate the two styles somewhat, as the article now points out that experimental metal can also refer to post-metal (I also think it refers to mathcore, but I don't have a source to confirm that.) I personally agree with your P.S. statement, and many would extend that to include avant-garde metal as well. It should be noted that the article does say that the term "avant-garde metal" is fairly nebulous.--¿3family6 contribs 14:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunn O))) part of an early Black Metal or Progressive Metal scene? Are you mad???[edit]

"Major pioneers of the genre include Celtic Frost,[6][3] Voivod,[6][3] Sunn O))),[7][3] Fleurety,[3] Ved Buens Ende,[3] and Maudlin of the Well.[8][3] Most of these bands were part of the early black metal or progressive metal genres, or both"

That sentence is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in my whole life, Sunn O))) are not (and weren't) part of any Prog or Black Metal scene, remove that you stupid zipperheads,

PLUS, if I see one more time Brachiosauride being removed from the list, I will do sth you'll definitely regret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.32.21 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say Sunn O))) was in either movement, it says that MOST of the bands were in at least one of those scenes, but it does not specify that ALL of those bands were in those scenes. But your objection is not valid any way, as there are reliable sources that put Sunn O))) as being partially black metal [1], [2], [3], [4].
With your second point, if you have a source that meets Wikipedia's criteria of reliability, than go ahead and add Brachiosauride. The reason that band is being removed is because the sources do not meet the criteria of Wikipedia.
I will note that your tone is not very civil. Making threats is not going to gain consensus.--¿3family6 contribs 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Reliable sources say Sunn were part of a Black/Prog Metal scene? really?? Are those the same idiots who are saying 30 Second To Mars are a Progressive Metal band?? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_progressive_metal_artists), Maybe useless sites such as Allmusic sound reliable for a fake Pop/Dance band, but things are completely different in the underground scene, the website Heavy Planet which I referred to Brachiosauride is one of the most important places on the net, sure you don't know who Brant Bjork is... about Sunn I think I should talk to Stephen (O'Malley) about that and it certainly won't be so good for you, I had somehow the same problem with another retard at Last.fm some months ago about Neurosis' wiki, he didn't listen to what I said and he's not doing great now cause Scott Kelly talked to Last.fm's main moderator about that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.255.32.21 (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only just stumbled across this excahnge, but before commenting further (and potentially getting yourself blocked), can I politely request that you read both WP:CIVIL and WP:V. Your personal opinions are meaningless here; Wikipedia is (rightly or wrongly) concerned only with verifiability, not truth. To reiterate the previous editor's point... if you want a particular band included in this list, then you need to find a source that passes WP:RS (which discounts pretty much all webzines). Finally, the "Internet tough guy" approach is cute (particularly coupled with the name-dropping and the anonymity of the IP address), but really rather unnecessary over Wikipedia content disputes. Regards, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the main issue with including Brachiosauride in the list, is that is a new band, in other words, it isn't notable enough, they even don't have a wikipedia article, and don't expect'em to be included soon, there are lots of bands that have been touring since 2008-2009 and stills excluded from wikipedia. The list that appears in this article might include only the most representative bands in the avant-garde metal genre. Finally, after given a listen to the band, i'd say that they are much more sludge and progressive metal (like Mastodon) than avant-garde. Nicrorus (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Experimental metal?[edit]

If more of the cited references use "experimental metal" rather than "avant-garde metal", shouldn't we change the article name? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the standard is here.--¿3family6 contribs 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, me neither. It was just something that occurred to me while I was going through the sources. I have a feeling that "experimental metal" is going to crop up rather more often, possibly not as a genre term... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've wondered the same thing about changing the article name by the way, but like I said, I'm not sure about the standard. Maybe I should propose a move?--¿3family6 contribs 13:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If it looks like it's the more common usage go for it. ::Also, while I'm here, a query: does Allexperts pass WP:RS? Anything used as a source that includes "lol" in cold blood leaves me unconvinced. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, re: Allexperts. They state, regarding volunteers (read: user-generated content), "If you can SPECIFICALLY describe the kinds of questions you can answer, and send in an application without typos, showing you know how to give a professional presentation, you're almost certain to be accepted!". Fails WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure about AllExperts. If they had editorial control, I think it would still be okay, but it doesn't look like there is any. I'll try to find sources for the content that had AllExperts as a source. I'll also need to go over the Melodic death metal article as well, that one will be trickier.--¿3family6 contribs 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm moderately surprised that the "Allexpert" passed the site's (fairly loose) criteria, as judging by the "melodic death metal" link, he can't use punctuation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that the article has been moved back to its original title. "Avant-garde metal" also parallels "avant-garde progressive rock" quite nicely. Moreover, at Talk:Experimental music, it is pointed out that the term "experimental" is problematic especially when applied to music that is recognisably allied to any genre (metal in this case), as the term implies unforeseen results that are expected to transcend genre altogether. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


Avant-garde metalExperimental metal – Experimental metal is used far more in sources than avant-garde metal. ¿3family6 contribs 22:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment "experimental metal" also refers to experimental metal alloys from metallurgy, and experimental machinery colloquially known as 'metal'. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I forgot about that, even though it constantly comes up in my internet searches.--¿3family6 contribs 12:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to suggested title. (non-admin closure) Calidum Talk To Me 05:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)



Experimental metalAvant-garde metal – this name is used in the cited sources written by Freeborn, Bowar, Christe and Peterik (currently refs numbered 1, 2, 5 and 6). Fricke (#7) uses avant-metal. Buts (#3) is the only one out of these 6 to use "experimental metal" as the leading term, although Bowar includes it as an alternative. Moreover, the name "experimental metal" is ambiguous as mentioned in the 2012 RM above. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom and 2012 ambiguousness note -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support' per nom. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't really care one way or the other. The reason I moved it before was even though the sources by Freeborn, Bowar, Christe, and Peterik use the term, the majority of sources listed call an artist (or artists) "experimental metal". Also, to avoid confusion with metallurgy, the article could also be moved to "experimental metal music".--¿3family6 contribs 15:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and to avoid confusion with experimental metal alloys. bd2412 T 16:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Avant-garde metal may be the correct name amongst metalheads but experimental metal is a more logical name as it implies the genre is a heavier version of experimental rock, which it is. With a name like Avant-garde metal some might become confused and think the genre is not related to experimental rock music. --I call the big one bitey (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.