Talk:List of melodic death metal bands

Devil Driver

I took Devil Driver off of the list, whoever put that shit on here is a moron. MahoganyCow (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

hi.. mahonganyCow.

It use to be just groove, but unfortunately Devil driver does have an Influence from Melodeath in the later albums. Even Soulfly is starting to have minor Melodeath infuence. Take a listen to Soulfly - Omen album SoulFly01 —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC).

Deletion

He does have a point though... lists and categories can coexist. You should see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. FireCrystal (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The new version of the page does not address any of the reason for deletion. Unless it is a page with content (see List of thrash metal bands) then it remains a page of subjective editor choice lacking references and easil replaced by a category. It can be re-created through the proper channels of page request. But as it stands it is simply a re-post and can be removed. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the speedy as I was unhappy with the use of a 20-month-old AfD in a G4 speedy delete request. I have seen many speedy requests denied when this sort of time frame is involved because consensus can change and 20-months is a significantly long time that a change in consensus could well have occured. I don't know what consensus was 20-months ago but currently consensus seems to be to keep both lists and categories and as most of the delete arguments in the previous AfD were based on the fact that the category could do the job of the list I thought a new polling of consensus was needed.

It is also my opinion that this list could be padded out with content although this would largely be a copy of information in Melodic death metal. Given wikipedia's policy on not having multiple copies of the same information this wold seem redundant. A merge with the main article page, and then a redirection, may be warranted but this still saves it from speedy delete. Dpmuk (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Metal Observer

Looking at the site, it appears to be a non-professional webzine. Unless their content has been printed somewhere else by a third-party source, I fail to see how they pass WP:RS for things like genre... I mean to use interviews and the like for biographical detail about bands or the opinions of the band members, but totally worthless (as far as I can see) for using the actual reviewers opinions. If I'm wrong and there's editorial oversight from some professional (i.e. they're paid to do it for a commercial print magazine or newspaper) then fair enough, but until someone can demonstrate that, I'm removing those links as genre sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That was incredibly boring. However, the entire list is now sourced (I removed any entries for which I couldn't find a source on MusicMight, Allmusic or Google Books). I suggest we try and keep it so that entries with reliable sources are deleted on sight to avoid POV-pushing; obviously there are plenty of reliable sources that wouldn't have cropped up on the three I was using, but we need to avoid all webzines. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Darkest Hour

I see that they were removed because there were no source. Are those source reliable enough to re-add them on the list?

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:wvfyxqtjld6e~T1 http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=3484 http://books.google.com/books?id=w_kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT44&dq=%22darkest+hour%22+%22melodic+death+metal%22&ei=DhM8SsDaE422yQTOkeC6BQ

–Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-added on the basis of the Revolver review, that describes them as "Gothenburg-spirited" (bit tenuous, but hey). For the record, the Allmusic biography doesn't mention the words "melodic death metal" and Metal Archives is not a reliable source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

MusicMight is even less reliable than Metal Archives yet it's being quoted. It states Atrophia Red Sun plays melodic death metal which is a nonsense (they started as a doom metal act, going industrial metal later) yet Into Eternity is described as... gothic! That's ridiculous to say the least.

Oh sure. Thanks –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Dahlia Murder

Can somebody please remove the Black Dahlia Murder from the list, they are metalcore not melodic death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.54 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah all that chugging on the chromatic scale and breakdowns and harmonized clean singing with lyrics about how she dump him... oh wait they have none of those and the only thing they DO have in common with core music is Trevor's shrieking. One musical similarity is not enough to classify them as Core when their song structure is typical Melodic Death Metal. That, and there is also a source calling them as Melodic Death Metal. You lose. 108.15.17.159 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Album reviews, and Necrophobic's inclusion

Could someone please explain (as far as Wikipedia:reliable sources go) how album reviews would be considered reliable reference for a genre? Many genre citations on this page point to Allmusic album reviews, which are actually VERY questionable as far as credibility (for example, the website calls Static X "thrash metal" in its review of their album Wisconsin Death Trip - Huh?) Nightwish and Opeth are called "symphonic black metal" at that site. Again, huh?

If album reviews are considered to be a reliable source of information, many point to the Swedish band Necrophobic as being melodic death metal or Melodic death/black metal, particularly in regards to their recent album, "Death To All". So far, only one person (per the page history) disagrees, and there's not much justification provided as to why.--Danteferno (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Album reviews published by professional journalists in sources that are or have been published by independent, third-party sources clearly pass WP:RS, which is plenty of justifcation. Which other source would you recommend as an W:RS for a band's genre? An editor's opinion? A webzine? Allmusic and MusicMight have independently had content published, which is why we use them. Ouof idle curiosity, could you point me towards Allusic referring to Tool as a death metal band? I would certainly find that bizarre, but fair enough. Incidentally, I can totally buy that necrophobic are melodic death metal, but a non-webzine page needs to be found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should add, that the "genre box" bit on Allmusic should not be used, owing to it limited number of genres and the lack of info regarding whether a professional journalist has edited it! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"...could you point me towards Allusic referring to Tool as a death metal band? I would certainly find that bizarre, but fair enough." ...Sure: [1]. "while (Tool) simultaneously paid musical homage to the dark, relentlessly bleak visions of grindcore, death metal, and thrash.". In addition, not only are Opeth symphonic black metal at that site, but they're also "goth metal".[2]. --Danteferno (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The first link merely suggests that they may have taken influence from the genre (which I can totally believe) and the second says nothing of the sort (I already stated the "Styles"box is not reliable, whilst the biogs and reviews are, being written by professional journalists). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that line suggests Tool play thrash, death metal and grindcore - nowhere on the page does it state the three genres are their influences (and if they are, what bands of those three genres influenced them?) Also, again, what about the Static X review where the writer called their first album "thrash" [3]? Even fans of that band would find such a label absurd. Allmusic probably has notability in terms of mainstream recording artists, but their understanding of the extreme metal genre is not one of those notabilities, and there should be agreement on that.

Back to Necrophobic, here are links that point to the band being MDM: [4] [5], [6], [7] All of the above are little different than MusicMight, they're not blogs, user-edited zines, etc. - and again, this topic is so obvious, I can't see why it extended on for this long. --Danteferno (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. The Tool issue is clearly complex (just see their WP "musical style" section for an example), but we're getting sidetracked a bit. None of the websites you list are "reliable"... none have been published by third-arty sources, unlike MusicMight, which has had its content published by Cherry Red. This is the fundamental difference, and explains why one can be used and the others cannot. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Tool issue isn't complex, it's just you interpreting things the way you want to interpret them (just like the supposedly "reliable" Allmusic calling Opeth and Nightwish symphonic black metal. What you're basically implying is that if there's information on that site you disagree with, it doesn't count. But overall, in your view, Allmusic is a completely reliable source of information. And you still have not responded to the Static X/thrash metal bit. )

I could tell this issue was never about WP:Reliable sources - it's just you not agreeing with a band being labeled a certain genre, so any source provided is automatically unreliable. I think WP:RFC is the next step at this point. --Danteferno (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to take it to RFC, feel free. However, your last comment is totally inaccurate and unacceptable. I do not need to answer the Static X issue or any other random dozen you throw at me. Allmusic has been queried before on several occasions and consensus has always been that it is reliable as a Wikipedia source. There are plenty of list articles with entries that I may personally disagree with (the deathcore one leaps to mind), but I have often added (sourced) additions to those lists of bands I personally wouldn't have considered (see, e.g. Anal Cunt on the deathgrind list), because I use the sources, not my personal opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus that Allmusic has always been a reliable source? Where? When? How? Who? I've seen many instances where their bizarre genre labelings have been brought up before, bringing that site's credibility into question. True, you don't have to explain the site's pairing of Static X to thrash - that's because there is no answer, just like there's no answer as to why the site claims Tool play death metal. Regardless of how mainstream Allmusic is, doesn't make it a 100% credible site. And since when was even Blabbermouth (as it is referenced for Dark Age) considered a reliable source of information? Blabbermouth is absolutely no different from the DeathMetal.org site at all. Both are independent metal-related media sites, yet you said earlier that only Google Books, MusicMight and Allmusic are considered accurate sources. --Danteferno (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I really think the only thing that keeps allmusic from being not reliable is them the fact that their reviewers are paid for their work.--Inhumer (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's way more than that. The writers on that site have a hard time classifying genres of metal bands. In addition to what's already mentioned above, Allmusic once (and I think still) classified Pantera as "death metal" and Rammstein as "black metal". As far as melodic death metal goes, let's use another example besides Necrophobic - the band Gates of Ishtar, also from Sweden. It's completely unarguable that they ARE melodic death (some of the members went on to form (The Duskfall) but because none of User:Blackmetalbaz's preferential sites mention "melodic death", neither band belongs on the page. I could completely understand the disagreement if a band was one of those metalcore/melodeath crossover groups, but that's not the case here. And if WP:Reliable sources was really the issue here, more things would be cited in the article. Anyone notice the introduction on this page, and the caption that claims Carcass were the first Melodeath band? That's right, NO SOURCES to back these claims up. --Danteferno (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I just clarify the earlier mention of Allmusic passing WP:RS. From numerous discussions at the WP:RS discussion board the consensus was that Allmusic could be used as as citation for genres. However... there is a hitch. Allmusic can be challenged as a citation if there is evidence of a long history of edit warring on the article in question. AND... if it is challenged then the debate has to come to a consensus over whether the site can be included. Consensus meaning that the debate be well-involved with lots of input by lots of editors. It can't just be a 2 to 1. If the challenge does not result in an overwhelming consensus (as descibed) then the Allmusic link can be negated from the discussion and a new reference meeting WP:RS must be found. I know that doesn't solve the subject of debate here. But it should clarify whether Allmusic can be introduced into the debate as a supporting factor for either side of the debate. I personally believe an Allmusic editor can be quoted directly in the main body of an article about a musical style. That way it puts ownership of the opinion directly to the source. If it for a simple infobox addition I am against it... usually. In some cases the simple addition of an AMG link for a genre can stomp the fire of an edit war out. Whether I agree with the AMG opinion.. if it results in ending an edit war.. the Wik wins.

That sounds fine by me, but from an independent standpoint, do you sorta see where we're getting at in terms of Allmusic's judgment in labeling bands (based on everything I mentioned above)? Per your talk page and contribution history, you appear to contribute to many band articles with affiliation to extreme metal. You probably know that the mainstream media doesn't always have a lot of experience on that topic. For instance, I've noticed In Flames being called a "Swedish rock/metal band" by a mainstream source. But that doesn't do justice in reflecting what the band plays (Whereas in sources that aren't syndicated, the band is almost always referred to as a "melodic death metal" band). I agree that WP:RS is an academic necessity when editing, but in this case, it's being pushed waaaaay too far in a direction where it doesn't belong. I could understand the need to revert if Killswitch Engage or Unearth were added to the List of melodic death metal bands, but in the case of Necrophobic, it's much, much, MUCH less contentious. Why not inclusion and a temporary "" listed under notes?--Danteferno (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I end up with many "extreme metal" articles (EESH I hate that term.. if I had my way that article would be speedy deleted out of here... with "traditional heavy metal" deleted right behind it... foolish articles... but I digress) on my watchlist usually because I have reverted vandalism on them at some point. I am not an expert. I have almost 8000 pages on my watchlist... I am a glutton for punishment. In my personal music collection I have over 9000 albums... many of them falling under your "extreme" banner. When I see certain articles enough my curiosity gets the better of me and I end up acquiring the band's entire discography just so I can "hear for myself" what all the debate is about. With all those albums I will admit right now that I have no albums (yet) from the band Necrophobic. But, when you run several libraries... as I do... acquiring music is rather easy. So I will eventually end up with some simply based on this conversation.

I agree that most mainstream media do not "get it" when it comes to the subject of heavy metal. And the internet is flooded with amateur metal fansites like Encyclopedia Metallium which cater only to the lowest common denominator of retarded heavy metal fan and do not offer anything that could/should be used on Wikipedia. So where does it leave us? With not much to go on. That being said there are a handful of actual 'paper' publications that do focus on heavy metal and do tend to keep things fairly accurate. I find most of these publications still end up slipping when they try to write a decent lead-in paragraph to any of the band interview articles. But... they sometimes do OK with their album reviews. So that is about the only place you'll get a decent source for an "opinion" where your ICK! extreme tastes lie. Is it really killing anyone to include it (with a cite req'd tag)... even if only for a little while... if an editor claims that they can find a source meeting WP:RS criteria? I mean really... who's nuts are going fall off if an entry sits on this list for a week until a ref can be found? And if a ref isn't found the user who promised they'd find one has to swear that they will amputate a body part as punishment for their failure. Sorry watching Dethclok re-runs while I type The Real Libs-speak politely 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that no-on's nuts are going to fall off, but equally they're not going to fall off if a keen editor doesn't add their favourite band to a list for a week until they find a source. We want to avoid a situation like the list of nu metal bands, where it is now largely just unsourced (that one's a long story, but hey). Baically, no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy. Whether Allmusic journalists are "reliable" is also not in question, as they are professional. One recuring point of confusion appears to be that the Allmusic "Style" boxes often include spurious genres; this is true, but they cannot/should not be used for genrification as they are not ascribed to specific professional journalists. The biogs and reviews however can be used. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"...Baically, no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy."...in that case, we should delete the written introductory content on List of melodic death metal bands (as well as most of the content on the main page, "melodic death metal") because most of the content consists of claims with no sources. Do I stand correct?--Danteferno (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If a statement is unsourced, it can be challenged and removed by any editor. List article are easy because it's a distinct quantity... we have, say, a band and it needs a reference for its genre by a professional journalist. Statements in the introduction are slightly more tricky, because whilst they have to be sourced we want to aoid original researh/synthesis. We also don't want to ge to pointy situations :-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing a bit of a double standard here: If a band is put on the list with no source, it should be reverted immediately. Yet the unsourced written material on both pages can remain in the mean time, and would do fine with just a "". But a band inclusion with a temporary "" under "notes" is a no-no. Like I said, kinda double-standard-ish, seeing how this is not a very contentious topic compared to others.--Danteferno (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the difference is between particulate information (X is either A or not-A, do we hae a source?) and more general descriptive information. So, for example (if we do in fact agree that Carcass is/was a melodic death metal band), there's a big difference between saying "Carcass was the first MDM band" and "Carcass was an early example of MDM". Both should be sourced, but one is much more specific than the other. Lists are incredibly simple... inclusion is based simply around whether a professional journalist has described them as such. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no difference whatsoever. You said for yourself (And I quote you) "no source, no inclusion, which is a core WP policy". But this only applies to bands and genres, according to you. And back to the subject of melodic death metal - in the strictest sense, it's not even an official genre, it was simply an umbrella term created by underground, unpaid, non-syndicated metal fans/critics to describe the Gothenburg sound of the early 1990s. (also very interesting how the main article doesn't go into much detail, based on what little there is mentioned). Necrophobic, Gates of Ishtar, Eternal Oath and Throne of Chaos - while not from Gothenburg - obviously use significant style/influence from the "Gothenburg" sound, and I don't think there's going to be an edit war if any of the above groups were included on the list with a temporary "".--Danteferno (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At the Throne of Judgment

I included a reliable source[8] from MusicMight, the most common citation (other than About.com) on this page. They state that At the Throne of Judgment is in the melodic death metal group. The band has been removed from the page, and I was told by one of the disagreers to bring it here. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 ^{other crap} 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kalmah and Norther

A few users added Finnish bands Kalmah and Norther to the list. I mistakenly tried to help an anonymous user without noticing that his source for Kalmah didn't explicitly state "melodic death metal" as the genre, and FireCrystal rightfully reverted my edit. So to those users: find some reliable sources that describe those two bands as "melodic death metal", otherwise please don't add them back. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The two sources I've found in the past were deemed unreliable. I finally found another reference for Kalmah here that specifically states "melodic death metal" in regards to the band, not the album. Is it reliable? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoaaah nevermind, it's almost verbatim from the Kalmah article. Sorry I didn't notice it sooner. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It's German, but it says it plain as day at the top. Another. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't see their cotnt being printed anywhere, so theyre probably just webzines. If you can demonstrate otherwise, go for it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that what defines a reliable source, it has to be printed? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, your explanation on the Wintersun talk page cleared it up for me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Angry Metal Guy considered reliable enough for Kalmah? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to add this legendry Melodeath band on the list: Kalmah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.98.207.134 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Showdown?

Okay, quick question: Should The Showdown be added to this list? I personally do not think they are melo-death, and really could care less about them, but I have found a reliable source [9] which appears to be claiming that they are. Am I misreading the review? If not, do they warrant inclusion? --3family6 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no objection, I have added the band to the list --3family6 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

I recently added As I Lay Dying to this list, as I stumbled across this reference. Since this addition, several editors, both registered and IPs, have removed them without explanation. The late Gary Sharpe-Young was a respected heavy metal author, and is a very reliable source, so if there are objections to this listing, I request that they be made here on the talk page instead of in the form of an unexplained removal.--3family6 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying are most often referred to as a metalcore/hardcore band. Their music hardly contains any elements of death metal at all. I think when people see "melodic death metal" they tend to only look at the first and last words. Are they melodic? Sure. Are they metal? Sure. Do their songs contain any elements of death metal like death growl vocals, etc...? No, they don't. Their style is most easily defined as metalcore. If you labeled every metal band that has a little bit of melody as a melodic death metal group, hell, throw Killswitch Engage, Slipknot, Korn, Avenged Sevenfold, All That Remains, etc. onto this page too.

I for one honestly thought it was intentional trolling/vandalism when I saw As I Lay Dying on this page, and deleted it immediately. I apologize for doing that since you do at least have one cited source, however the fact remains that they are not a melodic death metal band. Just let it lie.

In addition if you read the article that you posted, the first sentence starts off by describing them as "A San Diego Christian Hardcore act...." The fact that the source contradicts itself in the first sentence doesn't exactly lend to its credibility.

I am removing them from this page on the weight of these sources and, while I can't remove something just on the basis of what I feel to be common sense/common knowledge, I will add that I think most people who know anything about metal would tell you that these guys are a metalcore band in a heartbeat.

http://allmusic.com/artist/as-i-lay-dying-p513658 http://heavymetal.about.com/od/a/fr/asilaydying-thepowerlessrise.htm

99.99.166.46 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)