Talk:System of a Down

Archives
April 2004 – December 2005 December 2005 – March 2007

Removing peoples comments from talk page archives

An IP (User_talk:202.12.233.21) )has been continually removing opinions from editors on the archived page, regarding the band's genre. They have removed opinions (from other editors) which are oppositional to their own. They have been doing this for a while without reason until now, providing the reason:

"removed flaming of discussion post - this will constantly be changed back to reflect this. various posts involved abuse of users opinion, vulgar language, and un-necisary responses."

• There was no flaming on the thread (maybe one editor had been slightly careless with their language i.e saying "shut it", which wasn't extremely helpful but none-the-less they were just trying to express their view).
• The user abusing opinions is the editor who had made 9 separate comments trying to POV push that SOAD are emo/emo rock n roll. Whenever someone else had tried to oppose this, their comment got deleted by the IP.
• I found no vulgar language (on the parts that kept being removed).
• No-ones opinions should be regarded as unnecessary. Even though other people had opposed the IPs opinions, no-one had removed them.

The talkpage archives shouldn't be edited and I would just like to ask other editors to state their opinions, as I don't want to become too subjective about this. Thank-you. --Seraphim Whipp 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to this

Yes I was one of the original people editing this section of the discussion. Although I think it is hypocritical to suggest what you are suggesting above, namely: "They have removed opinions (from other editors) which are oppositional to their own." When exactley the same thing has been done, towards them, when adding "Emo Metal" to the "list" of genres, whilst not removing any of the other genres on the list, namely by the same author above in many cases. ^^Comment from User_talk:202.12.233.21

Ok, I understand the point you're trying to make, but those changes are to the article and not the talk page. The edits I made in the article reflect consensus, by removing the category of emo/emo rock n roll/emo metal. I was not the only one to do this, take a look in the page's history here. Your changes had been reverted by a number of users:

Seraphim Whipp (me)

156.34.208.164

Artaxiad

Sub-Z3R0

Ormi

Anger22

Gerrish

Corpx

68.116.70.59

172.144.0.252

Dfrg.msc

Tene

Imroy

AirCombat

Infosocialist

ChopAtwa

By removing information from the talk page archive you are violating wiki policy. And as always, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~--Seraphim Whipp 10:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the recent removal of this discussion, I checked the location of the IP's which had edited out the comments. The IPs are located in Australia, the same location as the IP that this discussion was originally with (who was blocked for 3 months).

Seraphim Whipp 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a person locked inside the same network the person doing the edits I'd just like to vote that they are in-fact EMO-Metal. There's no disputing. So please do ignore this slower individual who works at the same workplace as I and re-enstate "Emo Metal". 202.12.233.21 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Who are you referring to exactly? If you are referring to me, I do not work with you and I'm not even in the same country. Do refrain from making personal attacks. It is against consensus to add the nonsense genre of "Emo Metal". Hopefully now your IP isn't blocked, you can begin to make more constructive edits.

Seraphim Whipp 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.12.233.21 obviously. While I post from that same IP I am not the person making the edits people are complaining about.

202.12.233.21 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are not the same user that kept adding Emo Metal even though you've just made a comment saying that Emo Metal should be added. Right.

Seraphim Whipp 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ozzfest (Freefest)?

Hmm, I don't know how to deal with this. Someone edited the page to say that SOAD will be at the Ozzfest this year (which is called Freefest now, btw - since it's free), and the Bands-page ( http://www.ozzfest.com/bands.html ) does have SOAD in there, but is the Bands-page actually up-to-date or is it still from last year or something? The page is also a bit weird because it seems to list the artists twice with some more in the end, or something. 212.213.90.13 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, apparently the bios link to 2006, so this seems to be a false alarm. Too bad =/

Heres a Question I was wondering if the song Plastic Jesus was done by system. I listen to it and although it said, "by System of a Down" it sounds nothing like them, or like thier style of music.

It's not by SOAD. gracz54 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ya, they changed the page. it has a bunch of pics with question marks.

Oriental metal?

Where is this guy (the one that keeps adding "Oriental Metal" under genre) getting that from? There's nothing "oriental" about them at all. Am I the only one confused by this? This is not a personal attack...I just don't understand it...at all. Bsroiaadn 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who was adding it, but after looking at the page, it seems understandable. They do have elements of fol and middle eastern music.

I wish people could get over the temptation to add weird genres to band articles, without references. "Oriental metal" is just weird.. and although the term "emo" has lost almost all meaning, I can still say confidently that SOAD share few similarities with "emo" music. Unless there is some sort of consensus (and reliable source) for the term "emo", it should not be applied. Rhobite 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SOAD is not emo. Not saying they don't talk about serious, and sometimes mildly depressing, things...but they're not emo. Unless "emo-metal" is a new genre, I don't think the word "emo" should be in the article anywhere. Still wondering where this guy/these guys are getting "emo" and "oriental metal" from. They all seem like sock puppets, but I can't prove it. There are at least 3 accounts that make VERY similar (mostly to genres like adding "emo" or "oriental metal", or changing "bass" to "bass guitar", "vocals" to "backing vocals" or "lead vocals" and things like that) to articles, almost always having something to do with System of a Down. They haven't gotten banned on any of them (that I know of) so I'm not sure if it's against the rules or not. I'll have to read up on it, again. Either way, I can't prove it right now, so I won't even try to report it. Bsroiaadn 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be sockpuppets, or it could just be a common thing to do.. this is similar to the "nu-metal" edit war, which you can read about in the archives. Rhobite 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP mentioned at the top of the talk page consistently made changes to the genre. They have since been blocked from editing for 3 months. It does seem a bit odd... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Damn...HagermanBot beat me to sign my post.

Seraphim Whipp 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the oriental metal genre from the Orphaned land article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.49.64 (talk • contribs)

Ok, but why apply it to System of a Down?

Seraphim Whipp 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, based on the description in the oriental metal article, i would say it describes their sound.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.49.64 (talk • contribs)

You'll notice that it keeps being removed. That is probably because the majority disagree with you. There's been a number of discussions regarding genre already. Check out the archives. If you want to make changes to it, make a case on the talk page and people are more likely to accept what you're saying.

Seraphim Whipp 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WHERE THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE GETTING "EMO" FROM? THEY'RE NOT FUCKING EMO AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now Oriental Metal seems a little understandable, but people, I ask you, EMO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hiatus

yep, so the band is taking a break for a while. so in the meantime, check out my new band Syndrome Of a Down. just kidding system kicks ass.

This doesn't belong here. please see Wikipedia: No one cares about your garage band Doc Strange 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Please, don't delete them. The only one I know of that's ever been in this article is the one by the genres, which I had to re-add today because someone, and I know exactly who..check the edit summary of that edit for it, deleted it. This is to everyone, though I'm sure most of you know, do not delete that hidden comment. There's a reason it's there. Bsroiaadn 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Singing Style

I don't mean to offend any of System's fans, but is Tankian trying to be funny when he sings? Whenever I hear a System song, half of me is angry that a man that sings like that has become such a successful musician, and the other half wants to fall over laughing because of how he actually sounds. Is he actually singing or is he trying to make his listeners laugh? Do we have any information on WHY Tankian sings like he does? I'd really like to know.PowderedToastMan 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's part trying to sound funny (only a part of the time tho), but there's also very serious singing too.

212.213.90.13 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion is unimportant, as the concern of the article is not whather Serj's voice makes someone laugh. Please keep your opinions to yourself. :) 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide survivors?

..' grandsons of Armenian Genocide survivors '.. ? What ??

Should this be one of the first sentences to explain the band? I know the band is among the people who support genocide theory, but isn't it offensive for Turkish fans of SOAD?

Just a thought.

There are Turkish SOAD fans?

Thanks Miller 88.106.11.115 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a article that has to do with Armenians since obviously they are, considerably removing that is offensive also since Serj and others have strong feelings about this, the genocide that is. The majority view the Armenian Genocide as genocide for example Scholars, historians, preferable all reliable. Its like removing important figures of the Jewish holocaust only its more known and accepted. Just like the Armenian Genocide, only of which Turkey denies, like Germany trying to take over and saying it never happened in which they did before but now they admit it, I hope you understand us. Mexicana 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored to protect anyone's feelings. Why should it be offensive to Turks? Why is it a big deal to admit your country did horrible things in the past? I'm an American and don't deny what the American government did to the Native Americans was a horrible thing. I'm sure you can find many a German (or other European country that collaborated in the slaughter) who isn't exactly proud or even defensive of the Holocaust. Turks need to grow up and admit what the Turkish government did to the Armenians as WWI was winding down was genocide, and move on. Parsecboy 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Genre

if there is evidence within the article that they do not fall under a heavy metal category, then who keeps on changing not only the genres in the side box, but also in the article at the beginning. I think that experimental rock is a good genre to put them under, but since they are more "metalish" than most rock groups, Avant-Garde Metal, which is basically metal and experimental rock mixed, is a better genre.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.28.243 (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed here and another genre debate here (although do bear in mind, when reading through the archive, that one user continually tried to point of view push that System were emo/emo metal/emo rock/emo rock n roll so some of the posts do not reflect the general consensus). I agree that experimental is a better genre but it is recognised in the infobox. They are also well known as a heavy metal band and there is a reference for it.

Seraphim Whipp 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

im not meaning to put down System or anything, but i think calling them Avant-Garde Metal is pushing it just a little. Avant-Garde imply's that the group is pushing music into an entirely new direction, throwing away old views of what music IS and redefining it. though they are, to most, an entirely new sound in music... they arent. they're musical style is extremely Bungle influenced (Mr. Bungle being an Avant-Garde group), and repeating an existing style is polar opposite to what it means to be Avant-Garde. their style can also be related, in some ways, to Primus (some), Dog Fashion Disco and so on. both of which came before SOAD... dont get me wrong, System is quite the group but they are by no means innovative enough for the term Avant-Garde. if your into lookin up some neat Avant-Metal these days tho (since Bungle is long past gone) some good choices may be Fantomas, Buckethead, Naked City, or Secret Cheifs 3. (Avant-Garde metal is an extremely prestige and exclusive genre, not to be used lightly)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.168.141 (talk • contribs)

i just wanted to make a comment about the genre in the opening paragraph. whoever put "band", you are the smartest person i know. it makes no sense to just change the genre every 5 minutes when you have a band that to some are one genre, while to another are something different.

System of a Down are by no means nu-metal. All the bands that play the style Korn started are nu-metal. System of a Down was releasing demos before Korn.

SOAD are Nu-Metal, sorry. It has nothing to do with the age of a band, you can have Nu-Metal older then Korn realistically. It's a style, not an age group. Just because you don't like to be called a fan of nu-metal doesn't mean the band you like isn't Nu.

202.12.233.21 08:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To the guy stating that the genre avant-garde metal means innovative.. well, you have the wrong idea, man. Avant-garde refers to the style the avant-garde metal bands play, like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, for example. It is a genre. It does by no means mean that THOSE bands are INNOVATIVE. You may not think that SOAD are that innovative, but most people would disagree with you, and state that every avant-garde band isn't innovative. They're just a bunch of bands not caring about casual song structures and make music in a different way, the way they want to, innovative or not, just like SOAD, who are one of the most innovative and groundbraking bands of the 00s. So, I don't think that avant-garde metal should be included as a genre to SOAD, not because they aint innovative (because they are), but because they don't sound like an avant-garde metal band, in their style. And, for that other thing you said, about Mr Bungle being called innovative just because no one has made music like that before. They're an avant-garde band, in the genre. And they too have their influences just like SOAD. Maybe you ain't into that, but take Zappa, Gentle Giant, ELP and other fucked up bands from the seventies, and for god's sake, circus music. Bungle aren't as original as you say.Revan ltrl 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Song

Was the legend of zelda song I've seen all over the net in places such as Flash Revolution that has been attributed to System of a Down actually done by them? 74.69.245.119 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a song by The Rabbit Joint. Someone tagged it wrong and now people are fooled into thinking it was made by System. Gracz54 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's good to know, thanks for clearing that up >.> 74.69.245.119 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not a song by the Rabbit Joint. From the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Joint (which redirects to Zelda).

Joe Pleiman created a song parody of the main Zelda theme for his album The Rabbit Joint.[23] The song is commonly mis-attributed to System of a Down or The Rabbit Joint. 212.213.90.13 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rabbit Joint is a side project of Joe Pleiman's, not just the album title the Zelda song was on. That track is freely available, and properly attributed, at http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00022/ - Liontamer 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal

Is'nt System of a Down nu metal? I would add that to the genre but the note there says not to do so without mentioning on talk page. --69.119.193.192 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

System of a Down has Absolutely nothing to do with nu metal. This was settled months ago. Why can't you guys who keep adding that to the genre unsourced understand that? gees --Charles Montgomery 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They are Nu-Metal and I know Daron does not want to be labeled which I respect but in this case they will always be that genre. So I'm going to put that genre as the only one. It settled in this case.--Orlandinho 06:13, 25 April 2007

Not settled without reliable sources that support your claim. –Pomte 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a source. A website all about rock genres. So i'm going to switch it back. --74.97.35.21 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That means the site sucks. gracz54 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in like this but: System of a Down is a nu metal band. This is a portion of the "Common musical traits" section from the nu metal article:

"Unlike traditional metal, the overall defining trait of nu metal guitar-playing is the emphasis on mood, rhythm, and texture over melody and complex instrumentation, achieved largely through performance or effects. Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat -- ideally, both at once. However, guitar-playing in nu metal still often varies vastly in complexity, sound and usage. Bands take elements from several forms of music when composing the riffs for their guitars, causing a high variance between the bands. One common trait of most nu metal bands however, is to emphasize the guitar as a rhythmic instrument. Riffs often consist of only a few different notes or power chords played in rhythmic, syncopated patterns. To emphasize this rhythmic nature, nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting, that is often widely spaced out and blend easily into the surrounding riffs, in a manner similar to grunge and hip hop.

Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. Strings 'de-tuned' in this way, are often drop-D or lower, sometimes adding a seventh string. This technique is often criticized as a misuse of alternate guitar tunings, with detractors emphasizing the ease and frequency with which power chords are played, particularly in nu metal. Guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs, and when they do appear they are often short and simple when compared to those of traditional metal genres."

These characteristics totally fit System of a Down's guitar work. Now I'll give you other characteristics of nu metal that fit System of a Down pretty well:

• System of a Down uses the "verse-chorus-verse" song structure and its variants that are common in nu metal.
• System of a Down has a nu metal fan base.
• System of a Down has popped up around the time of the nu metal boom.
• System of a Down has incorporated rap-like vocals in several songs (Chop Suey, Psycho, etc.).
• System of a Down has been labeled "nu metal" by Rockdetector, a viable source. [1]
• System of a Down has (or had, since they're not active those days) coverage on mainstream radios and TV channels like MTV, which is common of nu metal bands and not so common of metal bands, with some notable exceptions like: the 80's, Metallica, etc.
• Google stats:
  • System of a Down nu metal ---> 255,000 results
  • System of a Down avant-garde metal (excluding Wikipedia results) ---> 972 results

I think nu metal should actually be at the top of the list, but getting it at second place will be fine too. It is a fact that SoaD is a nu metal band, even though they do not use turntables and do not always use rapping vocals or similar techniques, for nu metal isn't limited to this.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply (and I hope very sincerely that this doesn't sound rude or misconvey my meaning):

• Pop music uses a verse-chorus-verse song structure. Does that mean they are pop? Clearly not.
• System has an emo fanbase, a metal fanbase, a rock fanbase, a pop fanbase. My mum who listens to soul music even likes them!
• Lots of bands popped up around the nu-metal boom; blink-182, Nirvana, Reel Big Fish etc. Doesn't mean that they are nu-metal simply because they arrived at that time.
• Rap-like. Answered yourself there really.
• It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that simply because a band got coverage on MTV that it makes them nu-metal
• Here, google stats are redundant as the search terms are not similar in form. Avante-garde metal has A.) A hyphen in it B.) Three words. The more you narrow a search, the less results you'll get.

So that's just what I think.

Seraphim Whipp 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No don't worry, your reply does not seem rude.

• We both know that SoaD is not pop, no need to argue over that. The point is that it shares a very significant characteristic with nu metal. The reason this characteristic is so significant is that bands from most of the subgenres of metal do not use the "verse-chorus-verse" structures (this is a fact). That is one important similarity.
• System of a Down has coverage on the mainstream media, which is one other thing that many nu metal bands have in common. It has a very significant number of fans from the nu metal fanbase, although they also have fans from other communities (I thought that was kind of obvious...). That makes it two important similarities with nu metal bands.
• Yes, except Nirvana, blink, and RBF do not even play in the same musical genre! It's not even worth bringing up. What I am saying is that it is kind of weird to deny all the evidence that is there. The time period they come from is one third similarity.
• Rap-like means at least some influence from rap or other subgenres, and some parts could actually be considered rapping vocals, which is widely used in nu metal. Fourth similarity here.
• Really? I think it is significant. But let me clarify this: being on MTV occasionally on a special metal-dedicated night is one thing; being on MTV on a regular basis as a "metal" band is another. Apart from Metallica, 80's metal, and few other exceptions, I don't know of any bands who are associated with the metal genre that are or were aired on MTV regularly, apart from nu metal and some metalcore bands.
• Another close link between nu metal bands and SoaD: The band toured across America in 2000 with Limp Bizkit (which is undiputably a nu metal and rapcore band), Method Man, and Redman (which shows a link between rap, nu metal, and the band). This is a fifth significant similarity.
• Okay now I got several comments about the Google stats:

• The word is avant-garde, not avante-garde.
• It has a hyphen in the name, and even if we take it off, the results are still exactly the same. Google doens't make a difference out of the hyphen in between avant and garde. Your argument is therefore invalid.
• The reason I put three words is that if you look at the search for System of a down avant-garde instead of System of a down avant-garde metal, you get many results that do not label them avant-garde, but that cite a collaboration with what the author of the page claims to be an Armenian avant-garde folk musician. Other results from this search include forums called Music Reviews of Crossover, Avant Garde. The rest include reviews from other internet users, and this is not a viable source. Thus, limiting the term to "avant-garde metal" in the search is legitimate, since 1) many results don't really relate and 2) it's the term avant-garde metal that is being used in the article. Also, just so you know, I know the list of avant-garde metal musical groups pretty well, and System of a Down has nothing to do with any of these bands.

• You forget that Rockdetector not only classifies them as nu metal (since the classification is limited by certain musical genres), but then, in the band page, clearly states that it is a nu metal act: "Los Angeles Nu-Metal band with an Armenian heritage". Sixth similarity.
• And on top of all of these similarities, the paragraph I put up above from the nu metal article clearly fits with SoaD's sound. Overall, I think there is so much evidence that SoaD's is a nu metal band that there is no point in even denying it.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, genre debates get long. I'm just going to refer you to the archives, where all the arguments that have prevailed countless times will hopefully prevail once again! :-) It's cool for us to agree to disagree. My advice is get consensus.

Seraphim Whipp 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. You say verse-chorus-verse makes SOAD (well, not alone, but anyway) nu-metal? I say that's nonsense. Like mentionend before, it's used in pop/rock too. I wouldn't label SOAD nu-metal because of that.

Well, "nu-metal fanbase" is arguable, since people that I know (that listen to SOAD) do not listen to nu-metal. Maybe one exception. The rest don't listen to SOAD at all. My friends don't count, however, but where did you get this info? Also, how does the fanbase effect the genre? If most of the people who like SOAD listen to classical music too, does that make SOAD classical music?

I don't think timing counts. As Seraphim Whipp mentioned, a lot of other bands popped up during that time, and they aren't nu-metal. It doesn't make you nu-metal.

Yes, they had rap-like vocals in a few songs. However, I'd hardly call that something that makes them nu-metal. A lot of bands have strings on their songs, but again, it doesn't make them classical music. The focus is almost always on sung lyrics.

Rockdetector eh? So SOAD is nu-metal because a website says so? It may be credible, but I don't think that makes them nu-metal either. A website is almost always the opinion of one person, maybe multiple people.

So, they're nu-metal because they get coverage on MTV and radio? ...right.

"Apart from Metallica, 80's metal, and few other exceptions, I don't know of any bands who are associated with the metal genre that are or were aired on MTV regularly, apart from nu metal and some metalcore bands."

Few other exceptions - like SOAD, maybe?

Oh, and like mentioned, Google is not exactly a reliable source on this. I think the things that make a band nu-metal are in the music. So far you've brought up the guitar playing and some (not very many) rap-like vocals on their songs. On the other side, there's not a lot of rapping, and no turntables. Also I'd say the bass doesn't have such a big part in SOAD's sound. I'd like you to mention things that make SOAD nu-metal musically, not stuff like "their fans like nu-metal!" or "they popped up at the same time as some nu-metal bands did!". This has been argued about before, decided as not nu-metal. You haven't exactly brought anything new into the discussion.

212.213.90.13 13:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd first like to say that avant-garde metal was put there even though SoaD has nothing to do with that genre of music, but then when nu metal is proposed, despite all the common points between SoaD and the nu metal movement, the arguments get all over the place.

• Well, "nu-metal fanbase" is arguable, since people that I know (that listen to SOAD) do not listen to nu-metal. Maybe one exception. The rest don't listen to SOAD at all. My friends don't count, however, but where did you get this info? Also, how does the fanbase effect the genre? If most of the people who like SOAD listen to classical music too, does that make SOAD classical music? ---> I'm not saying the fanbase defines the genre (I know a lot of mallcore kids who listen to Cannibal Corpse), but I am using this as one of the most important hints and clues.
• I don't think timing counts. As Seraphim Whipp mentioned, a lot of other bands popped up during that time, and they aren't nu-metal. It doesn't make you nu-metal. ---> Same. I'm pointing out that it's yet another characteristic of nu metal that applies to SoaD. Being a band that popped up in the early 90s doesn't make it nu metal, but a band that has an extremely similar sound with many other common points with the movement including the time period, I would say it should at least have the genre in the infobox!
• Yes, they had rap-like vocals in a few songs. However, I'd hardly call that something that makes them nu-metal. A lot of bands have strings on their songs, but again, it doesn't make them classical music. The focus is almost always on sung lyrics. ---> Me neither; I don't necessarily think that having raplike vocals necessarily make you nu metal. But it is an important characteristic of nu metal to have rap vocals and modified techniques of rapping.
• Rockdetector eh? So SOAD is nu-metal because a website says so? It may be credible, but I don't think that makes them nu-metal either. A website is almost always the opinion of one person, maybe multiple people. ---> SoaD is nu metal because that's the musical genre they belong to, and this is because of the music they play. Rockdetector is not just "a website". It is the greatest rock archive on the internet. If Rockdetector classifies them as nu metal, it's probably because there is a reason behind it. Rockdetector is extremely neutral and does not display any POV. This is reliable source for the addition of "nu metal" in the infobox. Plus, Rockdetector probably knows more about the heavy metal and rock subgenres than the MTV journalist who claimed them to be avant-garde metal.
• So, they're nu-metal because they get coverage on MTV and radio? ...right. ---> Again, they are nu metal because that's what kind of music they play. Honestly, have you ever heard any avant-garde metal band on a mainstream radio? Or MTV? Look through the list and tell me. Now, this doesn't prove anything, but if you look at the bands that play on MTV and that are associated by the mainstream audience with the metal genre, it's mostly bands like Linkin Park, Slipknot, Ill Niño, Korn, Limp Bizkit, as well as SoaD. And SoaD isn't an exception to the rule, for it has many other characteristics of nu metal, contrarily to Metallica (although their more recent style is considered by some to be nu metal).
• Oh, and like mentioned, Google is not exactly a reliable source on this. I think the things that make a band nu-metal are in the music. ---> Agreed. But Google does show a good approximation. Let's take another example that is clearly established and let's test it on Google.
  • "Black Flag" "hardcore punk" ---> 144,000 results.
  • "Black Flag" "grindcore" ---> 43,700 results.
  • "Black Flag" "doom metal" ---> 24,800 results.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't make sense to call a band a genre but then quickly say "without this and that". calling system nu metal without rapping, turntables and all that other shit is the same as calling some gay pop guy like justin timberlake classical music without cellos, violoins and all the other instruments, but with vocals. in order for a band to fit a genre, they should fit the genre perfectly. you wouldn't buy a kid xxl mens clothes, which is basically what you are doing when you say system is nu metal. it just doesn't fit. also, other metal bands came out around that time, and they aren't nu metal. ex. Tool, a prog metal band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozeclues (talk • contribs)

It does actually. Nu metal doesn't limit itself to rapping and turntables. A band can be part of a genre without "fitting it perfectly" as you say, and I doubt there is any band that "fits perfectly" to a specific genre. Your metaphor for "XXL" clothes and kids has harldy anything to do with SoaD or nu metal. And instead of simply saying "it just doesn't fit", please bring some constructive evidence. I have brought evidence with sources with reputation and NPOV (contrarily to the MTV article claiming them to be avant-garde metal). Never in this discussion it was said that "all bands that came up during the nu metal boom are nu metal". Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

if you look at the other genres listed, system fits in them pretty well, considering they have a very wide sound. because one song, chop suey, has some "rap-like" vocals doesn't make them a nu metal band. also, if you compare system with actual nu metal bands, similarities are rare to come across. calling soad nu metal is comparing them to bands like korn and limp bizkit, and i don't know what you think, but they don't really have anything in common. plus, nu metal has more personal lyrical themes, and system talks more about political issues or just plain randomness. Boozeclues 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh really? I think it doesn't. For one thing, many do not consider SoaD metal at all (I won't go that far, but it's a point of view we must consider); and for another, classifying them as avant-garde metal is purely ridiculous. Also, I think that they shouldn't be classified as experimental rock. Yes, they do have some experimentation, but that does not make them "experimental rock". I think the term alternative is best to describe their degree of experimentation.
• 1) They do not have rap-like vocals only in Chop Suey!, they have it in other songs, like "Fuck The System" or "This Cocaine Makes Me Feel Like I'm On This Song." 2) Yes you are right, they could still be nu metal without any rap or rap-like vocals, since nu metal doesn't limit itself to such characteristics.
• Similarities are rare to come across, huh? I just cited like five extremely significative similarities between System of a Down and the nu metal movement. And that does not include the paragraph describing the guitars from the nu metal article. But I can give you more. In "This Cocaine Makes Me Feel Like I'm On This Song," before the vocals actually start, you can hear some beatboxing noises made from the throat/mouth of one of the band members (similarity to hip hop). On "Old School Hollywood," the electronic effects play a central part of the intro and come back often during the song (similarity to nu metal). I can also note the lack of guitar solos in most songs, which is often noted of nu metal bands.
• Does nu metal limit itself to the lyrical themes? If you think about it, unblack metal bands still play black metal, even though their texts reflect the Christian ideology. Same thing applies here.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

earlier you gave some stats about how people think system is nu metal. i think some idiot just made them up. do you really think the fans agree when this discussion is going against it? Boozeclues 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave some stats to point out that SoaD belongs in the nu metal subgenre (as well as the other subgenres like alternative metal), not to point out that "people think" they are nu metal. I actually know many SoaD fans that have no problem admitting that they are listening to nu metal and that classify SoaD in nu metal. "when this discussion is going against it"? Who says? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i have a source that talks about how they aren't nu metal, but a mix of speed metal, folk, and other genres, not including nu metal. also just because the wikipedia page gives some similarities, doesn't mean they are nu metal. if you compare theme with actual nu metal bands, they aren't alike really. the source is http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A7191975 Boozeclues 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You say: "just because the wikipedia page gives some similarities, doesn't mean they are nu metal". Well I could say the same thing to you: Just because a paragraph on the BBC website (which is not specialised in music) says they aren't nu metal, doesn't mean they aren't. For the infobox, I think it's fine for now. For the dispute around their genre, we could keep that in the "Genre dispute" section. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that you have not gained consensus on this still/yet. You are now the only person pushing that they are nu metal...

As aforementioned, if you say a band is nu metal except they are missing this, this, this, this and this etc then, clearly, they don't belong in that genre. It's simply influences.

Seraphim Whipp 11:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not missing anything really. A band doesn't necessarily need to have turntables to be a nu metal band. All the evidence above points out that the genre at least needs to be put in the infobox. In the "genre dispute" section, it is clearly said: "System of a Down has been labeled as "nü metal" by some fans and media since their incarnation." Therefore wouldn't it be just fair to put in that in the infobox? I am not the only person pushing that they are nu metal. Do you really think Rockdetector would classify them as nu metal for no reason? Putting it in the infobox is just normal. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I obviously meant that you are the only one pushing it here, in this place (wikipedia). Why won't you simply listen to consensus and leave it to the genre dispute? Doesn't it say something about them if the nu metal label has been contested soooooooo much and has to have its own section about it? Also, now your editing is becoming so heated that you reverted my helpful change!

Seraphim Whipp 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that, my bad. If the consensus is to leave only one side of the genre dispute in the article, then I guess there is a neutrality issue. The reason it's being contested is because fans of the band just won't accept the fact that they are nu metal, because this genre has a bad reputation in the metal community, and therefore they try to find any excuse to label them as avant-garde metal or even death metal. Now it's only a matter of logic, they are definitely not avant-garde metal nor death metal. The nu metal label should go in the infobox, since it's pretty much one big side of the debate. Putting "heavy metal" and "alternative metal" on the infobox without putting "nu metal" is revealing only one side of the debate to the reader of the article. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this discussion has continued. There are plenty of reliable sources that label SOAD as nu metal. There may be as many sources refuting it, it doesn't matter, the controversy stands and so the genre stays attached, with detail given in the Genre dispute section. Doesn't really matter what fans think here, unless it's cited. It's just a genre, and we all know words and labels say nothing substantial about the music; people already have their own opinions about SOAD and whether the word exists here or not is probably not doing anything to change their minds. I'll keep adding citations if that helps, there can be hundreds of them, but fans will still think what they think, so why bother with this article? –Pomte 12:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I hope that will keep the article more neutral. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

some sources may seem reliable, such as rockdetector, but at one point, a person had to think of a genre to put. just because some random guy at rockdetector says they are nu metal, doesn't mean they are. rockdetector may be respected -- and i don't even know about that -- but they obviously didn't have a vote of a number of people. it's just one guys opinion. and the only reason you are finding sources that they are nu metal is because they showed up around that time, and people who never listened to any song besides sugar called them nu metal, and it stuck for no reason. its the same with the legend of zelda song, someone thought it was system, wrote it down, and to this day, it is still associated with the band. no matter how many similarities you find, some of which don't even make sense, it may seem like they are nu metal on paper, but if you compare them with nu metal bands, they have nothing in common. Boozeclues 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

to Zouavman Le Zouave, i went to your wikipedia page, and read how you despise system. if you don't like a band, why do you edit the page. its pretty sad that you don't at least have respect for them. their music has helped open the eyes of many people to what's around them. wihtout them, a lot of us wouldn't even know about the armenian genocide. i still don't agree with you that they are nu metal, but you have the right to your opinion. but the least you could do is have some respect. also, it seems to me that the only soad songs that you have listened to are the poplular ones such as chop suey, or maybe the toxicity album. if you listen to steal this album, and the mezmerize/hypnotize double album, nu metal is not shown at all. if nu metal is to be anywhere near soad, it should only be for the first album, but only for a couple of songs. these songs should not decide whether they are nu metal or not. Boozeclues 18:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinions are not interfering with my contributions on Wikipedia. Now I do respect System of a Down, but not for making music that I judge intelligent, not for making heavy metal music, not for making music that is enjoyable to my ears (I do enjoy listening to some mallcore artists from time to time). I think I respect them for making music that reflects the ignorance of the mainstream audience when it comes to music. I respect them for making true metal fans remember what true metal is like and what pseudo-metal is like. I respect System of a Down for giving heavy metal such a crappy image. Yes, if that was their goal in the first place, then they were very good at it, and so I respect them for that. I have actually downloaded the double album (and listened to it several times, for that matter), and sorry to dissapoint you, but it sounds to me like nu metal. I would be really glad to continue this conversation, but if it's not in direct relation with the article, it would maybe be better if we would write on our talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't beleive that at all. the double album has no songs like nu metal at all. if you could list songs, that would be appreciated. in order for a band to be called nu metal, they should at least follow its main traits. rapping, tuntables, personal lyrical themes, its a huge part of nu metal, and system doesn't have that. also, calling them mallcore as you do makes no sense either. what does system have to do with hardcore punk? 23:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You are free to disagree. :) But as I said earlier, if you want to continue this conversation, let's use our talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Zouavman Le Zouave, your basically saying that you respect System of a Down for making music that to you, sucks. That seems kind of stupid. But your intelligence is not what we are discussing. I really don't mind if the nu metal genre is put in the info box, though I don't think it should be put first. I don't consider them nu metal, and they lack more of the common nu metal traits then they have. But I could understand them being called that, and Zouavman Le Zouave did have some good evidence for them being in the genre. I do believe that they should be listed as experimental rock though, as they have a higher level of experimentation in their music then most of the several hundred bands that are listed as alternative rock/metal. Chicken Twinky 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it may seem kind of stupid, but, as you clearly said, my stupidity isn't part of the discussion ^^. I think that experimental rock is another good way to describe SoaD's music, but I would think it incorrect to put it at the top of the list (experimental rock being bands like Fantômas or Mr. Bungle, who's experimentation has not much to dou with SoaD's originality). I would consider restricting the genre box to nu metal, experimental rock, & alternative rock (in this particular order). I think, and this is only my opinion, that this would give a good summary of SoaD's genre. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, Zouavman Le Zouave. I think listing them as just alternative rock, experimental rock, and nu metal would be the best way to describe their sound, though I think maybe hard rock also, and you make a good point about experimental rock not being at the top, because despite their experimentation, then aren't as experimental as experimental artists like Mike Patton. I believe the order should be alt. rock, experimental rock, nu metal, and then maybe hard rock. I don't think Nu metal shouldn't be the first genre listed, as it is the most debated genre. I also believe it should be stated that nu metal is heavily debated, like it is now. I don't consider them a heavy metal band either, though I believe alternative metal is ok as it is fairly different from heavy metal. Chicken Twinky 08:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We agree. ^^ How about: Alt. rock, Nu metal, exp. rock, hard rock (if you really insist), and then a link to the debate section?

Why not just leave it in alphabetical order, as it is now? That way, subjective decisions about what genres affect their style more don't have to be made? Parsecboy 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Most readers will be most likely be affected more by the first genres on the list. Plus, I think putting too many genres on the list is bad for the article's quality. If it was up to me, I would put "Nu metal, Alt. rock, Exp. rock". Unfortunately it's not up to me. Therefore I think the compromise for "Alt. rock, Nu metal, Exp. rock" is good. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can agree to that, the trouble is getting everyone else. Chicken Twinky 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the cover of Toxicity Rolling Stone calls it the "Nu Metal album of the year". SOAD may not be new metal anymore but they deffinatly were at one time and should be listed on the genres list.ROSALES 27 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because they were lumped in with the nu metal crowd at the time doesn't make them nu metal. We've had this discussion several times now. When did system EVER use turntables? When did they EVER rap? (other than the Wu-Tang collaboration). Those are two of the most important facets of the nu metal scene in the late 90s, and are notable absent from all system albums. Parsecboy 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal isn't limited to using turntables and rapping. Plus, SoaD uses vocals extremely similar to rapping on some songs and even use electronic effects on the vocals on "Old School Hollywood". Plus Serj Tankian was featured as a guest artist with Limp Bizkit, which is definitely a nu metal band. Therefore you can't say the connection is solely made by the media, it's also clearly made by the artists. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do all nu metal bands use turntables? Do all of them rap? No one's saying SOAD are nu metal, only that they've been frequently labelled as such by multiple independent reliable sources, and sources (not personal argumentation) are the way to write an article. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It doesn't matter if they're wrong about as subjective a thing as genre; this article isn't here to tell people the righteous truth. The Genre dispute section already argues against nu metal using sources - you're free to add more. –Pomte 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

if nu metal is going to be on the genre list, it shouldn't bes first, if it is the most debated genre. can't you nu metal people understand that.

True. I think it should be first as well. It is the most sourced and one of the most widely accepted genres for the band. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

just because it is the most sourced, doesn't make it the most fitting genre. there are way more sources for the other genres, but we don't feel that its necessary to have 10 numbers beside them. it looks sloppy and i think we should take away all of the sources excpet for 1 beside the nu metal. and how is it one of the most accpeted genres for the band. look at this discussion. it goes on forever because it is debated. do you see debating going on like this for the other genres. 74.124.28.243 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, nu metal should be listed last because it is disputed, unlike other established genres. I only added so many citations so that people are less inclined to remove it by thinking one source is the only evidence. –Pomte 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The other genres are disputed as well. Many heavy metal fans, including myself, do not see SoaD as alternative metal or heavy metal, but rather as alternative rock or more properly nu metal. Nu metal is as debated as heavy metal. There isn't only one side to the dispute. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i know rockdetector might seem like a reliable source, but i don't think its genres are always accurate. its lists the mars volta as alternative rock, when they are clearly, and on every song, progressive. thats why i dont feel nu metal should be left on there. it seems they got some of there genres from what random people told them. 74.124.28.243 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact that there is so much arguing going on in this discussion simply proves that nu metal should be listed. I'm not saying that because I'm one of those people who hate them and automatically label them as nu metal. System of a down is one of my favorite bands, and while I think lots of nu metal bands are derivative and sometimes almost comically stupid, I still like some. I like korn, slipknot, and linkin park. And I personally don't even think system of a down is nu metal. They lack rapping, turntables, introspective lyrics, and most things nu metal bands are known for. To me they are as far from nu metal as possible, and I really can't see why anyone would call them nu metal, but they do. The nu metal argument is heavily debated, we can all agree on that, right? Well, you can't have a one-sided argument and call it heavily debated. For it to be debated so much, a pretty large amount of people must consider them nu metal. So, as much as I may disagree, as much as you may disagree, and as much as several other people on this discussion may disagree, the point is a fairly big amount of the human population considers soad nu metal, and for that reason alone, it should be included as a genre. Chicken Twinky 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about that Nu metal thing... The only genre I think could describe SoaD is "alternative", just because it's an alternative any other genre. I mean I've never heard any other band that even remotly sounds like System, and I've heard almost anything from metal and rock genre. And besides, the band genre is above all influenced by the band members. It's what the band members want it to be. And since the quartet aren't labeling any genre on the band, neither should we. Just enjoy the music. XanderKage 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i think that a lot of people, including some promoting nu metal for this article, listen to system of a down, and think that just because they arent as heavy as slayer or cannibal corpse, they are nu metal. most people who think they are nu metal think that they are more like rock. so if they are rock, why is the term metal coming up at all. also, when people say soad's guitar playing is like nu metal, i thoughti should listen to some nu metal and compare. i listened to some korn, and the guitar playing doesnt sound the same at all. soad's guitar isnt the most complex, but its still 100 times more complex than korn or limp bizkit.

Ok, whoever removed the debated next to nu metal, don't try to fuck with the article again. I don't think there needs to be a nother genre war, so just leave it at debated so it's neutral. Also, I think 4 references s a bit excessive, we know references show where you get your info from but 4 references just to make your point seem infalliable (sp?) isn't fair. I could argue about the nu metal tag all day anyway. There also seems to be too many genres in general.

The order of the genres

Why does it make any difference what order the references are in? I arranged them neatly, according to the way they appeared in the sources, mainly so that if anyone clicked on it, they could verify them at a glance. Also I put the AOL reference at the top because it was used three times and the pure volume one twice...just thought it made it far more organised being in a numerical order.

Seraphim Whipp 22:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I made a change to the order, I arranged them in the order in which i believe the genres are most prevalent in their music. I really don't care though. It doesn't really matter what order they are in.

Chicken Twinky 11:54, 10 April 2007

I was discussing this in the section above, and I think that it is most appropriate to continue the discussion here. So here is my proposition of the genres in the infobox: "Alternative rock, Nu metal, Experimental rock" and I wouldn't mind "Hard rock" being added at the bottom of the list, but I think we should limit ourselves to three genres in the infobox. Of course at the bottom of the list we should include a link to the genre debate section of the article. This is a compromise, as I wrote above, for I wouldn't put it that way if I was to decide. But Wikipedia is not only edited by myself, therefore I came up with this compromise. :) Any objections? comments (constructive, please)? suggestions? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think nu metal should definitely be placed at the bottom as it is the most contested (or has the most obvious controversy around it). However I don't think the genre list has to be limited to three; check out Queen. I agree with your proposal otherwise :-).

Seraphim Whipp 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What about alternative metal? I would probably put that in, as well.Mezmerizer 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer

Years Active

can someone add years active to the side box, i tried but it didn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boozeclues (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Current Page

Hi guys,

the current page's differences to the last are the change to "greatest" band which is of course an opinion, and also "three" members from Armenian Descent. I've checked all relevant websites and the band (while on a hiatus) have in now way split up, which leaves the older articles of "four" members accurate. I don't want to revert just yet, in case there's something I don't know. Any ideas?

Cheers

Celticsapien 11:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal

I don't think the band is anything like avant-garde metal. Yes I have looked at the source, and I think the term is used incorrectly. System of a Down is nu metal without any turntables and rapping (although some songs actually do have some rap-like vocals), it could be seen as alternative metal, but it's definitely not avant-garde metal (for those who are not familiar with the genre, see bands like Karaboudjan or Secret Chiefs 3). Yes I know there is a source, but you can't trust everything that MTV says, because we all know (I hope) that MTV is everything but expert in metal music. I would consider taking it off, because it gives a wrong image of the band's genre. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think SOAD is nu-metal. I agree, however, that it's not exactly avant-garde. It has some similarities, but not that many. I think alternative metal works best.

212.213.90.13 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to take off avant-garde metal from the list in the infobox. Reasons: 1) Factually incorrect. 2) Source is definitely POV and I seriously doubt that the author of the article knew what he was talking about when he referred SoaD as an avant-garde metal band. Any objections? Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess if no one answers that pretty much means no one objects. I'll wait a little longer, though. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Band entirely made of members with down's syndrome?

A friend told me that the band was called system of a down because all of the members have down's syndrome. Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.249.202.53 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

This is wrong. If they had Down's syndrome, they would have a lot of trouble playing instruments like that, and for another thing, when a person has Down's syndrome, they have particular facial characteristics that make them easy to recognize. It's simply a joke/insult to the band. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Split

someone keeps adding to the first sentence that system WAS a band without any source that they broke up. if you don't have sources, don't change the page.Boozeclues 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people don't know the difference between "indefinite hiatus" and the band breaking up. Although a majority of the time when a band goes on an "indefinite hiatus" they do break up, but that doesn't mean it's always true. Where did they add it? I haven't been watching the SOAD article lately. Is it still there? Bsroiaadn 05:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

genre?

i've always heard them being reffered to as "Nu" or "Alternative" Metal; but, correct me if i'm wrong, they sound thrashy to me, especially in "toxicity". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.124.237 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Maybe you should listen to some thrash metal before classifying them as "thrashy." I would recommend Slayer's Reign In Blood or Venom's Black Metal for some good thrash. It sounds nothing like System of a Down, trust me. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i've listened to alot of thrash metal. i didn't say they were pure "Thrash Metal", i said they sounded thrashy. i wouldn't consider them to be a thrash metal band, but, i wouldn't be surprised if it was on the list of genres...music nazi— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.124.237 (talk • contribs)

Well you said earlier "correct me if i'm wrong," but now that I am correcting you, you call me a music nazi. Remember to be civil when you interact with other editors. System of a Down are nothing like thrash metal. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 09:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Look i tink system is a typical nu metal band, so does everyone i know.Ahvazi-31st June

Don't. Even. Start. We don't need another one of these. It's been more or less proven, by people who can spell, that System of a Down is not nü-metal, even if we're not in agreement on what it is. We've decided it is not nü-metal. Unless you've got some shocking new evidence, I'd like to politely ask you to just not bring it up. It's not just a dead horse. It's rotten. --RockMaster-talk|contribs 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Perry

Whoever added him, thank you. I was trying to figure out that guys name. lol. Although, I didn't see him actually do any playing...he just seemed to go up on stage..fake-play his guitar...then get off. XD Bsroiaadn 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Descent?

I may be wrong and I have no source so I haven't changed it yet but i'm almost certain that not all members of SOAD are of armenian descent as is stated in the first paragraph. I think it might be the case that john isn't. Anyone know any more? 202.12.144.21 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it says in the last interview they did with kerrang that one of them is of iraq deccent though im not entirly sure i dont kkeep hold of my magazienes Samuraimather 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)samuraimather

Daron Malakian is half Iraqi from his mother's side. His father is Iraqi only because he was born in Iraq, but is not of Iraqi blood. John Dolmayan.... I don't know. He is of Armenian descent but born in Lebanon, maybe his parents too. Shavo Odadjian was born in Armenia so he is Armenian. Serj Tankian was born in Lebanon too but is of Armenian descent.

I'm not sure if John and Serj are anything else other than Armenian. But Daron is half Armenian and half Iraqi, and Shavo is a full Armenian.

Vandalizing the genres

I know some genres may be disputed, but at least they have valid sources. i dont agree with nu metal, but because of its sources, i dont really care. its just when dumbasses change it it to "nu emo" and "experimental emo", while leaving the sources so it appears to be valid. this is a informational site where people could be getting information for various reasons, its not a band hate site, so just stop it.

Ugh

We're gonna end up having to fully-protect this page one day so only admins can edit it if we ask them to. Bsroiaadn^Talk 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soad logo.png

Image:Soad logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nu-Metal Quote

It's really of no consequence, but the quote Darron Stated: "They used to call us nü-metal, now they call us prog rock. I think they'll call us anything that's popular."

Is actually:

""They used to call us nü-metal, now they call us prog rock. Whatevers popular at the moment, I think that's what they'll call us."

I have the audio, it's from the Ogden Theatre in Denver, 4/27/05, following the end of "Deer Dance".

Thanks, I've corrected it along with a citation. –Pomte 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not emo

The article can't be accurate if the band is constantly referred to as "emo" throughout the entire article. If no one can agree on a genre, it's best to just not have one.

this is the most random thing ive ever read. it says no where in the article about them being emo, and there hasn't been a person proposing this in months. why even bring it up??? 74.124.28.243 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Funk Metal

i read the article about funk metal, and system has no similarities. they lack any hip hop influence. also, looking at the other bands listed as funk metal, system doesnt fit in. 74.124.28.243 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another genre topic

in the disputed genre part there's a {{disputed}} template ("The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed."). Is it really needed? Many sources are used to back up the facts... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Band politics

Why doesn't the thing have anything on band politics? They make songs about the Armenean Genocide, more recent wars, e.g. the Iraq war, and a lot of their music contains references to war, peace, genocide and poverty.

Nu-metal

System of a Down is NOT nu-metal. Quit saying it is. 70.122.25.223 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree. nu metals main four traits - rapping, turntables, lyrics of teen angst, and bass as lead instruument - do not fit with systems sound at all.74.124.28.243 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think they're more of a scene band rather than a band from that genre. They just appeal to nu-metalers. Maplejet 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with labeling them as numetal, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, reliable sources have been provided labeling them as such, so it should be included. It's discussed enough in the Genre Dispute section of the article. Parsecboy 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Metal?

Eh...are you sure they fit the genre? Songs aren't very long you know... Maplejet 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

song length doesn't define the genre. 74.124.28.243 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with SoaD being labeled as such. They have nothing progressive (although this has nothing to do with song length). I would like to point out that it is not because a random journalist describes a band as a genre that it should be labeled so in the article, especially when it is obvious that the journalist is praising the band and/or when he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I would consider restricting the infobox to a minimum of genres: Alternative metal, Alternative rock, Nu metal. Hard rock could also be added, but I don't think it's necessary. The article already has a "genre dispute" section, therefore I think it's best if we keep the infobox vague and specify in the genre dispute section. No? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the source is Rolling Stone, which has plenty of credibility, not just "a random journalist". I don't necessarily agree with them being labeled as prog metal myself, but it's sourced. (Just like I don't agree with them being labeled as nu-metal, but again, it's sourced). Parsecboy 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SOAD sometimes play music that is progressive (Question! comes to mind). It surely isn't their main genre. They don't play progressive metal like Dreamtheater and other bands heavily influenced by traditional progressive rock. They nevertheless play progressive metal (metal that is progressive) in some occasions. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But does "in some occasions" need to be pointed in the infobox? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

progressive metal is used to define bands that go against mainstream musical norms. System of a down may be creative, but not enough to put them as "progressive metal". Sheesh, every band is being put under "Progressive" as of late. If a band plays "metal that is progressive in some occasions" it doesn't make you that genre, and one Rolling Stones review doesn't make a band a genre. Zanders5k 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely said. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I agree progressive metal is out of place, like I said "It surely isn't their main genre". I think progressive metal and its source should be incorporated in the article. By the way, what Zanders5k said is not that brillant. If playing genre X and having reliable press stating the band plays genre X still "doesn't make you that genre", then what does? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there are idiots and ignorants everywhere, including in "reliable press". It's pretty probable that the author of the "reliable" article that claimed SoaD as avant-garde metal did not know a single thing of the genre he was mentioning. Many people don't make a difference between the different subgenres of metal, and probably don't even feel they have to. For many people, it's all the same. Now what we can do to improve the article is: keeping three genres in the infobox (nu metal, experimental rock, alternative metal), and stating all the diverse labels that have been applied to SoaD in the genre dispute section, in a similar way as in the Cradle of Filth genre dispute section. It will lead to a very simple sentence describing it all: "System of a Down has been labeled by the press as progressive metal, avant-garde metal, brutal death metal, doom metal, mallcore, and polka." With a little reference after each genre mentioned. That is most probably the best solution. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that's probably the best way to proceed with this issue. Parsecboy 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Emmaneul, I said that one review by a popular magazine isn't really enough to make a band a genre if they are not referred to as it commonly anywhere else. Zanders5k 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I already figured out that's what you meant, but it still isn't what you said. But let's forget it.

Zouavman Le Zouave, I could easily find 5 or more articles where SoaD is labeled as progressive metal. OK, they all might be "idiots and ignorants" but still they have a point. If you look at SoaD from an alternative rock perspective SoaD could easily be defined as prog metal (as in heavy metal that is progressive). You seem to be looking from a metal POV with a fixed definition of prog metal. Both POVs are OK, but I'm trying to be objective... and even then it still isn't their main genre. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say "from an alternative rock perspective," it doesn't necessarily mean "from a perspective that doens't make any difference between the different subgenres of metal." Progressive metal does have a fixed definition. DragonForce uses a little growls in their last album, does that mean they are death metal? "Oh it's still not their main genre, but its certainly one of their genres," people may say. Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays. It then leads to a domino effect where some kid reads it and spreads the word about how SoaD is a brutal death metal band and how their lyrics hide Satanist messages. And that leads to other journalists hearing this and replicating it in their articles. This was just an example, by the way, but this is how it works. Yes, try to be objective, but don't ignore the genre definitions. Also, Alice in Chains's Them Bones has a time signature of 7/8, and their sound is similar to heavy metal. Does that make them progressive metal? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the whole point... genre definitions. Genre definitions (as you or I know them) are not sacred. Different people with different musical backgrounds have different definitions. Music is no science and is highly influenced by POVs and opinions. Like I said all different POVs are OK, there is NO real truth in music. "Progressive" is just a stylistic adjunction with specific traits (just like Symphonic, Folk and Industrial). I can imagine a Tool fan looking for prog metal would be disappointed after listening to Symphony X but would be pleased to hear SoaD songs.

"Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays" and the domino effect arguments are very weak. I could use those for every disputed genre in every article. We could even make a template {{idontbelievyou|band=System of a Down|genre=Nu metal}} that would generate the following text:

Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays. It then leads to a domino effect where some kid reads it and spreads the word about how System of a Down is a Nu metal band. And that leads to other journalists hearing this and replicating it in their articles.

If I can easily find a couple of reviews where SoaD is labeled progressive metal then it just might be true from another POV than you have. Just be open minded about these things. We agree on the main point: prog metal shouldn't be listed in the infobox, so I'm not gonna discuss this any further. Thank you Emmaneul ^(Talk) 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay, so we agree on this point. I am totally okay with it mentionned with all the other genres in a sentence in the genre dispute section. Like I said, I think the best way would be to list them like it is done on the Cradle of Filth article. I think in this way we can stop the infobox from being loaded with various POV's, and keep the genre dispute section for that purpose. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE, that the genre box shouldn't be flooded with various genres. But i think labeling them as nu metal in the genre box sums up the bands sound in the wrong way. if progressive metal is going to be taken out of the genre box, then so should nu metal. when the average person hears the genre nu metal, the first few things that come to their mind (or at least me and my friends minds) is a genre of metal that involves rapping, and lyrics of angst against parents or school for no reason. therefore, since system of a down do not really fit into nu metal compltetely, why should that genre stay in the genre box when progressive metal is being left out because soad do not fit into it completely. i think neither of them should be in the genre box. 74.124.28.243 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The "average person" you describe obviously doesn't know that nu metal isn't defined by rapping or turntabling, although it is a fairly frequent characteristic of bands of the genre. For another thing, System of a Down has more than enough similarities with the nu metal scene and sound to have this genre in the infobox. We had this discussion before, and the decision has been made. Taking out progressive metal (which is a label which has been used a couple of times) from the infobox, okay; taking off nu metal (which is one of the labels which has been most used throughout the bands' career), no way. I am sorry if you feel I am too harsh on this, but I have made up my mind. Its for the sake of the article. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, i would like to give you some praise for the the rhyming in the last sentence. "Taking out progressive metal from the infobox, okay; taking off nu metal, no way." Maybe i was being a little general with the nu metal similarities, or lack there of. Lets go through the checklist of nu metal .
Rapping - No
Turntables - No
Lyrical themes of teen angst - No (Arent they all 35+ anyway)
Hip Hop influenced drumming - No
Bass as a lead instrument - No
Nu metal like guitar - only on first three albums
if all of this isnt proof enough, the i dont know what is. so if nu metal is going to be left in the info box, why shouldn't prog metal? 74.124.28.243 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahahah, hadn't noticed the rhyming I made. ^^ All of the "checklist" items you cited are indeed stereotypes, but not characteristics. I will take the following directly from the nu metal article on Wikipedia (if you don't consider that a reliable source, then I really don't know what you're doing here).

• Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat. --- Yes, SoaD does not have teen angst, but it definitely does have emphasis on motivating the crowd to move with the beat. I must say, both in the music and lyrics. On "BYOB," the chorus is extremely pop-like (from an alternative rock POV) and says "Everybody's going to the party have a real good time, Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine" which is an incitation to dance and "move with the beat". On "Lost in Hollywood", one part says "All you bitches put your hands in the air" which is another incitation to "moving with the beat" and is sounds like something a rapper would say (that's my opinion).
• Nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting. --- SoaD uses a lot of palm muting. First examples that pop up to my mind are "BYOB", "Radio/Video", and "Old School Hollywood".
• Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. --- A technique that SoaD uses. "BYOB" is in Dropped C (I believe), but anyone with the slightest guitar knowledge would notice that SoaD are tuned down.
• This is typical of nu metal bands in that guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs in general, and when they do appear they are often short. --- SoaD have very few guitar solos, and if they do they are extremely short or do not emphasize on technicality (which, in general, is what most metal bands do in a guitar solo).
• Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal, hardcore punk, and rapping. --- SoaD uses (most of the time) melodic singing and shouting, and in some occasions uses some rap-like vocals (most notably in their "Chop Suey" intro and verses). Although it is not, properly speaking, rap, the link must be considered. I would still like to remind you that rapping does not necessarily make you a nu metal band, and that being a nu metal band does not necessarily means you rap. There are nu metal bands who don't rap, and they are still nu metal.
• Normally, nu metal songs have a song structure of instrumental introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, sometimes another verse but almost always ending with a chorus. --- This is characteristic of SoaD. Most of their songs (I'm not saying all of them) have a very simple "verse-chorus-verse" structure (as well as the slight variants).
• It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses. --- Listen to "Attack" on their last album.
• Another thing I'd like to mention is that Serj Tankian worked with Limp Bizkit (a well known nu metal band), Saul Williams (a hip-hop artist), M.I.A. (a rapper), and The Notorious B.I.G. (another rapper & hip-hop artist). The link to hip-hop and rapping with System of a Down's lead singer is therefore established. I don't have the material that Tankian produced with those artists, but seeing how those artists are predominantly hip-hop and nu metal (in Link Bizkit's case), it is probable that the material is similar to hip-hop and nu metal in style.

Now with all these similarities between System of a Down and the nu metal sound and scene, I think that it is more than legitimate that nu metal remains in the infobox while progressive metal departs it. Progressive metal must depart from the infobox because 1) only used a couple of times to label the band, 2) the band has very few progressive elements/songs. Voila, I think that this is it. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with 74.124.28.243, they're not a typical nu metal band. But like ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE says, they share a lot of similarities, have been classified as nu metal a zillion of times by the press and they became popular during the nu metal era. In their infobox there is alternative metal, alternative rock, progressive metal, experimental rock, hard rock and nu metal. They're hard to categorize... they're nu metal combined with a lot of other genres. We'll keep nu metal in the infobox. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But since Soad isn't a common nu metal band, i dont think the infobox should be limited to three genres. its giving everyone the wrong idea of hows they sound.

I would also like that serj tankian hasn't worked with the notorious b.i.g, or m.i.a. Mia just remixed something of his, and serj remixed a b.i.g track, and was probably persuaded by shavo to do so.

The relationship is still there. And even if he had been "persuaded by shavo to do so", as you say, Shavo is still a SoaD member and the relationship between the bands and the artists is there. The facts are there, if you really want to know about the tiny details, I think the best solution is to ask Tankian yourself. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Science

There seems to be some controversy regarding the meaning behind the song 'science', more specifically whether it is about science Vs. faith, or science Vs. religious faith. The song makes no mention of religion, however there are various forums debating in the favour of the song being pro creationism. I have not found any official statement regarding the meaning of the song, but further research might lead to some authorative interpretation of the song.

User:shyal-b 16 July 2007 (UTC)

'In the beginning'

'They called on Shavo Odadjian, with whom they knew from when Soil shared a recording studio with Odadjian's previous band as well as when Odadjian was briefly their guitar player'. That is the clumsiest sentence ever. Please someone edit this for clarity.

I fixed it some, not sure if I made it any better though. FallenWings47 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical Style and Influence section

I don't think the disputed genres such as prog metal, alt rock and hard rock should be discussed in this section. Shouldn't we talk about this in a separate genre dispute section. 74.124.28.243 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's part of their music style, isn't it? I don't think we need a new section for just 2 sentences. By the way, this construction is fairly common: Queen, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaneul (talk • contribs)

The current section should suffice. Talk page disputes are not to be confused with public controversies and as far as current sources go, there isn't one. The press prints whatever it happens to come up with and the band does not care - end of the story. Also note that after the recent removal of several uncited assertions the style section is already rather short (though now thoroughly referenced) and further fragmentation would not improve the article. - Cyrus XIII 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we've discussed a lot, analyzed many different possible solutions for the infobox problem, and there is absolutely no problem with having three very general genres (whom most of the fans, critics, and non-fans agree with) in the infobox, with a little link to the genre section. To say the band genre is disputed is a thing; to say that the band genre is "various" is another. System of a Down has a very specific genre, one that I could easily recognize from the radio, while bands who have "various" genres are bands like Mr. Bungle or Secret Chiefs 3 who have radically different genres switching within a song or album. I am reverting your edit until concensus is reached on the talk page (and I am particularly waiting for Emmaneul's opinion of this). Please do not revert my edit, we don't want to start an edit war around here. Let's figure this out on the talk page first. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem with a tandem solution that lists a few genres and then offers readers a "various others" link to the style section for further reading. I have championed that approach in a few articles myself. What I take issue in is having over half a dozen references in an infobox, as it makes the code near-unreadable and hard to maintain. It's just not practical. Infoboxes usually summarize what is already in the article's main body and that's where we can source the genres much more conveniently. - Cyrus XIII 08:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe moving the references to the main body would solve the problem. We would put the references in the Style and Influence section in the sentence (which is already in the article): "..., among them alternative metal, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal.[23]", but where we would put all the references along with the genres in the main body, not in the infobox. Do you see what I mean? This would leave the main body with all the references, and the infobox would be clean. Could that solve the issue? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's pretty much what I intended to do with my edits, save for the genre links that would now remain in the infobox (again, no problem with that). A few previously used sources did not appear in my revision, but that's because we probably don't need to throw five sources per genre at the reader to illustrate that content, especially if it puts fairly generic listings like AOL Music or only arbitrarily related stuff like the Mel C review next to articles by the likes of Rolling Stone magazine and the New York Times, which actually deal with what the band does. Linking to experimental rock on the basis of the Pure Volume reference (by the way, who wrote that source?) alone also seems a bit thin and the current wording of the style section already addresses the experimental nature of SOAD's output. In short, I believe editing the genre field of the box like this (even without changing the Style and influences section) would already do the trick:

[[Alternative metal]], [[nu metal]], [[System of a Down#Style and influences|various others]]

What do you think? - Cyrus XIII 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think that moving the references will do the trick. But since the style section of the article overall addresses the experimental nature of SoaD, I think it would be best if we keep experimental rock in the infobox as a means of making a little summary of what the style section says. We have concluded on the talk page that it would be best to keep those three genres in the infobox. If you really feel that experimental rock should be taken out of the infobox, we can discuss this further, but I really do think that putting it in the infobox is better. Now I'm open for discussion, but it's only if you really feel like it's needed. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I wrote another revision, that includes all previous genre links in the infobox and relocated the Purevolume source to the style section - I'll leave it to others to contemplate its quality. The remaining sources throughout the article have been updates as well, which I hope will be good soil (no pun intended) for future additions. - Cyrus XIII 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE, I agree with what you said on 08:18, 25 July 2007. Alternative metal/Nu metal best reflect SoaD's genre, having experimental rock is questionable but it shows SoaD is not your average nu metal/alt metal band. If a good source can back it up, it's no problem (I was looking for better sources but couldn't find any except for [2]). I agree on those 3. "Various" is too broad and could only apply to totally uncategorizable bands playing a load of genres (Sonic Youth, Estradasphere) (but even then experimental music or the like is more suitable). We should keep it like it was on 23:18, 21 July 2007 and like it is now. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts - Should The Apex Theory really be there?

In the associated acts section, should the apex theory and vokee even be there. andy was only a part of the band before they were signed. He doesn't really have anything to do with soad at all. i think that section should be limited to side projects, or other projects where the main four members are involved. Dissectional 00:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Vokee deserves a mention since its a currently active band and they have played a show with the Axis of Justice or something of that sort. I'll find the link on SOADfans later... 216.8.148.88 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing Experimental Rock

We just had an extensive debate on SoaD's genres, and due to the wide range of genres they have been labeled, we think experimental rock is a suiting genre. so stop removing it. Dissectional 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If someone wants to remove experimental rock, then a discussion has to be made. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 12:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Groove Metal

A lot of people have been proposing thrash metal as a genre for them, but since they aren't really pure thrash like slayer or metallica, should we add groove metal?Dissectional 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The current genres seem good enough, I don't believe it is necessary to add "Groove metal" or "thrash" since they don't quite fit either genre. Zanders5k 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?

Please tell me what you think about this. gracz54 ^(talk) 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Soil is not an associated act!!

Soil was a band for like 2 months. not to mention theyre not even active anymore, so theyre not associated Dissectional 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Soil was a band for three years. You'd know that if you actually read the article. And I figured Soil would be an associated act being three of four SOAD members were a part of it. If being active is a problem, Serart probably shouldn't be on there either being Serj hasn't really done anything with it since 2003. FallenWings47 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but soil officially broke up, and serart is a side project, and serj and shavo are probably going back to it once their own records are out. Dissectional 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying. Do you have any references to Serj and Shavo doing that? FallenWings47 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Daron thought of the name system, not serj!!!!!!

http://www.hardradio.com/shockwaves/system1.html in this interview daron states.................. I'm sure many of you are probably wondering, what is the meaning, or concept, behind "System Of A Down"? Daron explains, "I thought of the name from a poem that I had written. It was originally called 'Victims Of The Down,' but Shavo didn't really like the word 'victims' in the title, so I thought up 'System Of A Down' and it just clicked...Plus, now our album will be under the 'S' section, next to Slayer!" and you can see that shavo was the one who didnt like the word victims, not serj. also, im not sure if it is a typo or not, but they put victims of THE down, instead of victims of A down. Dissectional 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get the "Maximum System of a Down" CD, I'm pretty sure it says it was Serj who came up with Systen. FallenWings47 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maximum system of a down is an unauthorized biography, and the accuracy of it is unknown. this is an actuall interview with the band. i think its more reliable. Dissectional 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)