Talk:Heavy metal music

Reporting Vandalism

Heavy metal gestures section has been repeatedly sabotaged to make it appear as if Ronnie Dio and Kiss were the first artists to use the metal horns, intentionally removing the section about Coven which has been extensively cited and also appears on the "Signs of the horns" Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_of_the_horns#Heavy_metal_subculture Editors claim that the sources were fansites with little editorial oversight, yet a photograph of the reverse side of the album which shows the horns was provided as well as a website documenting the album's release date. This is simply Kiss fandalism. If the objection is to the mention of Coven in an article about metal, I would like extend that same criticism to Kiss, who are also not metal. A simple way to determine whether or not the metal community accepts a band as metal is to check metal-archives.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguy1708 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

I apologise if this question is in the wrong place, but I couldn't find a more appropriate one (Wikipedia is still a little confusing to me).
I want to start writing some articles about Metal bands on the Romanian Wikipedia, but I haven't got the slightest idea of which are the reliable sources on this topic. I'm looking for websites mainly, as I'm not sure many books will be available where I live (though I'll give that a try too if you can suggest any). All help is appreciated. Thank you. --GreenSprite (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed band from "black metal" section

According to both wikipedia and metal archives, Emperor was formed in 1991 making it unlikely that they were heading a second wave by the late 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.27.43 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The second wave started early 90's. All of (second wave) black metal's early releases came from 1990's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.22.211 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Unlike the above I edited the article to reflect this. Emperor is one of the seminal second wave black metal bands and deserves mention. I changed the article to state that the second wave was in the early 1990s. marnues (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If Emperor does not get mentioned in this section, it is pointless to even have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguy1708 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a source

here is just one reliable and maybe useful source.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Machismo and Male Sexuality?

That doesn't seem to describe most popular metal today. Motley Crue and the like may have played the machismo, but how many current metal bands do?--MartinUK (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• My dictionary thingy says:

stereotypic masculinity: an exaggerated sense or display of masculinity, emphasizing characteristics that are conventionally regarded as typically male, usually physical strength and courage, aggressiveness, and lack of emotional response

That said, I think most metal still holds these characteristics. For instance, Black Metal often has dark/fantasy lyrical themes which seem to appeal mostly to males. In addition, the imagery tends to have sort of a 'death and destruction' theme. (Albert Mond (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Gothic metal and power metal, which are both popular in Europe, do not meet that definition. Zazaban (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with masculinity for the majority of metal - lyrics about war are far more common than lyrics about love, for a start. But is it exaggerated and deliberate, or do other genres deliberately tone it down? Is metal (other than gothic and power) less popular among women? And sexuality (let alone sex itself) don't feature in most metal other than glam.--MartinUK (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence, based on our good published sources, when we decided to remove the Allmusic quote that used to end the first paragraph: "of all rock & roll's myriad forms, heavy metal is the most extreme in terms of volume, machismo, and theatricality." I do think considering the history of heavy metal as a whole that machismo is pretty central, but masculine sexuality per se...maybe not so much--I'd support cutting that or rephrasing (as long as we have a good source that backs us up).—DCGeist (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Power metal is certainly a masculine genre with lyrics on subject typically regarded as such: fantasy battles, heroic adventures, etc. Even some of the band names tend to be overtly masculine: Manowar, Virgin Steele, Jag Panzer, etc. The only real exception to the masculine trend in heavy metal is gothic metal. You could also say that all those instrumental progressive metal bands are exceptions too but that's really neither here nor there. So I agree that heavy metal is overwhelmingly masculine but that masculinity has little to do with sexuality. Outside the glam metal genre, sexuality is a subject rarely covered among heavy metal bands. The problem here is that the majority of sources on heavy metal music tend to be heavily biased in favor of the US market, particularly the glam metal from the 1980s. Where are the sources that give equal coverage to genres that are overwhelmingly European like gothic metal or folk metal? You got two sources supporting that masculine sexuality statement. The Deena Weinstein book was published in 1991. The other is an essay with a subject focusing on Led Zeppelin, an eclectic band that is far from representative of heavy metal. I don't think either source should be seen as very reliable for anything regarding the entire heavy metal genre as a whole. --Bardin (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I say, I'm not stuck at all on the "masculine sexuality" part of the phrase. For the machismo, we have at least the additional support of that ol' Allmusic description and, I have no doubt, others.—DCGeist (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, its masculin, I'm a mid twenty year old female. Most of the music relates to males, young, dress in dark clothing. What really does it offer the female side? I like the music but I find myself questioning why as I feel like I'm up against 17 year old males!

Metal isn't typically consciously chauvinistic or misogynistic, and beyond that you can't say it's masculine without subscribing to gender role, and this is coming suspiciously close to Mars-and-Venus stereotyping; I might ask what a "feminine" song is other than a love song. Yes, metal has a heavy tendency to be about war and death and such, but it was designed from the beginning to suit those topics. It's hard to do a metal love song, hence the power ballad. It's in the name: "heavy" is a reference to seriousness and gloominess as much as it is a reference to the guitars. And, indeed, metal, broadly speaking, seems to be legitimately interested in its subject material, rather than adhering to some unspoken code of masculinity; compare this to the self-conscious and blatant misogyny of metal's hard rock roots, a tradition that can be traced back through rock and roll to blues and country music. ASWilson (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, a significant amount of metal, especially in the power, prog, and folk metal genres, seem to strive for some ideal of musical beauty, which can hardly be called a stereotypically masculine trait.ASWilson (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article states that that is what it is usually associated with, meaning that's what the general public seem to think the lyrics are about. As previously stated, that is more of an '80s idea, nowadays people more associate the lyrics with much darker themes - death, suicide, evil, hate, slef-loathing, etc. I know that only covers a small portion of metal, but that is probably what people associate it with in present day. The sentence could be changed to "In the early days of heavy metal, lyrical themes and imagery were associated with masculinity or, in the case of the metal underground, satanism. In recent years however, heavy metal music has been associated with much more darker themes of death, war and, mainly due to the nu metal breakout in the '90s, angst." or something to that effect. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that change would be a good start. However, I think the satanism aspect could be emphasised more - that definitely didn't end with Slayer as a big metal theme. Also, I'd probably split the last part into something like "In recent years however, heavy metal music has been associated with dark themes such as death and war. Youthful angst was a common theme of the nu-metal subgenre prevalent in the late 1990s, and has entered into the wider metal scene to a large extent since then".--MartinUK (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is using the wrong stereotypes here, for "masculinity and machismo" are terms applied better to Metal's parent music; that is Rock 'n' Roll in all its forms. For example, Rolling Stones' "Under My Thumb", tons of sex-drenched Aerosmith songs, the sleazyness of New York Dolls, AC/DC's "evil" double-entendres, etc. "Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll", the music's main goal and topic. Where when we are in the realm of heavy metal, shouldn't the two key words be darkness(or dark spirituality) and rebellion in general? (Black Sabbath, Budgie, Sir Lord Baltimore, Uriah Heep, Blue Öyster Cult, Scorpions, Rainbow, Motörhead, Judas Priest, UFO, Riot). Also, most of these bands - while rooted in doom, fantasy, social flaws and individuality - made a few deep love songs and introspective topics as well. About "satanism" I think it should be emphasized, but not generalised. Although Satan, Lucifer and anti-Christian topics are very frequent in past and modern Metal, we shouldn't forget about the pagan, viking and babylon-obssessed metal bands who are also out there in many numbers. One thing we could say is that most Metal finds inspiration in religion or the occult. If anything, "machismo in metal" should be referring to the glam metal/thrash era, where sleazy misoginy and aggression, respectively, were main traits in the image of these emerging subgenres. For a blunt example, the machismo reaction to war would be "Let's go fight our country's enemies and destroy them", am I right? So then we have Heavy Metal, who from it's 70's origins talked in brutal words AGAINST going to fight politician's wars. How does that make Heavy Metal "machismo"? To me, the music seems more intent on bringing up "taboo" subject matter, and not to vent masculine might. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.24.65 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the article is very well sourced. These claims are not. Please provide some quality sourcing if you want to continue to argue for a rephrasing.—DCGeist (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

One source from a book I can't read (don't have a copy, local library doesn't have a copy) and one source from a book I can! http://books.google.com/books?id=4xCFuu_YadAC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=%22Music+Cultures+in+the+United+States%22&source=bl&ots=M4s8KorXoF&sig=UjY2XEHhSqYahHaXWcjGeqWJaU8&hl=en&ei=U2ViSse6NdyvtgeuxPTsDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Google books to the rescue. Now an attempt at tearing down the use of Ms Fast's work. First, she does not differentiate between Led Zeppelin as a hard rock or a heavy metal group. She treats the two as synonyms for the same genre. We here know this is hardly the case. She even references works that delve into the "rock" genre, an even wider classification than just the attempt to strap heavy metal and hard rock together. The term "cock rock" is used throughout. Here at wikipedia cock rock redirects to glam metal, a sub-genre of heavy metal and one with emphasis on masculinity rather than keeping with the norm for the genre. Much of Led Zeppelin's machismo is their stage presence, not their music. Again, glam metal is the only sub-genre to inherit the clothing style and stage presence of Led Zeppelin.

I am thoroughly confused by her assertion that virtuosity is a masculine control over an instrument. Does this mean that mastery of embroidery is a display of machismo? Combining this with the notion of the guitar as phallus lends some credence. Certainly some guitarists display this in their style. But to say that all guitarists treat their instrument as phallus is sweeping and over-broad. Such style is derived from the guitarist's own masculinity rather than inheritance from the genre. Therefore a useless statement in her argument. She states that the use of distortion is an expression of extreme power and intense expression. Extreme power is certainly masculine, but when has intense expression been masculine? Intense expression is usually associated with a lack of control, a feminine or childish trait. This is backed up musically by hard rock and glam metal which do not use as much distortion as standard heavy metal or many of it's other sub-genres. If distortion is an expression of extreme power, then it is an attempt to grasp it, not to display it.

Her next argument is that heavy metal is primarily appealing to young white men because of their celebration of male sexuality, escapist fantasy, and atypical spiritual statement. Spirituality is hardly masculine. If it can be tied to a sex, I personally would tend towards the feminine. Second escapist fantasy is not a display of machismo. I would not say escapism is feminine, but it is certainly a display of discomfort with the real world. It is not the ownership or control of reality that is expected of males. Third I'll just throw out her insistence on metal being a celebration of male sexuality. That is yet again only a common trait of hard rock and glam metal. Last I can't agree that metal is primarily for young white males. I won't say it is for young ones, I know too many older metalheads. It is because most metal performers are white that metal is primarily a genre for white people (it's a culture thing, nothing intrinsic about it at all). That hard rock and glam metal are primarily for young males makes sense, but that can yet again be thrown out as unrepresentative of heavy metal as a whole. It is a general masculine trait that men are more likely to associate strongly with a particular music style. So sure men are more likely to be metalheads, but men are also more likely to associate with any genre of music that isn't specifically associated with feminism. Saying that heavy metal is specifically masculine is then circular reasoning.

Ms Fast finishes up (my link sadly doesn't include page 91) with the bits of Led Zeppelin that are not masculine at all, such as usage of higher registers, the breadth of emotion (something most applicable to just Led Zeppelin than hard rock or heavy metal), the tearing down of her own argument that the genre is the artistic equivalent of the masculine role in sex, which was poorly set up and yet again incredibly ignorant of the breadth of the genres.

I completely support the notion that sourced material is better for wikipedia. But it also deserves greater scrutiny. I can't examine the other source, but if it is of the same quality, then there are no sources to back up these assertions. This is clearly a contentious point or else we wouldn't be having this argument. You cannot utilize sources of dubious quality to stonewall the argument. When you find real sources you'll most like find that only certain forms of the genre are ultra-masculine. Most heavy metal appeals to emasculated young men who want that machismo but cannot find it. Young men who have been alienated by society but have no idea how to deal with it.

This is a complex issue and one that is probably best left untouched until there is some real science built around it. Statements like these should be associated with the particular sub-genres. I advise the removal of this subject from the article. marnues (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, Fast and Weinstein's clear contradictions and misconceptions alone should be considered in the validation of their claims. If I write an entire book on how pop music is childish, unsophisticated vocal music, would it be correct to use it as a source into explaining what pop music is? No, that sounds ridiculous; it would be a published source, yes, but riddled with POV and derogatory comments.

Yet, of all the sources in this whole article, Weinstein's book is the most sourced and at an exaggerated rate. It's true, I can't refute or source my claims AND I can agree with some of her statements. Then again, this whole article seems like the POV of Ms. Weinstein, and not an objective view of what heavy metal is to media experts (note: plural) in contrast to other genres. As the user above mentionned, she is mostly describing the main traits ascribed to Rock N Roll, Hard Rock and Blues Rock. I'm sure someone with a more extensive library will easily find many sources from notable authors and critics (note: who were active in the scene) that speak a very different opinion of heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.27.57 (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg

The image File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific rationale added. Thanks, bot.—DCGeist (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I Believe it happens, just because LED ZEPPELIN isn't a Heavy Metal Band.....And I believe that even its name should be , removed from these page, because there's no consense about any one of these bands mentioned at the beginning. It's reasonalbe doubt. In doubt, don't accept.

Thank You, deep Peace

Ricknupp (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknuppRicknupp (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Classical music, Art Music/Pop Music?

From the article: "Although a number of metal musicians cite classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal cannot be regarded as the modern descendant of classical music.[29] Classical and metal are rooted in different cultural traditions and practices—classical in the art music tradition, metal in the popular music tradition."

I don't understand the reasoning behind this (rather questionable take on aesthetics for an encyclopedia); isn't even a bastard son still a descendant?--Ymirfrostgiant (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called snobbery. Heavy metal, 'popular music', can never have anything to do with respectable, high class

culture, so it must be pointed out in the article. Zazaban (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with snoberry. It has nothing to do with being respectable or with any social context considerations. It has to do with the compositional approach and the different aesthetical conception of music. Metal descends from rock, not from classical. That's it. It is not a bastard son at all. Because a genre is inspired by classical music doesn't necessarilly mean it descends from it. Come on, Jazz has been sometimes inspired by classical but noone claims it descends from classical though. This is a misconception. But let's take a more extreme example, many pop singers including Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Shania Twain or Shakira have claimed to be influenced by rock and hard rock bands(see the article ironically entitled "Girls got rhythm" in Hard-rock Magazine, issue #91, may 2003, p.7), yet noone would be stupid enough to claim they are some sort of bastard daughters of rock and hard-rock just because they are influenced by them...

The modern descendants of classical music are contemporary classical music and neoclassical music. By "contemporary classical music",I'm most particularly refering to the avantgarde and experimental forms of art music (such as serialism,concrete music, minimalist music, John Cage's conceptual music, Xenakis' Stochastic music,spectral music), however the term may sometimes be used to encompass neoclassical and neoromantic forms as well. Anyway, most of the (avant garde) contemporary classical music is rejected by traditional classical world, because it is too experimental and too different for them. In this regard, contemporary classical music could actually be regarded as the true bastard son of classical, while neoclassical and some postmodern music forms could be regarded as the legimate sons in the view of the most traditionalist ones.

Anyway, the distinction between art music, popular music and traditional is not a biased view: it is a commonly admitted distinction in musicological research. Even though many fans of popular music are unaware of it because they are unfamilliar with musicological paradigms. I have explained it countless times here (see Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 3#Classical influence discussion most notably): this category is absolutely not meant to bellitle popular music genres such as metal but only to underline the differences of traditions. Art music is a highly theoretical tradition and it refers to written accademic tradition. Whereas Popular music composition relies on intuitive inspiration and refers little to written scores ( most of popular musicians can't read music, most of them are forced to use tabs instead) I know it is hard for people who are unfamilliar with musicological concepts to understand the distinction, but this is not an arbitrary view or some kind of lunatic theory. On a side note this part is sourced with a reference of two scholars: two referential musicologists named Nicolas Cook and Nicola Dibbens. Man, they are no sick idiots who just came up with some absurd theory just for the sake of legitimating some classical elistic snobbery. No, they are scholars(both with a phd in musicology) and are authorties in the domain, and they refer to commonly admited musicology concepts. Yeah, some could argue these guys, despite being reknown researchers, could be prejudiced against metal and any genres they call "popular" anyway. But unfortunately Dibbens is a specialist of such genres and she even publishes a musicological review dedicated to musicological studies on popular music genres. So no I don't think they are biased against it. Besides I never read anything condescending from them concerning such a music.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote that "Jazz has been sometimes inspired by classical but noone claims it descends from classical though." So is there anyone silly enough to claim that heavy metal descends from classical music? If not, why is there a need for this article to deny something that nobody claims? --Bardin (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Because for some reasons many fans of metal seem to believe metal descends from Classical (just look at Ymirfrostgiant who seems to imply that metal is some kind of bastard son of classical) also earlier versions of this article tended to suggest it. Hence the use to specify it.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I retract what I said, I misunderstood what was being claimed in the article. I thought it was claiming that there was no influence from classical, which is not true. Zazaban (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So, is being art music about tradition or is it about being art? Pop music is apparently not about being popular either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but this is the same misunderstanding over and over again. As I explained countless times, the notion of art music has nothing to do with being more "artistic" even though the name "art music" seems to imply that. I agree the term "art music" is misguiding and sounds pejorative. For my part, I prefer using the term "erudite music" which is more explicit and more neutral. But well, the term "art music" is more frequent for some reasons in english musicological litterature. Anyway it has nothing to do with artistic appreciations. The distinction doesn't imply that popular music is less artistic. I'm a fan of heavy metal, and I have no interest in claiming it is less artistic or inferior.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This distinction seems very arbitrary. A great many 'pop' acts have released music which was more artistic and less commercially-minded than what was expected of them (The Beatles, David Bowie and Radiohead for example), while classical music did have a public following who did pay money to hear their artists, so there must have been some performances and compositions which were purely intended to generate income rather than to push any artistic boundaries. A great many metal artists have released uncommercial music and discussed it in a very technical/artistic way - far more than in any other vaguely mainstream genre - so to dismiss it as 'not art' in such a broad way is a little insulting.--MartinUK (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There's still a misunderstanding going on here. I totally agree with you concerning popular acts not necessarilly being commercially-minded. But the notion of art music has nothing to do with some "art-vs-commercial" distinction. Art music doesn't mean being "uncommercial". Popular music doesn't mean being "commercial". Come on, Mozart sells very well, even more than many popular artists. So no, it has nothing to do with such considerations.

No, the distinction has to do with a difference of traditions concerning the approch of music. Art music and popular music don't have the same approch. That's all. Art music is an academic and theoretical tradition that relied on a written score tradition and high demanding theories of composition, whereas popular music doesn't refer very much on scores (many popular musicians can't read music, that's why many of them use tabs). Also Popular music is freer and more intuitive in terms of composition: it doesn't need to conform with aesthetic theories or rules of compositions. Plus, music production is different, art music composers write a score that will be played by other specialized performers (orchestra, ensemble, solo concertists etc...), whereas in popular music, music is generally composed and performed by members of a band (though not always). Art music composers don't tour to promote their music.

I insist guys, even though the name "art music" may sound pejorative (I agree), nowadays this notion is not used to bellitle popular music. I repeat it "the distinction between art music, popular music and traditional is not a biased view: it is a commonly admitted distinction in musicological research."Fred D.Hunter (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Making difference between art music and popular music tradition is only one way to perceive the relation of Heavy metal and Classical music. Especially modern Heavy metal has taken much influence from Classical music. Denying that is ignorant and the only reason for doing that I can think of is some pointless fear of "devilishness" of Heavy metal. Tritone was perceived devilish in Classical music and yet it was used already in Baroque era and from there on. It's simply wrong to say that the tradition of classical music wouldn't live in modern Heavy metal in a form or another: pompousness, melodiousness, etc. This relation may feel like superficial for experts in music theory, but there's still a clear relation. This is why I think this paragraph should be corrected to include a broader view on the influential relation of Classical music to Heavy metal. It shouldn't focus in separating the origins of Heavy metal from Classical music, because taking influence is a whole another thing. —Juhani Lindfors, 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.251.172 (talk)

Heavy metal has taken influence from all types of music. Tony Iommi enjoyed jazz, Anthrax's members liked hip-hop. Should this last genres be considered as musical roots of metal? My answer is no, cause they were not fundamental in its development. For this same reason classical music shouldn't be considered a musical root of Heavy metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.82.24 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No one brought it up, but I find the counter-argument to be a bit flawed. Quote: "Art music is an academic and theoretical tradition that relied on a written score tradition and high demanding theories of composition, whereas popular music doesn't refer very much on scores". Ok, admitted, this is true of most Electronic, Pop, and many types of Rock; but what about Heavy Metal? What sources do YOU have to say that Metal musicians "don't refer very much on scores". Are you also stating that most of them don't know which key, scale and mode they are playing in? Search deeper and you'll find that most actually do, most notably the guitarists.

Now, one could tell me that it's still not an academic tradition. To that I respond ever heard of Bach, Beethoven, Paganinni, Wagner and many others? These performers/composers improvised, experimented and created sometimes with little academic experience at all. The said "distinction" with Popular music through the academic status of Classical musicians is merely a modern concept, wherein avant-gardists and/or neo-classicists study the ancient's models carefully to inspire them in new compositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.26.167 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That's not what he was talking about. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Some points in the "lyrical themes" section

I just wanted to raise a couple of bits that strike me from the lyrical themes section. The main one is the opening:

“Common themes in heavy metal lyrics are sex, violence, and the occult. The sexual nature of many heavy metal songs, ranging from Led Zeppelin's suggestive lyrics to the more explicit references of latter-day nu metal bands, derives from the genre's roots in blues music and its frequently sexual content”

This I feel needs some work. The first line paints a very slanted picture, and while the other common lyrical themes are explained further in, simply saying “common themes are sex, violence and the occult” just sounds derogatory. “The sexual nature of many heavy metal songs” also sounds misleading: in truth, while sex is worth noting as a significant theme, it’s nothing like that much, nor “frequently sexual content”. This only really refers to the glam/traditional metal of the 80s, most other forms rarely talk about sex much.

I’m aware there is a citation at the end of that line, would anyone who does possess the book be kind enough to paste here a small quote, showing what it is that justifies that line? I’d just like to know exactly how much of that above statement is affirmed in the passage cited.

“Music critics have often deemed metal lyrics juvenile and banal”

This could also do with some work. Again, it doesn’t have a source, and while there are a good number of music critics who have said that, I feel it does sound a bit harsh, especially without some sourcing to back it up. Prophaniti (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it's "derogatory" at all, but the section does need work. I remember adding the citation, so I went through the page history and found that I only intended it to apply to the sentence about sexual themes drawing from the genre's blues roots (since so many of the early bands started out as blues-rock groups). I'll check out the book this week and work on it. But yes, sex has been a frequent topic of metal songs from its origins to today, from Zeppelin and Deep Purple through glam metal to nu metal ("Nookie", anyone?). WesleyDodds (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Prophaniti here. This might be a featured article but that section on lyrical themes is very much lacking in sources with only three citations spread out in three paragraphs. Of these three sources, one is from 1988, another 1991 while the third is there just for the Judas Priest suicide controversy. We're in the year 2009: that's over twenty years since Jon Pareles wrote his NYT article. I'm not sure I see how relevant that is unless we qualify the quotation used in the article by mentioning the year it was written. The sentence "Music critics have often deemed metal lyrics juvenile and banal" needs to be improved or dropped entirely. Shouldn't we avoid using the word often and instead qualify the sentence by identifying which critics deem metal lyrics as such? I'm not convinced that sex is a common theme in heavy metal music. This is not far removed from the machismo and male sexuality discussion above on this talk page. Glam and nu metal are far from representative of heavy metal music; one might even suggest that they are quite atypical of the genre. There's little to no sexuality in death metal, black metal, doom metal, prog metal, folk metal, thrash metal, power metal, speed metal, symphonic metal, viking metal, avant-garde metal, christian metal, etc. --Bardin (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sex does appear in some metal songs, but I wouldn't say it's one of the more dominant themes. The majority of heavy metal subgenres rarely make reference to sex. Some traditional metal does (like, as you say, Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin), but these are mostly from a time when it was still emerging from rock. Nu metal also occasionally does, but it's not that common a theme, that genre is more concerned with relationships in general than sex specifically, and the genre is a mish-mash of many different influences anyway, so the odd bit of sexual content can't particularly be ascribed to metal. Glam metal is really the only main genre that focuses on sex. Thrash, death, black, metalcore, doom, gothic, industrial, progressive, folk, power; all of those hardly ever make reference to sex specifically. So while it may be worth mentioning as one of many lyrical themes, I feel the section as it stands makes it appear a bit too dominant. Sex is a major theme of glam metal, but that's just one subgenre, and then some scattered examples in other genres.

And thanks Bardin. Bardin also raises a good point about the sources, particularly with their dating. Another point to make about it is even if we do have one book stating that sex is a dominant lyrical theme, we have to consider balance of sources. There are many books in the sources section. If only one book out of many mentions this, we don't want to give it too much weight, because if the other books don't mention it as well it would appear to be a minority view. Prophaniti (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Relationships in general are rarely a theme in most of the metal subgenres mentioned - fantasy and war themes, and references to religion and politics are far more common. This should be possible to source - a 20-year-old quote on a 40-year-old genre is ridiculous, and can't be expected to be accurate about the bulk of metal.

Sorry, I've been prety busy lately and haven't gotten a chance to visit my library. I'll try and fix it up this week. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The article states that "Death metal utilizes the speed and aggression of both thrash and hardcore, fused with lyrics preoccupied with Z-grade slasher movie violence and Satanism" However such lyrics are the mainstay of brutal death metal bands like Cannibal Corpse. Many, if not most Death metal bands including pioneers Death and most melodic death metal bands have rather philosophical lyrics. The article seems rather biased in its interpretation of lyrics, particularly those of Death metal. However due to lack of a credible source I have refrained from editing it. I believe a better phrase is offered by the Death metal page "Death metal utilizes the speed and aggression of both thrash and hardcore, fused with lyrics preoccupied with Z-grade slasher movie violence and Satanism but may also extend to contain themes of Satanism, criticism of religion, Occultism, mysticism, and/or social commentary." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.34.174 (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

raprock and rap metal are not the same thing

who the **** linked rap metal to the raprock page???? i know they get confused a lot but seriously wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.239.90 (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about the New Fusions: 1990s and early 2000s section, will someone explain to me why funk metal band Living Colour and rap metal band Body Count aren't even mentioned here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.105.64 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The obvious reason why "Rap Metal" links (linked?) to Rap Rock is because Rap Metal is a form of Rap Rock, and someone decided that Rap Metal alone wasn't significant enough to warrant an entire article. I think there's one now, though. I'm not sure Body Count is really rap metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Is the origin England or England/America?

Is America really one of the countries of heavy metal's origins?

I ask not because of a desire to say "Hey, it's English music, yay England!", but simply because the list of early heavy metal bands here are all English bands (Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple). The only American who springs to mind as someone with a sizeable presence in the genre is Jimi Hendrix... but he formed his band (the Jimi Hendrix Experience) in London, every other member was English and they remained London-based until Jimi's untimely death.

America has made a lot of excellent heavy metal, but I'm not sure it could be regarded as an originating country for the genre any more than England could be regarded as an originating country for gangster rap!

Thus, I ask: Should country of origin be changed to "England"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article to understand why—despite the fact that the first "big" metal bands were English—the answer is No. For instance:

In 1968, the sound that would become known as heavy metal began to coalesce. That January, the San Francisco band Blue Cheer released a cover of Eddie Cochran's classic "Summertime Blues," from their debut album Vincebus Eruptum, that many consider the first true heavy metal recording. The same month, Steppenwolf released its self-titled debut album, including "Born to Be Wild," with its "heavy metal" lyric. In July, another [...] epochal record came out: [...] Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida, with its 17-minute-long title track, a prime candidate for first-ever heavy metal album.

Keep reading: you'll find the U.S. bands Grand Funk Railroad and Mountain making a formative impact in 1969. And before you say they're not "really" heavy metal, they were certainly considered so at the time—no less than Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple.—DCGeist (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

None of this explains why these bands influenced the sound we know as heavy metal. Led Zep's influence especially is very clear on modern folk-metal and Viking metal, whereas releasing covers as singles is very very rare in metal, and often seen as an artistic compromise. The Iron Butterfly mention reads as if 'long song+guitar=metal', which is not the case. Even the American groups of today do not mention any of those bands - the references are to the British innovators, Sabbath especially. There's no evidence that Tony Iommi's guitar sound or Sababth's use of horroresque imagery was influenced by those US acts, or that Sabbath/Led Zep/Deep Purple knew of them at the time--MartinUK (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure, all the guys in Led Zeppelin were morbidly stupid gits. But, you know, given the fact that they appeared at the Atlanta Pop Festival with Grand Funk Ralroad, how 'bout we give the boys credit for "knowing of them at the time". More to to the point, how much would you like to bet that Grand Funk and Mountain didn't sure as heck know of Blue Cheer and Iron Butterfly? And that all the crappy little early U.S. metal bands that soon followed didn't sure as heck know of all four? Show us the money.—DCGeist (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Metal's evolution from bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple to modern metal bands has been a joint effort by both England and the United States. Metal as we know it today was probably more greatly influenced by American bands than English bands, but those American bands were probably influenced by English bands. Both countries have shared an equal part in the evolution of metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanthic-Ztk (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, British bands have had little impact on the last 25 years of metal. Since Iron Maiden, every big metal act has been either American or from mainland Europe (Germany and Scandinavia especially). British labels prefer to sign Coldplay-esque stuff to metal. The issue is whether the genre would have existed in anything like its present form without Led Zep, Deep Purple and especially Black Sabbath.--MartinUK (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't. But, you see, there's really no issue. Those are the three early bands that get named in the lead section, and we name England before the United States in both the lead and the infobox. But as has been very clearly evidenced and explained, the United States was also a significant site for the early development of heavy metal, and there's no compelling case for entirely eliminating it from the lead.—DCGeist (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I got to this discussion from a conversation on last.fm where text from this article has been quoted. I don't have access to the Weinstein article mentioned all over here, but seeing the arguments above here is what I have to say against naming the US as an origin of heavy metal.
Firstly, when we are talking about the origin, we must not consider later contributions howsoever significant they may be. This excludes the US as much as it does Germany and the Scandinavian countries, at least on that account.
Neither should you consider music that came before and sounded similar, or influenced what came after. If you keep looking back thus you would reach Richard Wagner, and thence go on to Neanderthals blowing and rubbing odds and ends. This discounts Hendrix (who himself denied association with metal, though his influence is clear), Grand Funk Railroad and Mountain.
The single entity most readily identified as the origin of heavy-metal is Black Sabbath which is British (I cite Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast). Their inspiration wasn't a previous American band--they were formed as the rock-and-roll of the love generation fell apart, and the legendary accident of Iommi led them to a new sound that satisfied the occult tendencies they had.
As for the songs by Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer and Steppenwolf (which is Canadian) which do seem to make the cut, they are little more than one-hit-wonders in comparison to the British contributions, and at best deserve a consolation prize. Was the forest fire caused by people across the sea who were rubbing stones and producing sparks yesterday? In the line of metal milestones in Sound of the Beast the first American name that appears is Kiss, and we know they would have led to the death of heavy metal were it not rescued by Judas Priest and others, again British, but I digress, for this is well ahead of the "origin" we are seeking.
Of the issue being spoken of by DCGeist and MartinUK, I would only say that naming the US alongside the UK as the origin of heavy metal doesn't sound factually balanced and denies the British bands the exclusive credit they deserve, as those of whom the music and movement of heavy metal was born.

--Ankurtg (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur with what Ankurtg is saying. It does seem that the American contributions to the origin and birth of heavy metal have been very minor, and merely sound similar at best. There is no proof that any of them have influenced any metal bands, or had any real impact on the genre at all. On top of that, they aren't truly metal songs - merely songs that sound similar and utilise certain concepts of the genre, but aren't quite there.

I propose that we change the article to list England as the origin of metal. Is anyone willing to edit the article?

I suggest we change 'Heavy metal' (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, largely in England and the United States. With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created... to

'Heavy metal' (often referred to simply as metal) is a genre of rock music that developed in the 1970s largely in England. With roots in the blues-rock and psychedelic rock of 1960's, the bands that created....

This is to imply what I have previously stated -- true metal started in about 1970 in England (Sabbath), and developed in the coming few years. The music of 1960's (which is where the US largely contributed, though I find this fact hard to fit here) only influenced metal. Now the problem is of ref 2 (Weinstein), to which I have no access. I wish to delete it, and we can change Ref 2 to Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, with the page number of the Timeline of heavy-metal, that starts with the release of Black Sabbath and is followed by several British bands. Does anyone see a problem with this? I'd be glad to hear improvements. If none, I can make these changes after waiting a few days.--Ankurtg (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's a very big problem with that. We have a very detailed, very well-sourced History section that clearly demonstrates how heavy metal began developing in the late 1960s in both England and the United States. The long-standing version of the lead is fine just the way it is.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think now someone is not being very reasonable here. I have read the History section several times but someone does not seem to have read what's written above. I hate to have to reiterate, but here it is. The works in the US in the 1960's are largely precursors to the metal sound that developed starting just before 1970, in England. Those pieces of music which some people cite as the first metal recordings (In-a-gadda-da-Vida by Iron Butterfly, and Steppenwolf which is Canadian) are debatably so in terms of sound and insignificant in comparison in terms of impact (they are of negligible popularity among heavy metal listeners). Finally, later contribution from the US doesn't count.

Summarizing again, my basic point is that the first few identifiably metal bands are all British. I don't deny the role of the US before as influence, but the metal-sound was created by Black Sabbath, Deep Purple and the like. Precursors and influences shouldn't count as origin. Please also read the previous post here, and if you find me in error, do post some real arguments against it. --Ankurtg (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem with your position is that it is largely OR. Our sources clearly indicate that the bands you dismiss as "debatably [heavy metal] in terms of sound and insignificant in comparison in terms of impact (they are of negligible popularity among heavy metal listeners)"—Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer, Grand Funk Railroad, Mountain—are considered no less heavy metal than Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple. (You have misread the article. It does not describe Steppenwolf as a heavy metal band. They are mentioned in the History section because of the significance of "Born To Be Wild", which includes the first recorded instance of the phrase "heavy metal". See the immediately preceding Etymology section. No one else has seemed to be confused on this point, but we can consider parenthesizing the Steppenwolf reference in History.)

The popularity, or lack thereof, of these bands among current heavy metal listeners is both completely irrelevant to the history and, as far as I can tell, completely OR on your part. The article already addresses the issue of shifting definitions and indicates that Black Sabbath is the first band about whose heavy metal status "there is little debate". But the development of heavy metal went well beyond Black Sabbath, and while the most famous bands from a latter-day perspective might have been British, that development happened on both sides of the Atlantic (and Grand Funk Railroad was big at the time--a verifiable claim, unlike some that you have made).—DCGeist (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you find my views biased. Fair enough, I cannot possibly share the point-of-view of the listeners of 1960's, and I find it hard to call Led Zeppelin metal. If people before Black Sabbath are to be called the originators of Heavy Metal, I grudgingly step down.

But please do clarify to me this point too. This is clearly a conflict between an old viewpoint, in which Grand Funk Railroad et al are Metal and thereby its originators, and a modern viewpoint in which they are not (justification below). Since Wikipedia is a modern and dynamic encylopedia, doesn't it make sense to have the new perspective? To the modern user of Wikipedia, the first sentence of the heavy metal article does not convey a true fact. The music that s/he calles heavy metal did not originate in the US. Infact, in the Wiki articles on Iron Butterfly, Blue Cheer and GFR, the boxes do not have heavy-metal as one of their genre, and many are listed for each (Steppenwolf does). In the entire wiki article on GFR, there is but one disconnected occurrence of the word 'metal'.

About "while the most famous bands from a latter-day perspective might have been British, that development happened on both sides of the Atlantic" I would like to reiterate that it is wrong to consider as origin those that contributed to develop the entity under consideration, for the process of development goes back forever. Look at where and when you first hear the right sound, and that is the origin.

Finally, my statements of current popularity aren't cooked-up, but based on the number of listeners for the artist on the website last.fm which has 30-million users. It's a good judge though not completely soild, for its users are all people who use the internet, which misrepresents certain classes such as older listeners (making it highly suitable to determine a modern viewpoint). Here Sabbath has eighteen times as many playings as Grand Funk Railroad, and six times the listeners. Among the tags under the name of GFR [1] (where the size is proportional to the number of users who tagged it thus) heavy-metal has the smallest possible size.

You state that popularity in current times is insignificant when considering the origin of something. That is generally true, but in question here is the identity of that whose origin we are seeking, and I think that a justified answer to "What is heavy metal?" can only be contemporary collective opinion.--Ankurtg (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Opeth?

I realise that the aim of this article isn't to list every single metal band, but surely the Swedish group Opeth should be mentioned? Their fusion of death metal with prog elements is largely unique and highly innovative, and has been a big commercial success in much of the world.--MartinUK (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While they are a notable metal band, I don't see any real reason to mention them in the article. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Opeth have incorporated softer elements such as use of acoustic guitars and clean vocals mixed with death-metal style growls and heavy riffing which has not been seen much earlier. Surely that merits them a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.34.174 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dissection have been doing it a lot longer than Opeth, Opeth weren't really doing anything "innovative". Just prog metal with death metal vocals. ThePerfectVirus (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Opeth, but I don't see why they should be listed in this article. Mason092 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Opeth weren't really doing anything 'innovative'". Hahahaha. Peak of ignorance. If Tool are mentioned, Opeth should be mentioned.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Grunge

Even though grunge music does hold roots from Heavy Metal, I believe it is considered more alternative rock than metal. I don't think it should even be in the fusion genre category, for metal was only used as a mere inspiration for the genre.

UberHeadbanger (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (EST)

Look at Alice in Chains, Soundgarden for grunge bands that can easily be called metal & Melvins for a big central band/influence in the movement who were also metal. 174.21.45.89 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Grunge should make his article, easily. They've been included in metal-lists since their start.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Deena Weinstein

Who the fuck is "Deena Weinstein" and why is she mentioned so prominently in this article??? 70.168.32.250 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that you wrote the question about the article, you don't appear to have looked at the article, since her identity as an author is described clearly (see Heavy metal music#Sources or follow the inline citation links provided in the article). You may presume then that she is mentioned due to her writing and the article bears this out with the first mention of her name: "Deena Weinstein's description" being shortly followed by a citation. Hyacinth (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This still doesn't answer why she is mentioned so prominently in the article, and why she is given more weight than any other author. (27 cited sources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.27.57 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pedal Point/Judas Priest

The opening chords for You've Got Another Thing Coming are all simple fifths, and the chords are E, B, and F#. With the 'pedal point' continuously sounding out F#, the first chord becomes a ninth, the second does not change at all (F# is actually the fifth for B), and the third is F#, so is obviously not adjusted. Does anyone else think that the text in the 'pedal point' section needs to be improved to better explain this? Concepts like "notes that are not usually in the chords" sound pretty unclear and inaccurate. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

early 70s/Sir Lord Baltimore/two guitarists

There is a line that discusses popular heavy metal bands in the early 70s who started using two guitarists. I know of only one such band - Sir Lord Baltimore, who was actually the first band to be called "heavy metal". I put this specific in, and it was immediately removed (with the reason being that they are "not popular"). I know of no other bands this statement can even apply to - does anyone else know of any? Luminifer (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects I am going to reinstate it, as we need at least one example and I know of no other examples. Luminifer (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a point that no band is mentionned as using dual guitars in the early 70s, though Scorpions would be a better example with commercial impact. They had two guitarists since the first albums.
Lonesome Crow(1972): Rudy Schenker and Michael Schenker.
Fly To The Rainbow - Taken By Force(1974-1977): Rudy Schenker and Uli Jon Roth.
Lovedrive(1979): Rudy Schenker and Michael Schenker.
Animal Magnetism and onwards(1980- ): Rudy Schenker and Matthias Jabs.
Another, less-notably metal example can be used in Thin Lizzy. Also, depending how far ahead we can reach into the 70s, Judas Priest and Kiss have been releasing albums since 1974 with dual guitars.

Priest is usually the earliest I've seen mentioned. Sir Lord Baltimore I think was 1971. If any of your examples are similarly dated, please add them! I don't know if the early Scorptions stuff really counts as metal though? Luminifer (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scorpions were certainly considered heavy metal at the time, as of course were Sir Lord Baltimore. However, I've been unable to find any good source that describes either band as having dual lead guitars (or, as we put it, "cofeaturing" two guitarists). Lots of bands have two guitarists--one playing lead, the other rhythm--but that's not the point here. If we're going to name an early metal band as having co-lead guitarists, we're going to have to source it per WP:V standards.—DCGeist (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I found your decision to hold specific examples to a different standard than the original statement about having two guitarists to be somewhat odd, so I've added some CN tags to the statement, at the very least that should help. Also, I find your reading of the wording to be somewhat dubious - I suggest if you actually do know what the author meant, you make it clearer. If you do not know (and I see some disagreement), you should not assume that it means what you think it means, and them remove other peoples' changes without much explanation or even looking at the talk page. (I also feel like I'd want a citation for Lonesome Crow to be heavy metal - it doesn't sound like it to me, and the page does not have any).

The Sir Lord Baltimore page actually has a citation for the 'two guitarists' claim: Sir Lord Baltimore expanded to a four-piece for this album, with Louis Dambra's brother, Joey Dambra, joining as a second guitarist.[14] . If all you wanted was a citation, why didn't you just do the civil thing and add a CN flag? Luminifer (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the point is not about having two guitarists. Many bands have two guitarists. The point is about having two lead guitarists. The citation in the SLB article does not support that claim.

There's no question of civility here. You wanted to make a change to a long-standing sentence, which makes a general and heretofore uncontroversial claim. The sentence you substituted makes a very specific claim that has no WP:V-standard support. I thus restored the status quo. Your addition of a CN tag is appropriate; we'll see what we can come up with.

Now, it is completely unclear what it is you're trying to say here: "Also, I find your reading of the wording to be somewhat dubious - I suggest if you actually do know what the author meant, you make it clearer." Give it another shot.—DCGeist (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are assuming the author is discussing two lead guitarists, while I see nothing specifically stating this. Luminifer (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is the "author" to whom you're referring?—DCGeist (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The author of the line in the wikipedia article. Luminifer (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you removed it - why? I strongly disagree with that action - what we want, here, is to actually improve the article - which means having some difficult to research facts out there for people who have a lot of time to invest out there with CNs. Please put it back. Luminifer (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct term?

Reading old magazines I cannot find any reference to bands like "Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple" being called "Heavy Metal", the term most used is "Heavy Rock", with groups like Iron maiden and Judas Priest being referenced as "metal" or "heavy metal". Why has this changed retroactivly.--Reiknir

I Believe that's a mistake to include these bands as Heavy metal bands, because there's no CONSENSE. The specialized media try to include them in their "tribe" to help the head bangers to accept them. Head bangers don't appreciate any kind of music than Metal, so they can treat These bands as Metal, if they want to sell.

So I would laike to propose to remove these references, because there's doubts, and if there's no consense, it could be wrong.

This is reasonable doubt. in Doubt Don't accept.

Thank You. Deep Peace.

Ricknupp (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknuppRicknupp (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix released a heavy metal album before Cream yet the page implies the opposite.

Fresh Cream is not a heavy metal album by any stretch. Just listen to the album and you'll see that it's got none of the elements mentioned. Their next two albums however are definitely heavy metal in the way described in the article. Hendrix's first album was released before their second album Disraeli Gears but after Fresh Cream. Hendrix's album is very heavy metal and truly the first heavy metal album. Wikipedia implies that Cream came first because their first album was released before Hendrix's which is true but their album was not metal. Furthermore Fresh Cream is not a "heavy metal essential" Wheel of fire however is. This is a serious error that needs to be fixed, I tried but it was changed back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.153.125 (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make some changes.

I would like to give progressive metal it's own section and give mention to High Tide(a band that has been called a precursor to the subgenre with this source), Uriah Heep(a band that Allmusic has noted as, "Uriah Heep's by-the-books progressive heavy metal made the British band one of the most popular hard rock groups of the early '70s.") and Lucifer's Friend(a band that Allmusic have called, "both early practitioners of heavy metal and progressive rock"). However I will note these bands as precursors to the prog metal genre and mention Allmusic definition of the genre that claim it, "first surfaced in the late '80s". I thank you for taking this into consideration and please speak up if you feel my sources are unrelibale.Rockgenre (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I still have not gotten any responses on giving prog metal it's own section. I feel it's a very underrated subgenre and that it deserves more than just a paragragh under power metal(and what is it doing under power metal in the first place? I don't see any connection between Helloween and Dream Theater.) Any opinions? If anyone doesn't want me to do this than, may I at least add High Tide and Lucifer's Friend under the Origins section? Rockgenre (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is already borderline of losing its featured status because of having too much added crust that already available in other articles. If it gets expanded any more than it is it will likely get re-reviewed with more scrutinising eyes tearing it apart. Best to leave out adding "see also" content. Fair Deal (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology: first documented uses of the phrase to describe a type of rock music

Regarding the current statement: "The first documented uses of the phrase to describe a type of rock music are from reviews by critic Mike Saunders. In the November 12, 1970, issue of Rolling Stone, he commented on an album put out the previous year by the British band Humble Pie ..."

I am looking at a review of The Electric Flag's "A Long Time Comin', by Barry Gifford, featured in Rolling Stone magazine, issue 10, May 11, 1968. It says: "This is the New Soul Music, the synthesis of White Blues and Heavy Metal Rock."

So perhaps the above statement should be corrected?

Vinylknut (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source of course you can correct the Etymology.Rockgenre (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did this earlier today, but it was quickly removed by another user (WesleyDodds) with no reason given, so apparently my reference was not accepted as a genuine use of the phrase (which is strange), or the reference was not accepted as true (however, anybody with the Rolling Stone DVD-ROM package can verify this reference). Or is it something I don't understand about the wikipedia edit process ...? Vinylknut (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess you should just put it in again. Wouldn't hurt? Rockgenre (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Funk Metal needs a section as well.

I have noticed that Funk metal doesn't have it's own section here. Anyone mind if I take care of that? Rockgenre (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that article would need more reliable sourcing yet, because it's only source seems to be Piero Scaruffi, currently deprecated as a source, at least by WP:ALBUMS. In fact, it's deletable as it stands due to lack of supported notability. Once that is sorted out, Funk Metal could be a "See also" and may be worth a minor mention within the article, but so far, it isn't apparent that it deserves one. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If power metal, a subgenre that has had very little success in the U.S., has it's own section, than I see no reason why funk metal, a subgenre that has even had grammy winners, shouldn't. I'm just going to write a small paragraph on the subgenre. Rockgenre (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument. I haven't looked at "power metal", but if funk metal is so poorly-sourced in its own article that it cannot be sourced from mainstream rock journalism, then it really isn't a "genre", but a "sub-genre" or "style" at best. What next, punk-reggae-metal? Rodhullandemu 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Funk metal already has its own section under the Funk rock article. Content doesn't need to be duplicated twice on 2 different pages. Fair Deal (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Living Colour? They won 2 grammys and were the first the first heavy metal band to have members of all African descent. If Funk metal shouldn't have it's own paragraph at least they deserve to get mentioned. Rockgenre (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I despair at this seeming desire to put bands into smaller and smaller pigeonholes, and it's a difference between genres and styles that to me seems totally unnecessary. We knew where we were in the 1960s and 1970s, and didn't really need these divisive labels. However, from our point of view here, if there are reliable sources applying these tags, I suppose some people might think they are important. My historical perspective tells me that "they ain't". Rodhullandemu 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That was from your historical perspective. "My" historical perspective is that, winning awards and breaking racial boundaries are important things. I believe Living Colour at least deserve a sentence. Rockgenre (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You fail to take note that Power Metal is immensly popular in European countries, Japan and so forth. Stratovarius, Helloween, HammerFall, Iced Earth, Rhapsody and Sonata Arctica, to name a few, have achieved varied degrees of succes and media exposure. I could stay here for an hour naming various bands belonging to the genre and still have examples popping into my head. You mention only Living Colour. Yes there are others and I'm aware of them but can you sit here and enumerate tons of bands described as Funk Metal? Even then, most of these bands fit into the Alternative Metal category as well, maybe even more so.

EDIT: Also, there's an argument about breaking racial boundaires? When does the nationality of a performer ever create a genre? Here's a practical example; The sub-genre of Thrash Metal breaks out mid-80s, a mostly American phenomenon. Shortly after, a similar style emerges in Germany with common traits that differentiate it from its American counterparts. It gains the monikers German Thrash or Teutonic Thrash as a style. Later, South American bands gain a Thrash scene of their own, most notably examplified by the brazilian Sepultura. The nuance here is that all 3, despite their slight musical differences and distinct cultural flavors, are considered Thrash Metal as a whole. The breaking of racial boundaries, as you call it, is rather a mark of unique STYLE(a personal variation to a pre-existing genre), than in itself a SUB-GENRE(a full fledged movement with a local scene, possesing a notably different musical aesthetic and format, having many bands composing in a similar vein and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic link?

I noticed that this article links to the allmusic entry for heavy metal. I know allmusic is considered by some to be RS, and not by others, but a thought: if it's RS, then any info it contains should really be in the article, rather than linked, and it it's not RS, it shouldn't be linked. Either way, not sure why the link is there. Any thoughts? Random name (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove Black Widow?

They are not a metal band, they're prog. They have no musicial connection to the genre. They just had satanic lyrics, which doesn't really have much to do with metal(Robert Johnson had them too and he definately isn't a metal artist.) Rockgenre (talk) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I just realized that under the doom metal section it lists this group as a pioneer of the genre. Here's the source http://www.doom-metal.com/history.html is it legit? I don't see how that can be. Even Jethro Tull are a heavier prog band then them. Rockgenre (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm late, but I'd like to insert my coins. I think it can be argued (at least) that Black Widow was influential to and/or part of early metal. While ,as far as I know, Black Widow wasn't incredibly heavy, I think there are elements of their sound which could be described as 'metal,' at least in their context. I'd also like to add that it seems an anomaly that Jethro Tull isn't more cited in metal than it seems they are. They did indeed have a lot of pretty heavy material. (Albert Mond (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Widow to my knowledge haven't been all that influencial. They have only been covered very few times and not too many people site them as an influence. Though they did tour with a several of the early metal bands(Sab, Purple, etc.) The closest band Widow have in common with IMO are The Moody Blues, so I don't really see how anyone can call them metal. I think this doom metal site loses some seriously credibility when they call them pioneers or whatever of it. And Jethro Tull while certainly never a metal band, they actually did come pretty close "A New Day yesterday." Rockgenre (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's something pretty funny actually about JT and metal. They were included in Popoff's book of The top 500 heavy metal songs where he refers to them for "creating progressive metal" Rockgenre (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

High Tide

I already mentioned these guys on this discussion page, but I would really like to add them. They have been called one of the first metal bands and possibly the first progressive metal band. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sea-Shanties-High-Tide/dp/B000FBH2PA I don't know if this is a reliable source but it does call thier first album proto-prog-metal, last.fm(another site I'm unsure if it's reliable)too called them a precursor to prog metal, and Allmusic(the most debated source as far as rock music goes on this site) called them "one of Britain's heaviest bands". Thier first album is very loud for 1969(after that they kind of went straightforward prog). Opinions anyone? On the sources, the band? Anyone? Rockgenre (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

the sources are not reliable and the content of your edit are really POV, plus the article for prog metal doesn't even mention high tide Blah42b10 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is used as a source many times on this page alone and I tried to edit the prog metal page earlier this year(mentioning of high tide, uriah heep, lucifer's friend, etc.) with sources, but one "Aussie Ausborn" removed it for no reason(and I believe I was improving it since as of now their are no sources on the page). Rockgenre (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

well allmusic is ok I guess but what I am objecting to the most is the content of your edit, it only mentions one band, is completely POV, and really doesn't even make much sense because they don't even appear listed on the prog metal page, even just in a list Blah42b10 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not on the list because I didn't get around to edit that list and then of course my edits one the main page had already been removed. I don't believe it's POV because if you combine prog and metal than you get progressive metal and that's what their first album did. Regardless, their is still no consensus here yet, so now we need to wait and see. Rockgenre (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

To anybody about to jump in here here's the allmusic link that mentiones them combining a proto metal sound with a progressive style http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:hxfpxq95ldse Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 03:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

if they are indeed "forerunners to the movement", then why weren't they already on the list? Also, I'm not disputing if they were prog metal or not, I really couldn't care less, but "changing time signatures and tempos, soft-hard dynamics, multi-part arrangements, and even some ornate faux-Baroque interludes" seems like POV to me Blah42b10 (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I didn't add them to the list nor did I even put prog metal under their genre yet, but that article and the amazon one(which I don't know if it's a reliable source or not) refer to them either being proto prog metal or fusing the proto metal sound with prog.Rockgenre (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that you didn't add them, but why didn't someone else? Plus, amazon really isn't a reliable source, and it's still POV, if you can add some more bands in there, remove the descriptions of their music, and even fix up that entire paragraph if you want, then it would make sense to include them, as long as you have reliable sources, which I guess the allmusic one is. Blah42b10 (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This band's first album is an obscurity, so it doesn't surpise me that no one has heard of them. We still need a majority for or against this.Rockgenre (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Having read most of the books cited in the article, they don't give any space at all to High Tide. In the consensus of sources, they aren't important. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The band is an obscurity does it surpise you that they are not mentioned? Here's another article from last.fm(is it a reliable source?) about them being precursors to prog metal http://www.last.fm/music/High+Tide If they did infact invent this subgenre they deserve to be mentioned.Rockgenre (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion on high tide, but wanted to say that Last.FM most definitely is not a reliable source - anyone can edit any band's entry. In terms of allmusic, I might be inclined to wonder if we should be taking articles one at a time, and consider them by the pedigree of their authors. The High Tide article was written by Wilson Neate, who seems to be a proper music critic; this should lend the article some weight. Clearly, if he was arguing something absurd I'd balk at endorsing it, as one can often find someone to back up any old opinion, but this case strikes me as fine. Any thoughts? (I should note that I appreciate that one article does not constitute consensus of sources; I don't entirely know how controversial the claims regarding high tide are, really.)Random name (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If they're not mentioned by comprehensive histories of the heavy metal genre, then they are not important. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If they founded a subgenre then they are important. Right now we have one person for adding them(me), two against it(WD, Blah) and one undecided. We are going to need more people for or against this. Rockgenre (talk)

Can you find more than one source that says they invented a subgenre? Even then, that would probably more relavent to the band page or the subgenre page, than the overrarchign metal page. Keep in mind that this page needs to take a macro view of the subject. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, allmusic did say they fused a proto metal sound with a progressive style. Even though the other two sources are unreliable, I doubt it's a coincidence that they both mention the band being a precusors to progressive metal. Other than that not much. I believe Martin Popoff mentioned them in his book "The Heaviest 100 Obscurities of the '70s", but I don't own a copy of it. Rockgenre (talk)

You're reading too much into the source. First, it's a review. Reviews make critical statements; if you wanted to cite something regarding the band's history, you'd look for it in the biography. Second, the review says "High Tide had the muscularity of a no-nonsense proto-metal band . . ." This does not explicitly say that they were a proto-metal band; just that they rocked like one. Big difference. Also, Allmusic classifies the group as prog. All the review says is that they were a prog band that sounded heavy. It's a big stretch to then conclude that they were the precursors to prog metal. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they also list Black Widow(a band far from metal) as a metal band under styles, but they have also dismissed that by saying "The common misconception about England's Black Widow is that they were crucial contributors to the development of heavy metal in the early '70s — they weren't. In fact, the unconventional sextet had far less in common with Black Sabbath — with whom they only shared mutual management and a propensity for occult subject matter — than early progressive rock bands like, say, Emerson, Lake & Palmer if they'd had a guitar player." source: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfuxq9ald6e . So don't think we can completely believe their "style" choices. And they also called High Tide, "one of Britain's heaviest bands" source: http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jxfpxq95ldse .Rockgenre (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's just one of High Tide's songs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY7MZHoGxHY I really think this is too heavy to be considered just prog. Does anyone have any final thoughts on the allmusic source or on whether this band being mentioned in this article or on progressive metal's separate page? Rockgenre (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What we think the music sounds like has no relevance here. Read Wikipedia:Original research. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is true (see Wikipedia:Truth). Rockgenre, what wikipedia policy means, for such topics as 'heavy metal', which are essentially covered an incredible deal by popular people who know little about the subject holistically and/or are nowhere near of an academic nature, is that the articles end up being self-contradictory on some level, unhelpful, and slanted towards an inaccurate populist view. Unfortunately, as I understand it (and as I have been told), this is the nature of wikipedia's policies (feel free to dig around in them to see if you can find a way around this)... Luminifer (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this has gone on for so long. If a consensus of sources do not label them as a defining heavy metal band, we do not either. Even the one source (Allmusic) Rockgenre repeatedly cites, doesn't specifically call them a pioneering heavy metal band. indopug (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize if I did turn this into original research. I'm going to use an example here though on why we can't just trust Allmusic's "style choices" . On Allmusic's page for The Melvins they do not list them as a sludge metal band, yet on wiki's page for sludge metal they use Allmusic's page for Doom metal that does refer to them as sludge metal band as a source. My point being is that sometimes we have to trust what we read in the article and not just the styles. Also, on Allmusic's page for Sea Shanties they mention High Tide, " psychedelia's melodic whimsy is supplanted by a physicality more in line with the visceral heft of metal progenitors such as Cream, Blue Cheer, and the Jeff Beck Group". Regardless, I will never get a consensus for adding them, but I thank your consideration anyway, all. Rockgenre (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed.

Well, obviously not everything in the article has a reference, so should we just add or remove the uncited stuff.Rockgenre (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policy says that you're allowed to do whichever you see fit. If it's something that I think someone can back up and that may be true, I try to leave CN's... If it's something that's blatantly untrue, I will sometimes remove it. I try to give the benefit of a doubt. Usually, I think about it this way: I add a CN tag; if someone else comes across it and sees the tag and agrees that it's untrue, they can remove it - that way, two people get to have a say in it. They can also add a reference if they like. I've found that this does a LOT for improving articles. Luminifer (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind some citations might cover several sentences. If you have questions about specific items, list them here. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw -- you can enclose cn in the brackets instead of citation needed, as a shortcut. Luminifer (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology again

Another one of the early uses of the term was in BOC's song ME262 from 1974, "Like some heavy metal fruit". Should it be included? We mention uses of the term from '62 to '83, so I don't see why we can't include it. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

'74 is by no means early is it? Hadn't the term spread into widespread use by then? indopug (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, then. No reason to include it I suppose.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 18:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen Mention

I've been asked to put this up on the talk page as to why Queen should be mentioned in the introduction of the article along with Judas Priest. This is quite simple; Queen also spurred Heavy Metal's evolution by discarding much of its Blues influence, along with Judas Priest. Why it should only be Judas I have no idea; especially when my justification is sourced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/biography (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

That source says nothing about them taking out the blues influence. Wikipedia does not use original research. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the source used on the actual Queen page, so maybe you could explain that to me? (82.28.237.200 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

Just tell us where in that cite it says what you want it to say. If it's used on the Queen page for the same facts not present, then we should remove it from there as well. Errors should really be corrected, rather than blindly copied. Random name (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

New evidence has surfaced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/199416/review/5942941/queen This article states that Queen's metal material is nowhere near as bluesy-based as Led Zeppellin. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Fine...for the article on Queen. But no persuasive case has been made that Queen belongs in the lede of this overview article, on a par with Judas Priest. They simply are nowhere near as crucial to or exemplary of the history of metal.—DCGeist (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Judas Priests contributions are not sourced either, so why should they have the right to be up there unsourced? We also have many METAL bands sourcing Queen as an influence; Iron Maiden, Anthrax, Metallica and more. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

"The right"? Interesting choice of words.

Judas Priest's major influence on the direction of heavy metal is well sourced in the main text. Per Wikipedia guidelines and well-established practice (it would be helpful if you'd familiarize yourself with those), we generally avoid repeating main text citations in the lede. As for the relative weight we give these bands, please familiarize yourself with the authoritative literature. Let's take a look at one of the leading sources for this article, Deena Weinstein's Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture: Judas Priest is mentioned on 43 pages of this book; Queen is mentioned on zero. The story is similar in another major source, Robert Walser's Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music: Judas Preist mentioned on 31 pages; Queen on 1. The third leading authoritative source we rely on is Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal: Judas Priest—86 pages; Queen—4 pages. (For those playing along, that makes the final score 160–5.) I'm afraid that your opinion that Queen plays a central role in the history of heavy metal is not shared by the sort of authoritative sources upon which we are obliged to base our work here.—DCGeist (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That could also prove something else. The fact that Judas Priest are overrated and Queen barely got a mention for their helping spur the evolution of Heavy Metal. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC))

I'll say that Queen is not a heavy metal band, but a rock band who added some heavy metal elements to his music and that have done some heavy metal songs. Queen was a mix of heavy metal, progressive rock, glam rock, rock n' roll, opera, pop rock, and even disco and funk by the late 70s and early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.99.104 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't generalise Queen as heavy metal when they made a handful of songs vaguely related to the genre. More often than not they made rock songs, progressive rock, pop influenced four-part vocal showcases, broadway style piano pieces etc. Second, the number of Metal bands being influenced by Queen's music doesn't make them Metal either, its misunderstanding the statement. Many early Rock n Rollers were influenced by delta blues artist Robert Johnson; that doesn't make Johnson's music become Rock n Roll.

Indeed Judas Priest are very highly rated, that's probably why they need to be monetioned in the lead, right?. That's not the issue here. I can place a bet that any book about heavy metal history that's worth its money mentions Judas Priest somewhere in there. Yes, because they are very-well known and have sold many albums; but more importantly because the bulk of their music itself is in majority straight in line with heavy metal music tradition. Similarly, compare Black Sabbath and Jethro Tull...who is a full-time heavy metal band and who simply dabbles with it occasionaly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Metal is derivative of rock, by it's not subgenre of rock

According to Wikipedia itself, Heavy Metal is derivative of rock music, but not subgenre of it. So can it be said that metal is kind of rock? And if so, what's the difference between subgenre and derivative?

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.230.68 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to this here Wikipedia Featured Article and the authoritative sources we rely on, heavy metal is a genre of rock music. If you wish to define rock as a genre itself, then it would be proper to describe heavy metal as a subgenre of rock. (I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that the infobox in the rock music article identifies heavy metal as a "derivative form". Neither that article in general nor that infobox in particular has yet to be rigorously edited—you'll note that punk rock is identified there as both a "derivative form" and a "fusion genre".) These distinctions are essentially semantic; whatever term of categorization is preferred, yes, metal is a kind of rock.—DCGeist (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Prog metal =/= power metal.

I know I brought this up before, but I still don't get why they are included in the same section of the article. I just don't see the connection here. And why were the Rush and King Crimson sources removed. Since its unsourced it takes credibility away from the article. Rockgenre (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub-Genre

It need to have hardcore metal put here, i would do it buti would screw it up with the links and stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.64.160 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph

Can someone please help this rewrite: "With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness."

I changed "overall loudness" to: "increased (above-average) acoustic decibel levels." which I thought was pretty straightforward, yet it was reverted by User: DCGeist with this notation: (rv nonidiomatic, awkward rewrite) But may I remind you Mr. DCguiest that we use encylopedic terms here, not idiomatic ones such as "overall loudness." Yes, my rewrite was a bit awkward, but it was by far less awkward than "overall loudness." The usage of these generic terms would not be advisable by any music scholar by any means... perhaps "frequency" would be a better word than "decibel." Nonetheless, I'm asking you editors to consider a better prossibility than "overall loudness"... (any type of music can be played loudly.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I have not reverted it yet, I'm reverting again, for now... but I would like someone to help with this, thank you... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Loudness is a perfectly clear, understandable word, appropriate for the lede of an article on a general interest topic in a way that "acoustic decibel levels" is simply not. I do not argue that the current phrasing is perfect or even close to it, but it is superior to the current proposed alternative. I'm happy to work on improving it here—until that happens, I'm restoring the long-standing language.—DCGeist (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree; acoustically, "loudness" is a concept related to, but separable from, "decibel levels". However, the non-expert reader would not know this, and we are here to communicate ideas to our readers. "Acoustic decibel levels", although technically correct, perhaps, is a barbarism and should be deprecated unless we are to enter into a purely technical analysis of heavy metal. "Loud" is, in my view, a more than ample word to describe typical heavy metal. "Overall", as pointed out above, adds nothing. Metallica are sourced as as heavy metal, but in no way are "overall" loud; some of their tracks (as are those of Led Zeppelin) are loud- but some aren't. A jejune argument, IMO. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to decibels and frequency in relation to music is not a barbarism (linguistics)... since music deals with sound... and those are academic terms related to features of sound. I disagree that "loudness" is truly conveying the intended conotation here... Rock and Roll has "overall loudness"... anyone blaring their speakers with Rap music has "overall loudness..."... With the above proposed (or perhaps even something better) phraseology you are referring specifically to what gives Heavy Metal its unique "Overall loud" sound. Also, as being an experienced and published writer, "write for the intellectual, but uninformed reader." {Yes, I realize to relay information to the layman, but simeteonously this is NOT the "Simple English" article.} Or... perhaps its just better to omit this line altogether? Or perhaps we should copy the Simple English: "Heavy metal songs are loud and powerful-sounding, and have strong rhythms that are repeated."70.61.247.31 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think our article definitely supports the argument that loudness "truly convey[s] the intended conotation here". Of course, anything can be made loud—a polka can be excruciatingly loud if you turn the speakers up high enough. The point is that extreme loudness is a central, vital element of heavy metal, as our well-sourced main text explains:

In live performance, loudness—an "onslaught of sound," in sociologist Deena Weinstein's description—is considered vital. In his book Metalheads, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett refers to heavy metal concerts as "the sensory equivalent of war." Following the lead set by Jimi Hendrix, Cream and The Who, early heavy metal acts such as Blue Cheer set new benchmarks for volume. As Blue Cheer's Dick Peterson put it, "All we knew was we wanted more power." A 1977 review of a Motörhead concert noted how "excessive volume in particular figured into the band’s impact." Weinstein makes the case that in the same way that melody is the main element of pop and rhythm is the main focus of house music, powerful sound, timbre, and volume are the key elements of metal. She argues that the loudness is designed to "sweep the listener into the sound" and to provide a "shot of youthful vitality."

I don't love our current use of "overall" in the lede. I suggest the phrase be changed to "extreme loudness", a characterization that is, again, well supported by the main text. Of course, extreme loudness is not a universal characteristic of heavy metal (I don't believe there are any applicable universals), but it is a general and iconic one.—DCGeist (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Touchy subject here, how about trying the phrasing...loud dynamics? As a lot of heavy metal plays its loud parts by setting up "light and shade"... "tension and release", "start stop rythms" etc. Constant, unrelenting loudness is more a general trait of punk rock, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Downer rock

An article from 2007 in Classic Rock (magazine) cited one of the earliest forms of heavy metal being "downer rock", a term coined by Bill Ward. They go one to mention Bloodrock and Sabbath being part of this "downer rock" movement. If anyone's curious the article can be viewed here http://www.jptscareband.com/jptlostpioneers.pdf . Shouldn't this style have a page here at Wikipedia or at least be mentioned in the article. Rockgenre (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's a particular style - it might simply be what people called heavy metal in that very early period. A Google search for "downer rock" doesn't come up with much; 13,000 or so hits once you filter out the compilation title "Downer Rock Genocide."

That said, the term certainly seems to have been used, though I'm not sure how widely. Another cite to consider is an article by Deena Weinstein called Progressive Rock as Text as published in Progressive Rock Reconsidered. While the paragraph with the phrase has a cite to her own earlier work, I don't see the phrase "downer rock" anywhere in the chapter she cites.

This might make the phrase worth a mention - a few more sources wouldn't go amiss, but all things considered two sources isn't bad. Random name (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another cite: How Black Was My Sabbath - Twelve Homesick Hours with the Dark Princes of Downer Rock. Robin Green. Rolling Stone (October 28, 1971): 40-42. Random name (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of this used to describe Necromandus. Actually, I've heard it used almost exclusively to describe Necromandus, so I suppose there was a time when it and heavy metal were competing terms. (Albert Mond (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

Thrash Metal section

I updated the San Francisco Bay Area link to Bay Area thrash metal (only makes sense, because the 2nd page is where the link actually goes.) Also, it has been a common mistake for many music journalists to say a band from this scene is from the city of San Francisco. The metropolitan area, yes, but not the city itself. For example, Westchester, New York is part of the metropolitan area of New York City, but it's not actually IN New York City. Ontario, California is considered part of the Greater Los Angeles area, but it's a completely different county/government than Los Angeles and quite a distance away. Considering thrash bands of the 1980's Bay Area scene were teenagers/young adults with little money of their own (at that time), it's a logistical impossibility they could afford to live/practice in the city limits of wealthy SF. Anyway, I think the point is clear. --Danteferno (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pop metal

The article was deleted without a discussion. Some "Sn0wflake" rather rudely deleted it without without even contacting me. It is a legit term and it should have its own article. Rockgenre (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Degree of synonymity

I just noticed the article has a tag reading "Note: Do not add "hard rock" here. As described in article, "heavy metal" and "hard rock" were synonymous for a decade—one did not precede the other." I disagree with this, and feel that use of the term (heavy metal) throughout the '70s was largely consistent with modern standards, and much of the crossing of "hard rock" and "heavy metal" very probably arose from the fact that many hard rock bands of the time did a few metal songs. There are even exceptions to this (particularly ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foghat, and Meat Loaf). I'd also like to note that there obviously was hard rock before there was heavy metal (though I'm not absolute on whether or not Cream, Hendrix, and certain Kinks songs were considered such at the time), and early metal and hard rock/heavy metal acts were influenced by it. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, when the terms came out doesn't matter since the music had already been established. And I also believe acid rock should be in the box since it was the heaviest form of psychedelia. RG (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the sources establish that the terms were used interchangeably back then. Hell, at times it was called "heavy metal rock". Also, there's the problem that "hard rock" has long been a vague term for any rock band with a "hard" sound, be they punk, metal, or certain strands of alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

When do the sources actually say that? I'm quite aware of the term "heavy metal rock," and have heard it used. From my understanding, it refers to heavy metal. If "hard rock" is vague in any sense other than its direct relation to metal, it's because of its use as an umbrella term, which I suspect is only partially connected to hard rock as a genre in-and-of itself. There are bands that play 'hard' (riff driven, aggressive) forms of rock, but aren't necessarily straight hard rock. After a brief failed attempt to discover when the term 'hard rock' was coined, I've only found that it's been around since at least January 1970, so as of yet I can't knowingly make the argument that 'hard rock' was a term existing longer than 'heavy metal.' However, I can point out that you didn't address one of my previous observations. If they were synonymous, why were certain hard rock artists seldom referred to as heavy metal? (Albert Mond (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Define hard rock artists first of all. It's really difficult to. "Hard rock" is too vague to really be useful as a genre term, while heavy metal is very well-defined. That's why we can't list it as an influence; every other band with a distorted guitar tone has been called "hard rock" at one time or another. It's almost meaningless from a scholary standpoint. In contrast, the body of the article emphasizes that the genre evolved directly from blues rock and psychedelia. By the way, there's an incline citation in the article at the point where it says metal and hard rock were synonymous. The important part about the invisible note is the "established in the article part". It's all there. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to produce reliable secondary sources, because the article lays it out with such sources.WesleyDodds (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

""Hard rock" is too vague to really be useful as a genre term, while heavy metal is very well-defined." Now you seem to be pulling my leg. There are tons of things that fall under 'heavy metal,' and what constitutes metal is a matter of constant internet debate. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most debate over what constitutes hard rock (and I doubt there's very much) arises from debate over metal. Actually, there are sub-genres of heavy metal that are still more vague than 'hard rock'. Look at the range of Avant-Garde metal, metalcore, and alternative metal (though Avant-Garde metal is an umbrella term). 'Hard rock' has two different meanings. One is a specific type of hard, riff-driven, rock originating in the late '50s and early '60s. The other is a popular umbrella term covering any genre which utilizes 'hard' rocking, though there is the prominent belief among some music journalists that grunge, punk, and the like are subgenres of hard rock. Anyhow, just because the words sound the same doesn't mean they're the same thing. I'd also like to add (again) that many '70s hard rock artists played some metal songs, and most '70s heavy metal bands played at least some hard rock songs. First things last, a hard rock artist is an artist one of whom's primary genres is hard rock. (Albert Mond (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

"Constant internet debate" is irrelevant here. Only reliable secondary sources matter. Unless you have some to back up your assertions, this discussion is a dead end. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wesley, I believe the loose sarcasm in that statement was fairly clear. I'm debating this with you right now to convince you of my point, which is very relevant since we are both editors, and that ultimately has more effect on the article than sources (which can be meager and show personal opinions) do. I've never seen what makes 'hard rock' debated, except in the context of whether a song or band is 'metal' or 'hard rock' during metal discussions. I've seen multiple 'reliable' sources show different views on what constitutes metal, as well. Do you have any actual sources backing up the idea that hard rock is not a real genre (if that's what you're saying)? Anyway, the oldest news article Google could find which refers to 'hard rock' (yes, that's the genre, not the geological term) is from 1966: "Hard Rock Stones Sweet Sound of Monterey Festival". Unfortunately, it's a Pay-Per-View, and I can only get the title and first line, though these are clear enough to illustrate my point. The earliest article Google could find for 'heavy metal' relating to music is from 1970: In Crystal River. This article contains a line reading "...and a rock group from Crystal River called Heavy Metal Thunders." I'm assuming both terms have been used earlier than that, but I think this still illustrates something. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia itself lists one of The Jimi Hendrix Experience's primary genres as hard rock, but does not list heavy metal. And, no, I'm not using Wiki as a source for a Wiki article, so please don't go bringing that up. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Now you're engaging in original research by comparing when the terms show up in articles you can find. That's not acceptable. It's simple; find reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying they were fully synonymous is a much, much more drastic claim than what I was saying. We also have a source used in this article saying that calling AC/DC heavy metal was as "wrong then as it is now," or something to that effect. How many sources do you have saying the terms were synonymous? (Albert Mond (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Sourcing Gold

Found a pretty well-done article from 1979 covering multiple genres of rock (heavy metal being very much among them). If anyone wants to use it, | here it is. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

System of a Down as nu metal?

This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV, and has been ignoring repeated warnings against his behavior and referrals to sources which contradict the source he has been trying to push to back up his own opinion. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Note: I changed the section title per the Talk page guidelines. This user in the above post is WesleyDodds. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wesley is very experienced editor on rock music articles, with numerous Featured Articles in this area to his credit. If he uses System of a Down as an example of being against a trend, and such is sourced, I don't have a problem with that. What is not clear is why you think it's a problem, or a POV? Rodhullandemu 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Only the controversy over whether or not Wiki considers System of a Down nu metal, I think. Personally, I don't really consider them nu metal at this point, and our article on them lists them as alternative metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Well to me, as an old fart, this multiplicity of sub-sub-sub-genres is both divisive and unnecessary, since these terms seem to be created either by rock journalists, whom Frank Zappa once described as "people, who can't write, interviewing people, who can't talk, for people, who can't read.", or by the fans themselves in order to distinguish themselves from some other sub-sect. In either case, this isn't moving forward. Nuke the lot of them and put them under rock music, and only rock music. When I was at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970, whether it was Leonard Cohen, or Emerson, Lake and Palmer or Jimi Hendrix or Miles Davis, it was all rock music, and we didn't need to separate ourselves from each other using a cigarette paper. Jeez! Rodhullandemu 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This slow motion edit war is not improving the article. Might I suggest that a request for comment be filed? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV". No, I was was reverting to what the source said, per verifiability guidelines. I have no attachment to System of a Down or how they are classified. Also, Ibaranoff has not been assuming good faith with me, instead assuming that I had a POV agenda.

Now, as for sources. The MTV article cited describes SOAD as a nu metal band and provides a context for them within the genre. Furthermore, one of the primary metal histories used a source for the article, Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, describes them as nu metal as well, in a chapter largely devoted to nu metal (I just double checked the book this instant). Aside from that, many of the sources Ibaranoff points to at Talk:System of a Down are album/live reviews. Reviews aren't the same as histories or biographies; they are critical commentary/opinion, and do not have authoritative weight on the histories and biogrpahies cover, because that's not what they are intended to cover. They are criticism, not research. What Ibaranoff needs to provide is a reliable source (or several) that explain why System of a Down shouldn't be classified as nu metal; providing sources that simply don't say the words "nu metal" isn't the same thing. So far I only see one source that would classify as such, that being this. Also, the methodology used on Talk:System of a Down worries me. We don't determine article content by tallying how many times a phrase is or isn't mentioned in a handful of online articles (and that is a handful; that's nowhere near the amount of press coverage the band has had in its career). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's exaggerating and misattributing - Floydian is the one who put together the list of sources, not me. There are two sources stating that SOAD is not nu metal. The other is here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

• That's a review. See my comments above about reviews. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• In any case, what a handful of rock journalists have said is beside the point, considering that progressive rock, art rock, experimental rock and alternative metal are used more often in relation to the band's music, and they have none of the musical elements associated with the term "nu metal". The guitarist even points out that he doesn't use the tuning style frequently associated with that term. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

• • You have pointed to at most seven sources on the band's talk page (out of, what, hundreds of sources available?), all of which are only web sources (no print has been considered), and most of which are useless because they are album reviews, or they are simply unreliable. Additionally, that talk page failed to take into account two reliable sources listed here. Also, the artists themselves are not considered objective sources for determing genre. There is no sound argument to back the assertion that "progressive rock, art rock, experimental rock and alternative metal are used more often in relation to the band's music". WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"In any case, what a handful of rock journalists have said is beside the point,"

I must disagree. As you probably know, Wiki is based on reliable sources, and journalists are very important in that. What the guitarist thinks doesn't matter much here. It's significant, but what an artist thinks of their own music isn't always reliable. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Rock journalists are not. They are very low on the writers scheme. Even individuals who were once rock journalists themselves, such as Matt Groening, admit that rock journalists are bottom of the barrel in the journalism world. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

That's ridiculous. Rock journalists are hardly any more sensationalist or absurd than any other type of popular music journalist, or even journalists on the whole. There are good journalists, there are bad journalists, and there are journalists in between. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I think Frank Zappa summed up rock journalists perfectly. And the application of "nu metal" does not make sense in reference to System of a Down. (Sugar Bear (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

You have not supported this notion adequately. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wesley, I clearly addressed the issue here. There is no need to include a specific band just because one source (MTV, a commercial source, whose purpose is to increase album sales) includes this band, when dozens of sources discredit the application of this term, and when the article for the term uses musical phrases that have nothing to do with the style of music that this band actually performs. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

• MTV's considered reliable by Wiki, and I thought you only had like three reliable sources sort of discrediting it. I do agree with the last bit, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

It seems to me that Mr.Ibaranoff just doesn't like the term "nu metal." The term is not meant to be offensive or an insult to a band. It's merely a correct label to describe a certain style. And he has removed it even when it sourced for artists like Kid rock and RATM. Saying that we are the ones pushing POV is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. RG (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of "nu metal" on System of a Down is dubious, though. Kid Rock and RATM are really more rap metal, and in their cases I think editor's opinion weighs pretty strongly. I think if Wesley's really intent on including that bit, we can just compromise and say "some bands associated with nu metal," which System of a Down inarguably were, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. That of course, is sensitive enough terminology as to not state that they are or aren't "nu metal."(Albert Mond (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm not arguing based on my own POV. When it's adequately sourced, I leave it, even though I personally feel that the term is nonsense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

"I'm not arguing based on my own POV" Really? The only band to my knowledge whose page you have edited and you haven't tried to remove the nu metal label from is Slipknot(correct me if I'm wrong). You have even excluded nu metal from that rap rock template you made despite the fact that most of these groups used rap. And I'm sorry people, but there is no way that Kid Rock's late '90s material wasn't nu metal. Regardless I believe changing the wording to "associated" is fair enough. RG (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Ibaranoff's POV is playing a large part in his disagreement. However, I don't think saying "associated" is acceptable, because the reliable sources outright say System of a Down is of the nu metal genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RG, you have been warned repeatedly about this. Your post clearly shows that your edits are based on your opinion and your opinion alone. You have absolutely zero separation between rap rock and nu metal. Rapping over hard rock does not guarantee automatic placement as "nu metal", despite your personal opinion on the matter. Accusing me of doing something that you're clearly doing is completely irresponsible on your part. What an article says about any given band should not reflect a single source when other sources contradict that source. The fact that I have an argument that isn't "this band is such and such genre because I say so" clearly shows that I am not editing based on personal opinion. I clearly stated on the Kid Rock page that I have no opinion on his music. Why do you care so much that the infobox for that page include a genre based on a single album that you can't even find sources for stating that that genre should be applied for, and that there sources discrediting the use of the term? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

As long as we're trying to jump to conclusions based on another's edits, maybe I should point out that RG isn't too particular about the sources which he uses to back up placement in whatever heavy metal-related genre he chooses? This is a travel site. It is not a reliable source for the biography of the band Velvet Revolver. RG's argument? "It's sourced". (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Well it's is likely that I'm going to be banned for a while, but I've have apologized to you when I was rude Ibaranoff several times. And on the Velvet Revolver thing well I honestly didn't know that it was an unreliable source. Wouldn't this have been better off put on my talk page instead of on the page for a major article? RG (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need more discussion about editors themselves. Let's all stick to the topic at hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wesley, I've stated before that there doesn't actually need to be a band cited in order for that citation's use to be acceptable, especially when this band is not generally considered to be "nu metal". (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

By "generally considered" what do you mean? There's hardly any consensus (journalistic or otherwise) that SOAD isn't nu metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

I think there clearly is. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC))

I'm sure that's actually why 6 sources on the list of nu metal bands page and also an issue of Guitar World specifically cite them as a nu metal band. A majority of sources points to them being a nu metal band. RG (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. And several more sources state that they are not nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC))

Two sources vs. well now 8. A clear majority of sources points to them fitting this label. RG (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. It does not work that way. The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal. Your overwhelming attempts at POV pushing have got to stop. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

The phrasing of the source Rockgenre provided isn't really clear either way, although from the context the author seems to be arguing that System of a Down is an atypical nu metal band, not that they aren't nu metal. Also Ibranoff, if you are going to keeping insisting "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal", you need to provide those sources so they can be evaluated. So far I've only seen one legitmate source that argues that the band isn't nu metal on this page, when I and Rockgenre have provided several that say that they are, one of which is one of the major sources used for this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy MTV as a source. It's like using Amazon.com or Best Buy as a source. It's hard to be 100% neutral when you're trying to sell product. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

MTV is not selling anything, particularly in that article, which is a news piece. The MTV news department is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV exists purely to sell product. They are best known, programming-wise, for airing promotional videos for artists on major labels. I don't think that makes them a neutral source for sourcing band genres. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

As opposed to what? Rolling Stone Magazine? I somewhat doubt MTV is as concerned with selling artists as it is with getting ratings and selling its own products. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

"They are best known, programming-wise, for airing promotional videos for artists on major labels." Ever seen 120 Minutes? Also, they've aired everything from reality shows to news programming, documentaries, and election coverage. You can't argue that MTV's news department isn't a reliable source, because it is considered so on Wikipedia, and the source cited here is a news piece on nu metal. Now to return to the original point: got any sources to back up your assertion that "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal"? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MTV exists purely for the purpose of crass commercialism. Nearly everything it has ever aired is a promotion for an album or single. It's an advertising network, not an authority on music genres. And the sources clearly do not show SOAD as a nu metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Out of curiosity, are you at any stage going to find the sources that back up the assertion "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal" or can we disregard that as bluster? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted the sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Can you repost them? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We should change the sentence back to the way it was seeing that the idea of SOAD not being nu metal is a minority. RG (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. And it is a minority. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

You're the only one here who has a problem with the sentence, and you haven't adequately backed up your point. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I still disagree with the claim that System of a Down is nu metal. Just less so. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Ok then. Then we just need to establish that "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal", which seems to be the main argument against the sentence. So far I haven't seen anything convincing to back that up, and Ibranoff/Sugar Bear hasn't been forthcoming when we ask him. Can you find material to back up his argument? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care that much. They're obviously associated with nu metal by a good number of people. I think that much is hard to deny, and impossible to deny effectively. I think the best chance here to get the 'nu metal' sentence removed would be if there was an editorial consensus that SOAD isn't nu metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

It certainly looks to me like the consensus in terms of cites says nu-metal. In terms of personal interpretation, I would say their older work is more clearly nu-metal, but I'd still call them nu-metal these days. As is always the case in these n^th degree subgenres, there's more than just a little personal interpretation involved. Random name (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Metal lyrics

Do we have any recent sources for this? Jon Pareles' 1988 quote doesn't describe much of the successful metal of the 2000s. The Priest lyrics incident should definitely be covered, but is it really representative of attitudes towards metal today? Something about problems between metal and various religious organisations might be more useful here - black metal fans burning churches for example.

aerosmith

someone should add the band aerosmith or at least "back in the saddle" cauz thats defiinetly metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.19.46 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

This article will never be good or accurate as long as it has one fundamental error: Black Sabbath. They're gravely underappreciated here. They practically single-handedly created this genre, light-years away from Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, playing slow and detuned, discarding the blues-influence before Judas Priest (Master of Reality, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, Vol 4). They should get their own paragraph in the very beginning. Less focus on magazine lists! This is a serious encyclopedia!Revan ltrl (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that Blue Cheer was doing similar stuff in the '60s. Zeppelin had at least one slow, doomy song in the '60s. Gillan's screaming and Blackmore's classical-inspired riffs were easily as ahead-of-their-time as Sabbath's gloom, doom and occult-ish themes. I've heard the whole 'Sabbath discarded the blues' thing before, and I don't really see it. Most of their stuff until the '80s is still very much bluesy. (Albert Mond (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Agreed. Popular discourse elevates Sabbath's importance to the detriment of their contemporaries, when even a basic review of the most important and in-depth sources on metal establish that Sabbath wasn't the sole progenitor of metal, and they weren't as unique as some believe them to be. Sabbath is great, sure, but they didn't single handedly invent metal, a fallacy which has been floating around for about the last decade. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Compared to other genres' evolutions Black Sabbath are gravely underrated, and you both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary. Blue Cheer? Led Zeppelin did one doomy song in the 60s? It can't hold a candle to "Black Sabbath" or anything from "Master Of Reality". I don't know why you persist, if you can't see how they discarded blues... well, please do listen to the albums I mentioned, among them "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", and tell me that you notive the slightest blues in it. I say that no band even touched Sabbath's importance, even in doing "similar stuff" around that time. Sabbath deserve their own paragraph in the introduction.Revan ltrl (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"You both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary". Have you read the article? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Have you read wikipedia's article on Black Sabbath? There's plenty of sources there that back my thesis up. Btw, your smug comment on OK Computer's discussion page needs elaboration.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that article has something about some critics saying they were probably the most influential or something or other like that. That was more opinion than anything else, utilized in the Sabbath article as an example of a prominent person's thoughts on the band. I've heard most (if not all) of the songs on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and own copies of Sabbath's first three albums. What puzzles me is how you've apparently heard Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, but managed to miss the blatantly bluesy "Sabbra Cadabra," and to a lesser extent the heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Also, lack of a blues influence doesn't define metal, given metal emerged out of blues rock. Metal pre-NWOBHM had a sizable blues influence, and even after that. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know, but these articles are about music, not rocket science; something you can't scrape down on paper, in figures. Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike? I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing. You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention. So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano. Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing? That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album. About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary. The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'. I'll take into consideration that you dedicated editors are dismissive to the flaws of this ugly side of wikipedia, but who decides this anyway?Revan ltrl (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know,"

Alright, let me go read that section again.

"Black Sabbath are arguably the most influential heavy metal band of all time. The band helped to create the genre with ground breaking releases such as Paranoid, an album that Rolling Stone magazine said "changed music forever", and called the band "the Beatles of heavy metal"."

This paragraph is rightfully phrased as representation of an opinion. In fact, in the next sentence, it mentions that Time Magazine called Paranoid the "birthplace of heavy metal," which is pure hype.

"Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike?"

That was oddly phrased. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then no. It is also not common knowledge that Sabbath "invented" metal; that is simply incorrect, and at best a common misconception.

"I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing."

I disagree with your opinion on my credibility. What's more, you've provided more attacks than you have actual arguments, here, and all to defend an entirely unreasonable claim.

"You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention."

I predicted your prediction of my comment. I'm not sure how this is relevant.

"So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano."

Then it would be wrong to say that Rick Wakeman took the blues out of progressive rock.

"Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing?"

Yes. I did. I also noticed the organ on "Children of the Grave," and the harmonica on "The Wizard." How nifty.

"That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album."

Actually, by that same logic Uriah Heep's debut would be the first progressive metal album. Frankly, I think actually classifying the album itself (Sabbath Bloody Sabbath) as "progressive metal" is rather drastic, despite the current state of Wiki's article on it.

"About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary."

Not crap, truth. I'll admit it has less than the Sabbath albums before it, but it still very much holds onto the blues.

"The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'."

Sabbath Bloody Sabbath discards blues about as much as Houses of the Holy. Actually, that's an exaggeration. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Wow, how insulting... Albert? What you want to prove with this outburst is confusing; what you do try to achieve, seemingly, is dismissing practically everything that backs my statement; be it magazines, reviews, general "misconception" or wikipedia-articles. And how do you manage this? How do you know Black Sabbath's importance is false, a myth? You just know it, do you? OK then, let me roll over on my back, defeated. I'm overwhelmed. But seriously, once again you prove nothing in your rambles, mr omniscience. Your rhetorics are as shallow as earlier, though more desperate in the unnecessary quoting. Nice try at patronizing. Black Sabbath should still have their own paragraph, and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is still not bluesy. I know it. And yeah, it is an exaggeration saying that Houses of the Holy discards blues as much as Sabbath Bloody Sabbath! And saying it's a "truth" (another smug dismissal, or possibly hubris?) that Sabbath Bloddy Sabbath is blues is just another example of your desperation. Cool it, Albert. Revan (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I never once said Sabbath's importance was "false." I believe them to be extremely important. However, so were the other groups mentioned. Saying that Sabbath single-handedly invented metal is hype, and about as correct as saying Zeppelin or Deep Purple single-handedly invented metal. I've never seen any popular consensus that Sabbath "invented" metal. I've spoken to about as many people who think that as think Sabbath was never metal at all. I'm so sorry that I tried to be comprehensive when responding to you. Perhaps next time I'll simply ignore you instead of quoting you, and providing sources for your argument. I don't recall ever saying that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath was a "blues" album. It's funny that you should mention the "truth" comment, though. It struck me as desperate that you simply disregarded my comment on the blatant blues elements of that album as "crap" and accused me of knowingly giving a false argument. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

• Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for some of the above comments, it isn't up to us, because that would be original research. Wikipedia is not a gladiatorial venue for sorting out personal prejudices, however much it sometimes seems to be like that. We should report what reliable sources have already stated, and leave it at that. If there is difference between those sources, we report both and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds. What we do not do is seek to force them into following our own interpretations; that's one of the major historical criticisms of Encyclopedia Britannica, and one that we should be able to rise above. It's not that we're actually short of multiple sources here. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently an accurate reflection of how Black Sabbath is viewed by sources on the genre, and I see no reason to change that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously feel offended. Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say? You keep saying that Sabbath didn't invent it singlehandedly; I mentioned it once initially, but my point kept being that they need their own paragraph due to their importance, which is greater than Zeppelin's and Purple's. What this article needs, apparently, is an empirical study on the matter or something like that. Not our opinions, or what we think is an elevated, false, bloated misconception. I said that your blues comments were crap because I really, genuinely think they are. And I wouldn't say I'm out of line, I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics. Well, I assure you, many agree with me. And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous, but everyone's entitled to their opion, just like Radiohead are to their lousy musical tastes. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics." You do not count as a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say?"

I don't. I don't really spend much time thinking about what you care about. However, I do care -to some degree- about presenting an actual argument. If you want paragraphs about Sabbath at the beginning of an article, go to the Black Sabbath article. This article is about heavy metal in general, and saying Sabbath is more important than Zeppelin and Deep Purple is utterly unverifiable. What's more, anyone could easily shoot that argument down by pointing out that Zeppelin was doing it before Sabbath, and had even more commercial success. Deep Purple's Ritchie Blackmore was as important to neo-classical and progressive metal as Iommi was to doom and stoner metal. I too am a musician, though I admittedly doubt that I'm as studied as you say you are. Neither that, nor the "friends and teachers" thing are particularly relevant here, however, as you still only seem to be talking about personal opinion. I have a few friends who I expect know more about music-on-paper than I do (I mostly play by ear) and I'd be glad to ask them about this.

"And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous,"

And yet it's a common enough opinion. I think that saying Zeppelin isn't metal is kind of outrageous, too. Not as outrageous to me as saying Sabbath aren't, but that's primarily because -as historically and musically questionable as it is- the 'Zeppelin aren't/weren't metal' thing is common enough to be taken seriously in the common mind. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

The subtle insults are dearly noted, and your complete resignation to sounding and thinking like androids is either frightening or impressive, though undoubtedly a result of the devotion put into this second hand source page. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Albert. Amuse me. Name one bluesy part in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Wakeman's piano licks don't count, because the background isn't blues. Shouldn't be so hard, you being a musician, as well. Revan (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the album itself, I already did. What's more, I contacted one of my more studied friends, and they very much agreed with my sentiment. If you're talking about the title track, all of the softer parts, instrumental breaks and the verse at the end starting with "Where can you run to" contain very clear blues influence. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

I have to disagree on that, Albert. It seems both you and your friends are amateur musicians. The softer parts are soft; neither the chord progressions, the song melodies, the guitar licks, or anything, contain any clear blues influences. They contain no blues influences at all, basically, and your already stated example is, as said, very poor. The soft parts can be compared to the soft parts of an Opeth or Tool song (both bands two prominent prog metal bands, heavily influenced by Sabbath and especially this album with its innovative heavy/soft approach), which, also, hold no blues influences. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, guys, this is an idea of what I mean: Traditional heavy metal. Notice how it says kind of exactly what I said. Just found it. Sabbath discarded blues. You: wrong. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Read it before. Actually, I've linked it before. Hell, I was in the discussion on that page February of last year. Halford's opinion is represented as an opinion in that article and he also contradicted it when he said "I'd like to feel that everyone would recognize that Judas Priest was the first true heavy metal band. I think there is a special attachment to Judas Priest and metal. We were the first band to really go out and claim ourselves to be a real metal band." The Sam Dunn claim is inconsistent with his somewhat notorious "Definitive Metal Family Tree." ((Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Albert! You cursed! I've been addressed by the wikipedian authorities for less, you know! Are you supposed to be an experienced wikipedia editor? What about the link you, uh, linked? Isn't that an example of a source you and that Odd guy so desperately further? Is the link you, uh, linked the source for the 'Judas Priest discarding blues' passage in this article? If it is, or if the source is a similar one, it only takes the very same guy stating that Sabbath was the first heavy metal band to, you know, erase the fact that Judas Priest were it! Basic maths, maths this second hand source page needs, maths that makes music pages in this site look like jokes. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabbath weren't bluesy? Sure I guess that explains this and the rest of their first album which came straight out of the Cream school of slow, English blues. RG (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize. I wasn't aware "hell" was still considered a serious swear, let alone in a non-threatening context. Who is "that Odd guy"? Also, what do you mean by "further"? It's CNN. It's reliable under any circumstance pertaining to this website. I can make absolutely no sense of those last bits. Halford and Dunn's opinions were used as a reference to depict a certain viewpoint in the Traditional Heavy Metal article. However, anyone can see quite easily that neither has shown consistent support for the "Sabbath was the first metal band" belief. No, it's not the source. The statement about Priest is already sourced. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

RG, your comment is a butterfly's wing beat proving the butterfly effect wrong. I know all of Sabbath's albums with Ozzy by heart, and I have never dismissed their blues influences in their first album, nor in "Paranoid" (I can link "Hand of Doom", if you like). And talking about their first album; the opening title track, named after the self-titled debut, is enough to make it clear to everyone that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal. What is the mention of Judas Priest referring to, anyway? An album? A song? A riff? Black Sabbath did all of those things way before Priest did; I was mainly referring to their fifth album "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", which, I strongly state, has no blues influences, hence, discarding blues in heavy metal before Judas Priest, which this article falsely states. And that is the point of why I initiated this discussion, and that's what Albert and Odd oppose in lack of professors definitive opinions on the matter. You'd know if you'd read the whole argument, but I understand why you haven't (this is where you debate with yourself whether you should confess or not that you actually have read the whole discussion).

Albert, the Odd guy is WesleyOdd, whom you assisted in this, our, argument. And, as I said, Albert, I have been addressed by the authorities because of less; I guess your self-exculpation gives me free rein in non-threatening usage of swear words. And since you've already so profoundly called me 'evil', what's to stop me? Revan ltrl (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I already proved why Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is bluesy. The first track of Black Sabbath I would give you. However, that'd be like calling "Stairway to Heaven" a folk rock song. "Black Sabbath"'s final verses are very clear in their blues influence. The user's name is WesleyDodds. You just show me when I called you "evil." Oh. And you already used "crap." If you really are eight years old and get offended by "hell," I don't see why you should be so quick to use that one. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

You've proved shit, Albert. And if you think you have, you are sadly mistaken. I have already remarked on your less knowledgeable status as a musician which is clearly visible; the final verses of "Black Sabbath" are in a minor scale and not bluesy in any way, but since you see them as blues, I kind of get where you're coming from. Basically everything that's played in a minor pentatonic scale (the final verses are in natural minor, the common minor scale, which is used by guys like Beethoven, for example) is blues to you, and that's a very amateur approach, I must say. And I didn't get offended one bit by you swearing, I just satirized wikipedian policy.

And Led Zeppelin are often called folk rock! I would definitely call their fourth album more folk rock than heavy metal, and I'm not only referring to "Stairway To Heaven", but also to "The Battle of Evermore" and "Going To California"; three folk rock songs against zero heavy metal songs clarify.

Your 'evil' mention was on the discussion further down, by the way, and no, I wasn't offended by that, either. Revan ltrl (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I never called having blues influence "blues." Iommi has been very public about influence from Clapton. What's more, the technique of verse Ozzy uses at the end of that song is very much bluesy. Why not go and prove that Blue Cheer's "Just a Little Bit," or Uriah Heep's "Gypsy" are bluesy? Zeppelin are often referred to as "heavy metal," too. Just last year, I picked up a newspaper about a classical group adapting Zeppelin songs. They took little time before asking what it was like to adapt "metal" music into classical. NPR had a special bit on metal maybe two-to-three years ago. First things they covered were Zeppelin and Sabbath. I don't recall ever chance encountering an article or bit on Zeppelin that didn't mention their importance to metal on that note. Then again, I honestly don't read/watch/listen to that much news. Actually, I don't even recall a "folk rock" reference.

Once again, you grossly misinterpreted something. Here's what I said:

"Instead of whining and accusing everybody else of attacking you and being wrong and being evil"

Should I have put commas somewhere? If it's a grammatical mistake on my part, then my bad. I was saying that you were accusing everybody else of attacking you, being wrong and being evil. No, I didn't once call you "evil."

Dodds, is that what it looked like? (Albert Mond (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

You clearly have your own criteria about what is 'bluesy'. The article is flawed. I don't know, your sentence maybe could have been better composed, but I get the meaning now. And I disagree; I don't think everyone's evil and accuse everyone, I just think wikipedia editors, in general, develop tunnel vision, arrogance, and the emotional spectrum of an android. Don't take it personally, that needn't apply to you. I also wouldn't call "Gypsy" or "Paranoid" bluesy; it takes more than the interval of a minor third to make something blues. I'm thinking chords (the blues 12), for example. Blues didn't invent the minor scale. My strong siding with Sabbath might look like I dismiss Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, but I don't. I think "Physical Graffiti" is very heavy in a very metal way, and it is one of my favorite albums. But I definitely don't think they are as important as Sabbath in that genre. They work as influence, because they're a bigger band, but without Sabbath, bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer wouldn't see the light of day. The article is weak. Revan ltrl (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in introduction

The paragraph where Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin are mentioned as pioneers of the genre is invalid; it states that all three bands were reviled by critics. First off, Deep Purple met indifference in their start, which is not the same as being reviled, which their albums never were. With their success that followed in the U.S., they were, however, acclaimed.

Secondly, Led Zeppelin never met criticism like that of Black Sabbath; Zeppelin were, instead, criticized for not being as good as, according to Rolling Stone in the review of their first album, like The Jeff Beck Group, and Robert Plant was compared condescendingly to Rod Stewart. Basically, not the same kind of criticism Black Sabbath got.

Sabbath were persistently rejected until their fifth album (I dislike referring to wikipedia articles, but this is backed by the articles for all their first five albums) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. The criticism was a direct result of their alien-sounding music, which clashed with the current, which was blues-inspired Hard rock, like Zeppelin, Purple, Iron Butterfly etc.

To conclude, the introduction falters and misleads, and should be rewritten more accurately. An idea is what this article does: Traditional heavy metal. Even though I fail to see the meaning of that article, and how it contradicts this one, it is more accurate in its depict of the musical interrelations of the early bands, with emphasis on Black Sabbath.. but hey, that's the case with a few 100,000 articles here on this second hand source page. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand Funk Railroad was even more reviled than Sabbath and was plenty bluesy. Zeppelin was certainly one of the most critically popular metal bands, but they certainly were met with negative criticism. The review of their debut you mentioned complements Page, but pretty much shows dislike towards everything else about the band. Moving on, Lester Bangs hurls similar criticisms at their third album. You may be right about Deep Purple's critical status, though.(Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Traditional heavy metal primarily draws from two sources (one a foreign language source), so it's in no way indicative of all research available on metal. Also, I've long advocated that that page be redirected here (you don't have a "traditional punk rock" article, for comparison's sake), but the editors who work on that page have been staunchy against that in the past, even though it's more or less redundant to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see the essence of what I'm stating, Albert. Maybe Grand Funk Railroad were reviled because they never were any good? Thought of that? Even now, in retrospect, they aren't hailed or remembered as innovators, by anyone. There's a difference between 'plain suck'- and 'misunderstood genius'-criticism. Have fun dividing Railroad and Sabbath into the different categories. Same goes for Led Zeppelin III; it has always been seen as a relative downfall in the middle of Zeppelin II and Zeppelin IV, which were hailed from the start. And Zeppelin III's current five stars from Allmusicgiude (wikipedia's biggest misplaced trust) is pure hype, as we all know. I actually commented, just recently, on the Zeppelin article, where I criticized its overuse of reliance on Rolling Stone Magazine; it practically bases its whole introduction with hails from that tacky magazine that includes 20 Beatles albums in its top 10 of the greatest albums ever. Do I need to say that a smug-faced editor came and rejected everything with wikipedian policy and subtle insults that commented on my "regrettable" wikipedia history? Ha, guess not! Funny how you refer to Zeppelin as a 'metal band', Albert. And Jesus Christ Superstar is a metal opera.

About your advocacy, Odd. Good luck with that; seems it is the only thing you do here. What is it, advocating reliable research? You have little to say about music, on the other hand, which these articles are all about, but this is wikipedia, after all; we won't hear any jingles streaming out our speakers, haha!

Oh yeah, forgot. Check this out: Hard rock: which band is missing?? Revan ltrl (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Music quality is debatable and based only on opinion. I don't like the Beach Boys, but that doesn't mean they "never were any good". And Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band(musicians like Dave Mustaine, Mikael Åkerfeldt, Dee Snider, Scott Ian, and many others cite them as such), but they proved that they could be a little diverse and do folk, blues, some reggae and funk influences, etc., etc. RG (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Revan, Sabbath is listed on that page for hard rock. What's more, your dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is neither relevant, nor factual. It's odd that you should suddenly advocate the same critics who you so unreasonably revile for having described Zeppelin and other bands as 'metal.' Grand Funk is now often very highly regarded as an early hard rock group and influence to heavy metal music (which they were actually described as during their early years, by the way). Very few would say that Grand Funk was the smartest band ever or the most technically talented. Very few would say that about Sabbath, either. And ohmygawrsh! AllMusic Guide is a shoddy source, you say? Oh, the blasphemy! Everyone knows that AMG has an absolutely stunning track record, and isn't frequently met with disdain here at the ol' Wikifactory. As for music, I've already spoken as to why Sabbath is bluesy. I've also contacted one of my more studied friends (as I said above) and they agreed with me. I've provided sources, and as far as reliable sources go, saying Sabbath was the first is like saying the moon landing was a hoax. You can find just enough "reliable" sources to make it an afterthought. I think you fail to understand how Wikipedia works. I disagree with some things here, too. Instead of whining and accusing everybody else of attacking you and being wrong and being evil (hardly an exaggeration of what you've been doing practically since someone first disagreed with you, I frankly am tired of it) you could broadcast your musical knowledge (yes, I think you have musical knowledge, and I respect that) and opinions from a blog. You can even condemn Wiki, its methods and everybody in it from there. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

RG, you state certainties, except when you say that Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band. They have one foot in the hard rock genre, and the other in the blues genre, together with the influences you mention, and I would hesitantly include heavy metal among those influences, because none of their albums are actual heavy metal; they don't have it as an overhanging concept, but they do have heavy metal-ish (I'd say hard rock) songs in their albums, like "Whole Lotta Love" and "Immigrant Song". I am also aware of the differences in musicians' influences. Mikael Åkerfeldt's main influence in making Opeth's latest album "Watershed" were Scott Walker's The Drift, and The Zombie's Odessey & Oracle, two non-metal albums. Today I listened to Alice In Chains and Kate Bush. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss took what I said about bands citing them. The musicians I mentioned(I actually forgot to mention Sebastian Bach as well) not only cite Zeppelin as an influence, but have called Zep a metal band(Åkerfeldt called them a metal band here for instance.) I still stand by "Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band".RG (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're listed, but clearly as a parenthesis, whereas, not really accurate for further mentioning in that article. And my dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is plenty relevant and accurate. I've never heard of them, and neither have Black Sabbath, I'm sure. I don't know what your source is that they were called "heavy metal" back then in the 60s(!). It may be true or not, I choose to believe it another day when I see it myself, but I am more familiar with Sabbath's influences, and I've seen Ozzy on interview saying that "there was no such thing as heavy metal back then"; it was on a heavy metal documentary called "From Black Sabbath to System of a Down", outlining a timeline for heavy metal. It was quite MTV-flashy, but surprisingly accurate, and it mentioned how Black Sabbath were set aside bands like Zeppelin and Purple because of their very different style, and stressed their sole importance. This site: http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_metal-art.html also shows the same thing. I know it probably isn't a reliable source, but they're knowledgeable, whoever do these lists, even though, on most of the categories, they follow a cliché pattern. But the metal page is quite good, and closer to a general consensus is hard found; it's forum decided, but I know, no reliable source. I see Grand Funk Railroad on 11th place on the list of bands that influenced metal, after bands like Pink Floyd and The Doors.

You probably like them alot, but comparing them to Sabbath is just vain; many would call, and do, Black Sabbath one of the best rock bands through all times! Unlike GFR, in which you are right.

And yeah yeah, I don't know how wikipedia works and whatever, but I sure don't like it. AMG, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, whatever; really unstable platforms to base music articles on. Just saying. I don't like blogs, either, and I make more use condemning wikipedia here than on a petty blog. Revan ltrl (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabbath's very clearly listed outside of parenthesis. You've honestly never heard of Grand Funk? They were absolutely massive. They actually were perceived as something of a threat by Zeppelin's manager in the late '60s. They had great sales, decent airplay with "Closer to Home," and a lot of airplay with "We're an American Band," massive shows (they were very much "arena rockers"), and have been even in recent years been used in films ("Sin's a Good Man's Brother" was in "Law Abiding Citizen"). Ozzy says Sabbath was the first metal group? Halford says Judas Priest was the first metal group? What's so unappealing about saying your band was the first metal group? As far as Grand Funk getting labeled with it, Don Brewer (their drummer) says ""We were a three-piece heavy metal kind of a band in the late '60s, early '70s." Ah, to rely on band members. How, honestly, were Deep Purple so much more blues-based than Sabbath in your eyes? Is "Burn" bluesier than "Children of the Grave"? Is "Highway Star" bluesier than "Paranoid"?

In all honesty, as heavily flawed as it is, I'd hardly say that AMG is any worse than the masses as far as music opinions go. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Getting back to the original point, I think there is a problem in how the sentence infers that these specific bands were reviled by critics, when the point is supposed to be metal as a whole was derided. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozzy said that "there was no such thing as 'heavy metal' back then"; he didn't say they were the first, but that the term didn't exist back then. It is very easy for someone like Don Brewer to say they were heavy metal in retrospect, though. No, I haven't heard of them. They might be grand in America, but I'm European, and not everyone makes it on both sides of the Atlantic. I looked them up when you mentioned them first, and they were what I expected; very similar to Zeppelin, very blues-influenced, and not heavy metal at all, but understandably influential, even if Sabbath never heard them. I don't disrespect them, but one can't really compare them with a band that's generally considered one of the best rock bands through all times. And Halford also says that Iommi "created the metal riff", as extra information.

Do you want my honest opinion when you ask about my view on Purple and Sabbath, or is it a rhetorical question? i don't remember saying that Deep Purple were bluesier than Sabbath. Actually, neither one of the bands were as bluesy as Zeppelin, I would say. Purple's dismissal of blues is clear, but blues is still ever-present in every album, and they don't take a clear step away from it like Sabbath does in "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Purple never were heavy metal album-wise before Sabbath, though, they were hard rock through and through. They became heavy metal first when David Coverdale became a member, in Burn, I would say. In the songs you mention, there is a standstill in the blues difference. Speaking of heavy metal, on the other hand, Sabbath has the advantage. "Sweet Leaf" is groundbreaking in a groundbreaking album; notice the riffing in between the verses, and the riffs after the guitar solo; they are but a taste of what is a norm in metal music from then on; the breaking of common scales, and heavy usage of alternative intervals, like semitones and the tritone. "Burn" came later, and is kind of metal, but made when the genre already was established by Sabbath. The other songs are a little more similar in heaviness, but it's important acknowledging that Paranoid is relatively light in Sabbath's music, while Highway Star is particularly heavy in Purple's. Purple has no candidate for comparison with War Pigs, for example.

I can't help but feel that your justification of AMG is extremely elitist. I can be, too, in music, but not when it comes to justifying a site where a person works as a reliable source, and the masses' opinions are dismissed as flies; it is the closest one comes to a general consensus. I understand how you find the masses' opinion resentful, but still, it's mainly a musician's prejudice.

As WesleyOdd says, about getting back to point. There's tons of musical evidence that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal, and I'm strongly pro that Sabbath are set aside Zeppelin and Purple in the article. Revan ltrl (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The term apparently did exist by that point (the first use by a critic according to this article was in 1968), though it seemingly (again, according to this article and its sources) wasn't used by a writer in a context (relatively) in line with its current until 1971 on Sir Lord Baltimore. As for Grand Funk, I kind of doubt that Sabbath never heard them (Grand Funk was actually covered by a South African group before 1973) but I guess that doesn't particularly matter. I agree that Sabbath and Deep Purple weren't as bluesy as Zeppelin, but I still don't think Sabbath takes a (very large) step away from those influences in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I don't really think it started with Burn for Deep Purple. I think maybe anywhere from In Rock to Machine Head could have been it, though I think their '60s material was much more exclusively hard rock. "Highway Star" and "War Pigs" are kind of hard to compare in my opinion. They represent the foundation of different camps in metal. "Highway Star" is sort of the prototype for a lot of speed metal and flashy '80s stuff, while "War Pigs" was obviously very influential to a lot of the doom metal and 'stoner metal' material from the '70s (Pentagram, Bedemon) on.

As for my AMG comment, I guess I don't really think there is a unified opinion by the group I referred to (somewhat rudely I suppose) as "the masses," and AMG functions in a similar disorganized fashion, I think. Or something. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC))

For the record Sabbath even played shows with GFR, see 2:37. RG (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)