Talk:Black metal

growling

growling in black metal is wiledy used

References

Politics

@Asarlaí: It is fine the way it is, your added paragraph was good, but NSBM and RABM are good enough now. ~SML • TP 01:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sixty Minute Limit is referring to this edit. Instead of having one section on NSBM and another section on RABM, I think it would be better to have a 'Politics' section discussing politics in black metal generally. That way, we could deal with both of those ideologies as well as others which don't fit under those labels. I also think giving them each their own sections and headings gives them too much prominence. Both are tiny minorities in the scene—only a few dozen bands identify as NSBM and only a few identify as RABM—yet each have their own sections alongside Satanism. Furthermore, there are only a few useable sources which even mention RABM.
This is the kind of thing I suggest. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Having the politics section may be helpful, but I think the subsections should be kept, because if you want to add another political philosophy, you can just add a new section (it doesn’t have to be that big). But you do need conscencus, so maybe you should wait a little while until someone agree with you, I imagine most will. ~SML • TP 01:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Asarlaí on this one, since Black metal is way more known for its religious themes and imagery rather than the political ones. It's all about WP:WEIGHT, and thus its religous side must have proeminence over others. ABC paulista (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't say I didn't know that was going to happen, but since two win over one, then add it. With a politics section, there might be a subsection dedicated to DSBM. ~SML • TP 11:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: I don't think that having subsections inside the politics subsection goes against what you proposed. The appearence on the page stays similar to what you proposed, so I don't see how this presents as a problem. ABC paulista (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"RABM" is a newly-invented internet term, only a few bands seemingly identify with it, and only a few useable sources even mention it. "NSBM" has been around for a long time and has been discussed in lots of books and documentaries, but still it's only a tiny minority in black metal – altho it's a much bigger minority than "RABM". By giving them both their own headings we're giving them the same prominence as eachother (even tho one's much bigger than the other), and we're giving them the same prominence as Satanism. It'd also mean we'd have to add a heading for every other political ideology we mention. It's better to deal with them together under "Politics", along with other ideologies which don't fit those labels. The Table of Contents is much too long already. ~Asarlaí 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

1) Bands don’t necessaryly need to identify as such (e.g. Kreator identefies as “Hate Metal”, though we all know it’s nonsense). 2) They don’t give as much prominence as other section. Subsections are just fine for them. ~SML • TP 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: I disagree on the proeminence comparison between NSBM and RABM because both are part of the same subject, so it's not like that their importance is being measured and compared, but just a means to better organize the article and give them proper spot on the summary. And I strongly disagree on the proeminence comparison between both and Satanism since the latter is above both NSBM and RABM on the "summary hierarchy", lumped together with the Politics subsection and inside the Ideology section. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there; I've not been around for a while, but WP:RS doesn't appear to have changed. Looking at that section, there are a number of sources that appear to fail WP:RS - Lords of Metal is a webzine, with no print content, and I'm not sure where to find the Pitchfork print content (I don't doubt Pitchfork's notability, merely its capacity to pass RS, which looks doubtful at first sight). There's then some interviews with bands describing themselves as "anarchists", but it's not describing the term RABM, making it WP:OR or contravening WP:NEO. £0.02. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Blackmetalbaz: The Lords of Metal can be removed, but I still wan’t to keep the RABM section. ~SML • TP 11:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

New Article Required for Black Metal

The stylist divisions section of this article gives a list of genres such as Blackgaze or Death 'N' Roll. While some of the styles of Black Metal may not be in severe need of an article I would suggest we have a new article about the genre called, "Melodic Black/Death". That particular style is one that I think could be further elaborated in another page, including it's history and a list of bands that practice it. Having another article mentioning the history, musical characteristics of genre as well as the sort of bands that play them would be very useful. The fusion called, "Melodic Black/Death" is quite a popular style yet the inclusion the word "melodic" could do with more elaboration, as the style Melodic Black/Death has taken a life of it's own and is very popular. Think about portal for instance. Don't expect me to do it, I'm not to blame for inserting Melodic Black/Death in this article. Btw, if you don't think Melodic Black Metal is a valid genre then you're wrong, we have a page for Melodic Death metal, so don't be so cruel as to not include Melodic Black Metal.

Blackened Melodic Death Metal is that covered, so that would mean it cannot have it’s own page. Everything is according to sources. Oh, and I looked, and I found nothing reliable talking about melodic black metal. ~SML • TP 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there would be enough sources and information to have a page just on melodic black/death, but it doesn't seem unlikely that there could be a blackened death metal page, which could have a large section on melodic black/death. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Melodic Black Metal is Black Metal featuring guitar solos and standard song structures in order to create a greater melody. Go a bit more in depth about how the drumming and guitar techniques regarding Black Metal. There are plenty of sites with articles that go into depth about Black Metal, including the key changes involved as well as the time signatures used. A lot of them will site Melodic Black Metal as a valid genre. It would be good to cite and reference them.

If they are reliable, professional and well conceited by media and society in general. None of the most used and reliable sites we know in the project use Melodic as a subgenre identifier for Black Metal, but use them more as a adjective. ABC paulista (talk) 02:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we don't have sufficient evidence to include an article for Melodic Black Metal, but that doesn't change the fact that we could do with another section within this article explaining the use of guitar solos within Black Metal. This article seems a bit outdated when it says that Black Metal rarely uses guitar solos. This no longer applies as much as it did during the 80's and 90's. Even Freezing Moon by Mayhem featured a guitar solo and that was out during the 90's.

Again, if you can find some reliable sources to back-up your claims, go for it. It all spins around the quality and credibility of the sources that are presented. ABC paulista (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Ambient black metal

Why is it named that way? Atmospheric black metal is more commonly used. ~SML • TP 22:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Proof? ABC paulista (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The term 'ambient black metal' may cause confusion because some black metal bands and albums may feature an ambient song while being 'trve' black metal. Burzum's self-titled album is a good example; it comes with an ambient song(Channelling the Power of Souls into a New God), but the album is more of a raw black metal as a whole. Yamatograd (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Problem solved. Yamatograd (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Again, proof? ABC paulista (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If you have some time, go listen to that album and one random atmospheric black metal album. People "do" get confused, especially for those who use English as their second language. Yamatograd (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yamatograd: Nothing of what you said does matter. I understand that you're new here, but as an editor you must know that every information shown here must be backed up by reliable sources, per the guidelines, and there is none citing that either Atmospheric black metal is more commonly used or that Ambient black metal causes misinterpretation. Also, you cannot say "go listen the album to perceive something" because every info generated by the editor's perceptions constitute as original research, which is against the rules since no user can be a source by itself and all info must come from third-parties. Also again, you should become familiar with the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy, because there is stated that a revert cannot be re-reverted, disagreements should be solved through discussion and no further changes to the subject should be made until consensus is reached. ABC paulista (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• got it. Yamatograd (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)