Talk:New wave of American heavy metal

I'm Confused

regarding the list of bands that supposedly make up NWOAHM... For the most part, these bands really have nothing in common. Come on, comparing the legendary Pantera to mediocre wannabes like Avenged Sevenfold and Trivium? I think your so-called NWOAHM is nothing more than a list of metal bands that are relatively popular today. If I'm wrong about this, then please correct me, but I don't see why this article really even needs to exist. 68.217.38.21 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is a list of bands that bring today's metal into new directions (and also mainstream), (as NWOBHM did in late 70s and early 80s) + the history of how it happened. I am not the one who says that Pantera (among others) started this movement, in which is Trivium now one of the most notable bands. I am just reporting what sources say. It needs to exist because it is notable.

You said "I think your so-called NWOAHM is nothing more than a list of metal bands that are relatively popular today." At first it is not mine NWOAHM (you can expand it). And I really do not know how to help you if you don't like the NWOAHM. Lots of people don't like it. Lots of people don't like lots of things. But wikipedia wants to be neutral.--  LYKANTROP  18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it does need to exist but you're right, some bands shouldn't be on there. Some of them are just American Metal bands that started in the 90's on up but a lot of them do sound alike and don't fit well into any other genre and it's good that there's an article about this. -Snook666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snook666 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the first paragraph. This has to the be the worst compilation of bands that supposedly share a musical lineage I have ever seen. I mean the worst of the worst. It's not simply about finding bands that "sound" alike (not that these bands do, either). But what about noting commonalities in aesthetics, song structures, and other artistic affinities? Within a framework such as this we can begin to think about bands like ISIS, mastodon, neurosis, godflesh, jesu, and even the mars volta as occupying a similar musical/artistic space. Bands such as Trivium, As I Lay Dying, and Lamb of God simply do not fit this category. This is ultimately the point of something like Wikipedia: to focus on creating justifiable definitions and categories. I just can't see any justification in lumping mastodon, trivium, avenged sevenfold, and pantera together in the same category. They are separated not only by periodization (eras, not merely years), but also by the movements they themselves have attached to. Perhaps a "New Wave..." is in order, as the second paragraph suggests. But why constitute it as a single, monolithic category? I firmly, firmly believe that the so-called "New Wave..." should be split into various factions that further delineate the varying approaches of the bands the comprise this "New Wave." Metal, as a genre, is incredible in the way it attacks music. We should celebrate and protect this diversity, not obscure it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.32 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No we should not. It would be an original research.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the list is retarded and meaningless. Where are High on Fire/Sleep and Death? With all these bands looking back to Death as the "founders of death metal" nowadays it really doesn't make much sense to leave them and some of the other bands out of Florida off this list. High on Fire should be on this list too! If not one of the most popular bands (but then again, how many bands on this list really are?), they were hugely influential. Mastodon formed at a High on Fire show!--24.19.171.110 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarity for the confused

NWOAHM is an umbrella term for the extreme metal movement that happened in the states, that originally was influenced by the NWOBHM. In other words:

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (Speed Metal meets Punk) inspired a movement in the states which was more dark (Thrash Metal). Thrash Metal is the father of most extreme styles of metal (except Doom, which is older than all of them) But, I digress, American Thrash Metal gave birth to several subgenres, and influenced the formation of others, including: Black Metal, Death Metal, Metalcore, Post Thrash/Groove Metal and several others. Had it not been for the NWOAHM, extreme metal as we know it wouldn't exist today, as it took inspiration from the original "extreme" style of metal, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal bands. Thrash had its beginnings in the early 80's, thats right around when this "Extreme" Metal phase began, experimentation with noise, chromatics, beat syncopations, el diabolus en musica, wolf notes, basically anything that sounded scary, angry, or creepy, off the wall, crazy, unorthodox, etc was emphasized with this period of music, and its still going on today. If you noticed: In 1982, you basically had 2 camps to choose from in the USA. Thrash or Glam. But later on, throughout the next few years expanding onto the next 2 decades, several several several Heavy Metal subgenres came out. And the more that came out, the darker, heavier, and was beginning to shape heavy metal into a darker shade of black, if I'm making sense. In 1982 you didn't have "Death Metal" - but by 1988 if you hadn't heard of it you weren't "in the know" in heavy metal inner circles. It was a big movement in the states and had it not happened, had not thrash metal inspired these other extreme bands in such a quick period of time, heavy metal wouldn't be the same. Sure, Metalcore gets lumped in there, but it's not the only genre associated with this movement. Its an umbrella term meaning the entire movement (which is still going on to this day). It just back in the day was used as a joke term between some thrash metal bands but eventually got adopted by Metalcore bands who decided to wear it as their banner. But it spreads out further than that. Its the whole movement. Its several genres that spawned from mostly Thrash. DarrelClemmons (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not according to Lyknatrop. This is ridiculous. You're supporting him and yet you don't see that he's saying something different than you. None of his sources say anything about thrash metal or metal earlier than the 90's. Mostly metalcore. Lyknatrop isn't even trying to say that thrash metal bands or bands in the 80's were NWOAHM. As far as he's concerned NWOAHM is from the mid 90's onward. So idk why you're supporting him. And no sources support what you're saying, either. There's only a handful of real critics who even talk about NWOAHM like it's real and as far as those few people are concerned what you're saying is wrong and NWOAHM is basically just metalcore bands and bands from the mid 90's onward. Which is crap. Actually what you're saying is more accurate than Lyknatrop, though stil wrong, however the sources don't support anything you're saying but they DO support Lyknatrop, though it's only a few sources and they're total crap. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Blizzard Beast for the compliment on my accuracy above, which I am glad you see it at least half way as I do, as for Lykantrop, I believe he means well too. Its just something that needs more sources, because me, personally, I don't think its "metalcore and metalcore alone" I personally relate it to the American Thrash movement, which spawned all these other genres to begin with. Its the parent of all these newer sub-genres. Edit: one huge thing that irks me is the fact that so many people think that the Bay Area Thrash scene was IT as far as the scene/movement went, although that was a big influence on Metalm it spanned throughout the ENTIRE U.S.A. (e.g. prominent regional scenes/movements that come to mind specifically within the USA are:

• San Fransisco Bay/West Coast Thrash (pretty much the father of it all)
• North East/New York/New Jersey Thrash (the second in line, later to begin meshing with Hardcore, start of Hardcore-Heavy Metal/early Metalcore)
• Southern Thrash (Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia)

(third down the line, late 80's, inspired by the Hardcore-Heavy Metal movement, pretty much spawned Groove Metal & Post Thrash)

• Florida Thrash (seperate from Southern Thrash as Florida's Thrash evolved mostly into Death Metal)

DarrelClemmons (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change some stuff in this article. Since its debatable when it truly happened, I was wondering if I could remove the "mid 90's" part of this article, as I believe it started long before that. DarrelClemmons (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You are welcome to expand the article. To prevent unnecessary mistakes, read WP:5 please. And note please that according to WP:OR you may not write down to the article something, what you only believe in. You should make some research and present the facts with reliable sources. Cheers--  LYKANTROP  12:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I might nominate this article for deletion, and it'll probably (hopefully) go through. I agree with you DarrelClemmons partly. IF there was a metal American movement, it was the thrash metal (and maybe glam metal) in the eighties, PERIOD. But what you both need to realize is there's no sources supporting that theory. Only a FEW critics talk about a "New Wave of American Heavy Metal," and they're not referring to thrash or shit from the eighties but newer bands (all metalcore, too). I'm not saying there isn't or hasn't been an American metal movement. Hell, there's metal "movements" all over the world. But there's no such thing as the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." You both need to read what I recently wrote on the metalcore talk page. Follow my logic. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1

“ It still doesn't exist. It's pure neologism. Only a handful of critics have even mentioned it. Then there's the fact that Lykantrop hasn't been able to prove one huge thing. All the bands that he has reliable sources for as being part of this "NWOAHM" are metalcore, so it's the same thing. The one band he found a reliable source for as being part of this "NWOAHM" that was NOT metalcore was Mastodon. And guess what? In that same source it compares Mastodon's music to metalcore. Get it through your heads. NWOAHM does not exist. I understand that there are some people who REALLY want it to exist, due to patriotism and the fact that so many other countries have had metal movements. So some patriotic Americans want the same thing, as if to say, "Hey, you're not the only ones...American has a metal movement, too." But the thing is...we don't. IF (big if), if there ever was an American heavy metal movement, it was in the eighties. I mean, what are you people thinking? America had WAY WAY WAY more popular metal bands in the 80's (a good many of them that were ACTUALLY metal, too, and not punk crap like you guys suggest). Anyone can call something a movement. I mean, didn't America have a nu metal movment?? For a few years it was really popular. How come we don't call that a movement? Anyways, like I said, there is no American metal movement, and if there ever was, it was in the 80's with the likes of Slayer, Exodus, Metallica, Megadeth and all those other thrash bands and possibly glam bands. I mean, come on! In America, during the 80's there was a TON of popular thrash bands, yes? Well how many bands are in this "NWOAHM"??? A paltry FEW compared to how many thrash bands there were. I'm not even talking about how many glam metal bands there were. My point is, you have THIRTY TWO bands that you say were in the NWOAHM, right? Now compare that to the hundreds of popular glam and thrash metal bands during the 80's. Movement, my ass. It's like comparing a leaf to a whole tree. A goldfish to a shark. A shot glass to a pitcher. A piece of hay to hay bale. A sink to a fire hose. A scooter to a tank. You get my drift??? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) ”

2

100% of your speech is an original research with no sources, based on you opinion. Next to Mastodon also Slipknot, Byzantine, Machine Head, DevilDriver, Hatebreed, The Red Chord, even Lamb of God play also different genres than metalcore; mostly groove metal, death metal, thrash metal, prog metal, grindcore (see Lamb of God), but also hardcore (Hatebreed) or deathcore (The Red Chord) etc. etc. I do not care if it is a neologism or not, because it would not matter even if it would be one according to WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms.--  LYKANTROP  20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

3

It is not original research. It's called logic. Follow the logic. If you actually read what I say then you would know that NWOAHM is total crap. Those bands you listed, besides Mastodon all have metalcore elements (and it's easy to find sources for that) and the only source you have for most of those is that one book written by some dude that does not know what he is talking about. It's all still -core, which means it's related to metalcore. Deathcore is even a subgenre of metalcore. Well you had better care. It's not only a neologism but I would go so far as to call it a protologism. This "NWOAHM" does not exist and I'm sick of it being on wikipedia and giving people misinformation who don't know any better. They just take it all in. Feeding them lies just like the media does at time and they just eat it all up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

4

You argument "It's called logic." explains clearly that you apply original research and do not know about it. Do not bother - it is a common mistake. I'll explain it: Cited from WP:OR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." What you call "logic" is your "unpublished idea", about which you think it is logic. You used your logic to figure out something new (=unpublished). Unless you can provide enough reliable sources, it is an original research.

I must also repeat myslef that according to WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms it is not important whether NWOAHM is neologism or not. It does not involve the article according to WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms because the article includes reliable sources about the term. But I really do not understand why do you said that again when I explained it to you already here: Talk:Metalcore#45 here again: Talk:Metalcore#49 and Talk:Metalcore#51. Again: do not forget that according to WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms, NWOAHM article can stay as it is even if it would be a neologism. Thanks.

The argument about misinformation is your opinion. That breaks WP:POV. Thanks.--  LYKANTROP  10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

5

I've read the arguments above, and yet, I'm still confused. I never even heard of "NWOAHM" (and I'm American!) until I saw it on some random bands' page, and decided to follow the link. Aside from the vast majority of these bands being metalcore in some way, they really have nothing in common. Quite unlike NWOBHM, where Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and the like had similar sounds and could obviously be grouped together. In this case, couldn't we just rename metalcore "NWOAHM?"

The majority of bands on this list are also what regular people today would think of first when somebody asks them, "Hey, what's a metal band?" Perhaps we have NWOAHM confused with being either popular in the mainstream, Platinum sellers, or just plain recognizable by people who don't even like metal (all three of these describe Slipknot).

Pantera hasn't released any new studio albums in almost a decade (and they kinda can't now). How can they be a part of this movement? I'm really confused about that.

Call it POV, call it what you will, but I support the deletion of this page. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I accept it as a self-disproved comment.--  LYKANTROP  18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the deletion of several bands from the list, if you want to listen; Atreyu, As I Lay Dying, Between the Buried and Me, and Killswitch Engage. As stated before, the bands listed lack a unifying sound (at all). If the page could be cleaned up, then it might be worth saving, but as also stated before, the whole term is based off of one guy's book, and it's not a ubiquitous term or a defining term at all, so deletion would also be acceptable. --George The Man (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Who says that the listed bands should have "unifying sound"? They all have totally different sound. Where did you read something about "unifying sound"? Sources are talking about "alternative metal, emocore, hardcore, math metal, metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands." and "crossing the spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between." Why should that be "unifying sound"? This is not a musical genre.

2. The article has 19 sources. 1 is the book, 2 are about the book. The rest is totally independent and includes references from sources such as Decibel Magazine, PopMatters or Stylus Magazine (recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums) and also several long articles about the term such as this this and this and also a whole book.

3. According to which policy would the deletion be acceptable?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Decibel Magazine is a pretty noteworthy heavy metal magazine, just in case anyone slams you for that citation. I've seen them use the phrase quite a bit over the past 5 years or so. DarrelClemmons (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're going for a movement, then the underlying factors leading to the definition of the movement must be considered. Calling Atreyu and Killswitch Engage "Heavy Metal" under this moniker is almost blasphemous to the real influential bands that bred the new wave of metal (which, regardless of what anyone says, is a new wave...Sacrament at #8 sure as hell isn't nothing), such as The Big Four of the 80s, Pantera, and Cannibal Corpse. Please remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.191.153 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE LISTEN - New wave of american heavy metal was in the 80's lead by thrash greats. it was then called Bay area scene. You are all getting confussed with the past. What you have described in the article is metal core and nu-metal (partly) then going in to death metal and thrash. This is all metalcore. Read, learn, listen...Jesus americans....can't deal with the fact that europe made a genre for the first time since 1975! METALFREAK04 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding support for the deletion of this page. It's basically a list of some guys favourite bands. Useless self indulgence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zordon666 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Album listings

Is it necessary to list all the albums by the bands in that list of NWOAHM artists bit? I don't know about the others (I'm not so familiar with those bands, and too lazy to check) but in the cases of Killswitch Engage and Trivium, you've listed all of their albums; whereas I thought the drop-down section was to point out which specific albums of theirs are NWOAHM as opposed to the ones that arn't. Again, I don't know about all the other bands, but we may as well remove the album list for KSE and Trivium. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I did that, I used the same method as it is in NWOBHM. I've checked the sources and marked blue and bold the most important bands (as in NWOBHM). And I also included the studio albums for them. It is actually hard to find out which album is important for NWOAHM and which not. It was ment to pick out the bands. The albums were just a detail of the single bands. Some of the sources say that KSE and Trivium are important for NWOAHM, so I just marked them. It is actually a good idea to mark the most notable NWOAHM albums in general (independently on the band). If you can find some sources, which say that some concrete albums by KSE and Trivium are specially notable, you can do that. I am in favour of that. That would make the list even more informative... That is just good idea, but do we have enough sources? We can use the reviews of the albums for example...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, its just that I got the impression from listing the albums of certain bands that only the select albums were NWOAHM, whereas the others weren't - which is why I was confused when all of KSE's and Trivium's albums were listed; so I think that needs a tiny bit of clarification in the article.
Apart from that, I don't have any major problems - although I'd say yes, it does require as many sources as possible: although I'm not so much for deleting this article as other people, I'm not really much for keeping it either; I've very much on the fence, so I'd recommend that as many sources be provided justifying the article's existence as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand you very well, but I do not want to say my real opinion about the article (and I also did not yet). I keep my opinion totally distanced all the time; I just reported what the collected sources say. At this moment, I do not really see any reason why the article could be deleted. There is just no policy that would be a reason for the deletion. Some sources about the NWOAHM are really long articles (3 or 4), so it also would be really easy to make it up to a GA. Navnlos tried to figure out some arguments, but they were all disproved. I mean, what do you think would be a reason for a deletion?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, I didn't mean anything by it; it's just that there's been a lot of discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not. On one hand, I do agree with Nav to an extent, as originally I did see it to defy WP:NEO, but the more you've defended and sourced the article, the more I'm not so conviced it deserves deletion - but to ensure it doesn't get an AfD, I'd still continue to give it as much sourcing as possible :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++

I would also argue for deletion of this pseudo-genre. NWOAHM is not a coherent definition of a type of music and the argument could just as easily be made that thrash and stoner and doom metal bands from the 90's in the US were at least as influential as any listed here. From the NWOAHM Wiki article, "The movement encompasses a number of different styles including alternative metal, sub-Gothique emocore, hardcore, progressive metal, mathcore, melodic death metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands.[1][2][4][3][6]."

In other words, it is all things to all people and is really not a defining genre in the slightest. 71.130.107.219 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ++++++++++

Well, yeah. The wikipedia NWOAHM article "is really not a defining genre in the slightest". That is true. NWOAHM is not a genre. Nobody (and also not the article) have ever said that NWOAHM is a genre. So it also does not describe any genre, cause it is not one.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"not a defining genre in the slightest" - the same thing could be said about extreme metal. Want that deleted, as well? ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Extreme metal is an umbrella term that covers sub-genres. Not comparable to a movement in music. NWOAHM is a supposed movement that's surprisingly vague, considering that metal has allways had a following and a "movement" in America, ever since it's creation by the likes of Black Sabbath (not American). I would argue that as home-grown metal in America (I think) started in the 70's, and the 80's, that a definable movement would be found then. What about metal in Scandanavia? Far more innovative in comparison to much of the American counterparts, much of which is metalcore garbage, save a few, and yet I never heard of a Europe metal movement. I support the deletion of this article when it's proposed. JackorKnave (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that just your own opinion, or do you have some acceptable arguments?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's my opinion that metalcore, despite it's origins, is watered down death metal. It doesn't appeal to me, I just don't like it and I never will. That aside, I shouldn't have to bother providing arguements for metal bands from the late 70s onwards, also, extreme metal cannot be compared to a movement in metal. Aalso, It's common knowledge among most metalheads that Scandanavia has pioneered various genres and sub-genres of metal, most notably melodic death metal and black metal. Notice, however, that I am in know way stating that it is a movement. Also, to reiterate: Extreme metal is an umbrella term that covers sub-genres in metal. The NWOAHM is an umbrealla term which, from what I see, covers bands (mostly metalcore)from the late 90's to this day. I'd rather not get into an arguement, but I really don't see what makes these bands so special, in comparison to bands from the 80's to 90's? Not being offensive Lykanthrope, but please explain what seperates these (primarily) metalcore bands from any of the American thrash metal, death metal, etc bands from that era, in terms of importance to metal, in such a way as to be defined as a "Movement", especially consiodering that metalcore has existed for such a long time anyway. JackorKnave (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but to clear, I am not attacking you Lykanthrope, I don't like to clash with people who only have good intentions. I've given my opinion on the article and stated what I at least believe to be facts elsewhere.JackorKnave (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that you usually do not use such a kind of arguments to edit articles :)

NWOAHM, well, I do not intend to express my own opinion about that thing in general. What I understood from that sources in the article is that metal went very much to the mainstream in the last couple of years. It became much more accepted by the public, there are many more metalheads, many more bands, giant metal festivals and really "huge" (very successful) bands, etc. This is (in my opinion) true. Metal goes just total mainstream. Some music journalists call it "burgeoning metal movement" or "burgeoning scene", lots of them decided to call it NWOAHM. The same thing happened in late 70s and early 80s in the UK. Metal spread and became just totally mainstream, many new bands + fans = NWOBHM. That is the same story.

Metalcore is very popular metal-genre in the last few years compared to the others (pure thrash /death /prog) that is why many of the bands are involved in metalcore. But metal is still not only metalcore and that is why it is called NWOAHeavyMetal.

The Scandinavian metal: for example Gothenburg metal. MeloDeath is sometimes called Gothenburg metal because several bands from Gothenburg popularized the genre. This is a similar thing, but it is smaller (one city), and limited to one genre (MeloDeath). NWOAHM is whole US and every metal subgenre. There are things like Norwegian black metal. That is still one genre and one relatively small country. Yes, there could be an article about Norwegian black metal scene or Finnish melodeath scene, but do you find enough sources? Does anybody try to find them? I just found couple of pretty good sources about the US scene and it was not difficult, because the US scene is an extremely huge scene (huge country)... I do not think that it is an umbrella term. Why? How? It is just the name of today's US heavy metal scene, a term that music critics use to describe today's US metal secene.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect labelling

See this:
"The movement has its origins in a group of post-grunge acts such as Pantera, Biohazard, Slipknot and Machine Head...."
Who's the ignoramus who thinks those bands are post-grunge?
This is something that needs to be addressed.

It does not mean the genre post-grunge. Those bands formed shortly after the grunge era = post-grunge. Post- = after. Yes, it is confusing. You can formulate it better if you want.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

QuoteFarm, Response to argument

I've seen a lot of complaints about not enough sources. Unfortunately, the writer of this page went to the other extreme and included multi-line, clearly biased quotes that take up the majority of the text. I was reading the article (having been linked from Slipknot) and I was confused at first by the apparent bias towards the 'innovations' of NWOAHM. It was only after I reread the paragraph that I realised the entire paragraph was made up of 2 quotes. Hence the tag.

As far as the argument goes:

It's not really that uncommon to see bands labeled as multiple things, and often critics and fans label bands things very different than the band itself would claim its category. No, I don't have sources for that, but ask anyone who tries to keep track of genres.

That being said: I agree that most of these bands seem to be metalcore or at least have metalcore elements. No, I've not listened to all of them, but most of the shaded bands I've listened to, and I've listened to a good number of the metalcore bands. What's more, after reading the metalcore page, you can really apply most of the trends to the bands: heavy, downtuned guitars (who doesn't have those?), a lot of repetition and chord transfers (OK, not listed, but think about it), screamed vocals. Because of that, I support this page being merged into metalcore.

To address some of the other things said: Lykantrop seems to have a good point that these bands have changed the sound of metal, but I think at this point they've spawned a new genre: metalcore. I agree, some genres are defined by being innovative (see Progressive Metal), but they still have a unifying sound. You wouldn't call any of these band prog metal because they're pushing the boundaries of metal, prog metal typically has opratic or symphonic elements, occasionally has power-metal like riffs and song structure. This NWOAHM doesn't. And until such time as the boundary-pusher's sound becomes its own genre, it's lumped with other bands that sound similar. Hence, metalcore.

Micaelus (talk)

There is one thing to understand. NWOAHM is not a genre, the article does not say it is a genre and nobody here has ever said that it is a genre. There is no point why those bands should have anything like "a unifying sound". They do not have it. They have totally different sound. And the article also lists all the genres. NWOAHM is a term, which is used by music critics to describe today's American metal scene. Not any genre or something. It describes the whole American metal scene, which maybe "spawned a new genre: metalcore", but that does not make them being "metalcore".

Nobody is talking about a genre. It is a regional scene. And naming it as the critics do (=NWOAHM) is just following WP:Verifiability. It is not Wikipedia's problem that some people think "this is not a new wave of metal! This is a shit!". Maybe it is not a new wave of metal, but it is how critics call it. For example this source is a long article talking about a "burgeoning scene" (this journalist uses rather this term to decribe the metal scene, but he also notices that it is also called "The New Wave of American Metal" by some) and he includes bands such as Isis (band), Neurosis (band), Sunn O))), and Pelican (band), Minsk (band) and different bands from all the metal genres. These bands above are sludge, drone, doom, avant-garde, post-metal etc. If you want to merge NWOAHM (today's American metal scene) with metalcore, you are saying that in America the only metal is now metalcore (which would be total original research).

Except for that, there are even articles such as Bay Area thrash metal or even Teutonic thrash metal. This articles really are about one genre regional scene, also in a certain time span. Why dont you tell you want to merge them with thrash? I am not saying that the NWOAHM article is a good one. But it is at least a very good collection of sources and if someone uses them properly then he can write a WP:good article about NWOAHM very easily.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No need for long speel defence arguments to a complaint which said basically nil. The tag was wrong. This article is not written in a style any different that most science/history articles of the same size. It was a misuse of a template and it has been removed. Libs (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is complete rubbish. Almost all of these bands are metalcore, and are not even metal. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! how many sockpuppets do you have? Libs (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me make something clear, I'm not accusing Lykantrop or saying "NWOAM is junk and I'm not going to listen to you", I'm trying to promote discussion. The tone you're taking seems to be pretty antagonistic. Lets go through the points raised.

1: NWAHM is a genre, not a scene. To tell the truth, I wasn't aware there was a difference. I take it you use genre to denote a unified sound like death metal having fast, rhythmic guitars and harsh vocals often about death, etc. Scene, on the other hand, you seem to use to just talk about a bunch of bands from the same area coming to prominence all at once. If that's the case, then this article should be no more than a footnote in a bigger article. The Florida heavy metal scene is widely known and acknowledged to be influential, but it gets no more than a mention in Heavy_metal_music#Death_metal - and what's more, it's in one section - death metal - because most of it is death metal or at least descended from it. What's more, look at the sources. Many of them seem (eg. reference 2) to regard NWOAM as a genre, which would again place it as an evolution of the metalcore genre.

2: The sources. Has anyone looked at them? Source 1 is basically a news post saying that a book that supports the NWOAHM scene came out. It doesn't support the scene itself. The link you posted above to prove that critics agree there's a NWOAM scene has two problems: one, it doesn't support that the scene exists. He says it's a metalcore movement with innovation and influences from things like punk: "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement ... the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk" This statement indicates the critic would support the article being merged with metalcore (eg: have a subsection under metalcore about its progressive element dubbed NWOAM). Two, even if you don't agree with my interpretation of the quote, you still can't use the critic since the only mention of the words "New Wave of" is in that parenthetical statement in which he says "dubbed by some wise-asses". Not only does he not support the decision, but the mention of NWOAM is with weasel words (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). But there's even more wrong with the sources: Source 2 says that the NWOAM scene is bogus. "I for one would state that those bands [NWOAM] are indeed pioneers to an extent simply because that particular style of music hasn't been established in the United States until now. Europe has been doing this sort of thing for years, which is one of the reasons I'm writing this article to begin with." Again, not supporting this article. Reference 2 (maxxxisgod) is the personal post of some guy about some bands he likes. Similar things can be found throughout most of the sources. At the very least, I think there needs to be more of a contrary voice in the article - something to the effect of that many doubt it's an actual scene/genre and it's in its infancy after spawning from metalcore.

3: about Libs's complaint, you're right, the main point of the Discussion post, that the article is a quotefarm, had little justification IN the actual post. It pretty much just mentioned that I did it. However, I disagree with the removal of the tag. It may be true that many other Start-quality articles are comprised mainly of quotes, but that doesn't mean that they SHOULD be in a quality article. An encyclopedia isn't simply a listing of references (although that's one of the functions), it's primarily a synthesis of them. When most of the text isn't even encyclopedia text but rather the opinions of sources, the article fails to be encyclopedic. Count up the number of lines in quotes an not in quotes. There's 3 lines of original synthesis in the summary and about 2 in the History section (which should be the meat of the article). The rest is about 5 lines of quotes. The exact numbers aren't important, the point is that the preponderance of text is in quotations. That definitely qualifies it for the Quotefarm template. In fact, that's what the quotefarm template is designed to designate! Look at the text: "This contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." Don't you think nearly double the amount of encyclopedia text in the meat of the article is too much, or even the same amount as encyclopedia text if you count the summary is too much?

I'll refrain from re-tagging the article until I've heard some discussion. Micaelus (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

And that "XXMurderSoulXx" certainly isn't a sockpuppet of mine. Look at my writing style. Look at his. I use dialog, he uses demagogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micaelus (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer to the point 1: Your statement "NWOAHM is a genre, not a scene" can hardly be sourced. NWOAHM as an American heavy metal scene/movement has many sources. You can't use "Florida scene without its own article" as an argument. Florida scene can have an article as well. Is that my problem that nobody did that article? In the early days of Wikipedia, death metal was only a section in heavy metal article. And when somebody did an article about thrash metal, was there a point to delete (or fuse) the thrash metal just because death metal had no article? You can make an article about Florida death metal scene if you find enough sources. If you do not know whether something deserves its own article, you can read it very clearly on WP:Notability. But be sure that today's American heavy metal scene has very big commercial and mainstream success, publicity and worldwide attention. Also more than Florida's death metal. And this is decisive.

This article simply is notable = it can have article per wikipedia policies. You can't remove it just because other topics (which are also notable for its own article) do not have an article.

Answer to the point 2:I do not understand why do you pick up 1 source and say "It doesn't support the scene itself." Which policy says that every single source in every single article must support the main topic itself? Most of the sources on wikipedia are small pieces of infrmation which build up the articles. Why should that exact source support the scene? You can safe your time and not use useless such arguments.

This source I posted above does support the movement. You understood it wrong; let me explain it:

The source: After explaining that so called "burgeoning metal movement" includes all those genres and bands I cited above (and much more), he says: "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement, hybrid of muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive tendencies,(this is one thing: a metalcore movement) the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk."(this is another thing. The burgeoning scene, which was influenced ironically by punk. Ironically because the metalcore movement is influenced by punk too - that is the irony.

While LOG spread their metalcore movement, the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene ((the scene with all the genres he talks about above) dubbed as NWOAHM) has been, ironically, punk. He clearly separates those two movements/scenes.

He agrees with the scene. The whole article is about the scene. And he describes the huge diversity of the scene. He only disagrees with calling it NWOAHM. He just calls it "the burgeoning scene" But that is obviously his own opinion: WP:POV.

Again, I am not saying that the article is a well written article (and I do not care which template do you put on top of it). The article is notable, that means it can have its own article. It includes very good sources. Somebody can pick them up and make the article better. To try to ruin it is just opinionated, non-neutral behaviour. This short essay helps you to understand me. Thanks for reading--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Adable Bands to the list?

Im not sure but there are quite a few bands who I think are prominant in this movement, they would be

Underoath System Of A Down Disturbed (Possibly not, more alternative influences) Sworn Enemy Bring Me The Horizon Ligeia The Acacia Strain Bury Your Dead Shadows Fall Five Finger Deathpunch