Talk:In Flames

The complete re-write

Well, it took me a couple weeks longer than I expected, but I got it done complete with cited sources. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch and researched the band as if I had never heard of them before. Upon doing research I discovered that the old article contained quite a bit of libel. You might notice some big changes in the re-write, but I assure you that I did not add anything to the article if I could not find various reliable sources supporting it. Also, I did not add opinions about the band's genre, I only added facts. Wikipedia articles are not forums and are not the place to write useless debateable junk like "some of In Flames' older fans think that they have sold out with their most recent albums". Anyways, I hope this re-write helps re-educate a few people about this band and if you have any questions about the re-write feel free to ask. By the way, I also rewrote the In Flames discography page and Template:In Flames to coincide with the rewrite of this article. --Leon Sword 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say, it looks great. Alot more informational and ( .Y. ) well it's great, good job. -- Shatterzer0 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I Like this article, although i pretty much agree In flames are sellouts, its not really something you should place in an encyclopedia article. But a mention about their genre change would be nice.123.252.188.96 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there's a problem with saying that In Flames changed genres; it's very debateable. I agree with most other people that In Flames doesn't play the same as they used to, but I also agree with most other people that In Flames is still a melodeath band, especially since In Flames is one of melodeath's pioneers and thus they set/are setting the standards of the genre. Currently the article has a good section that explains some of the changes the band has made musically without being POV and it's cited. I don't think we need to add a POV statement. --Leon Sword 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done on the article --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I believed Carcass pioneered it with At the Gates and Dark Tranquility to lesser extents and In Flames simply popularized it. Camalus (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo(s)

Leon Sword: Why did you revert the logo? I changed for several good reasons: a) the old one looked bad; b) it was inconsistent with almost every other band article, ever; c) it is too wide; the infobox just stretches with it. Can we please change it back? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I was in the process of telling you why on your talk page, but since you posted this message here first, I'll respond here. A) The original image is more consistent with the rest of the logos visible in the article. B) I do believe that there is not a policy on Wikipedia stating that every Wikipedia article should be created the same as the rest. C) The image is not too wide, I set the pixel size to be pretty much as wide as the infobox. D) Wether an image looks bad is a matter of opinion, because I think the image you uploaded looks worse. E) It is redundant. --Leon Sword 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this image is consistent with the rest of the logos in the article. But there's a problem with having logos in the article in the first place, as has been discussed in other articles (notably Tool's article): having logos in the article body without any explanation as to why they are there is a violation of fair use because they don't have any context to go with them. Therefore those logos ought to be removed.
• True, the articles don't have to be consistent, but it would be nice.
• The infobox is 250 pixels wide. I just checked by printscreening the template page in Photoshop. Therefore any images wider will stretch it.
• Reverting an edit like that without discussing it first here is kind of an asshole thing to do. You do not "own" this article.

= ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You're calling me an asshole for reverting your edit without discussing it first even though you made the controversial edit in the first place without discussing it here first. 5 pixels wider than the original size of the infobox does no major harm, and I've seen infoboxes on GA articles that are stretched beyond that. The bit about the logos not being related to the content is false, because if you haven't noticed every section talks about a certain time period which also has a respective logo. The image caption mentions it, the image description page mentions it, and the user can see the relation between that time period and the respective logo. By the way don't throw the You don't own the article thing again, assume good faith. --Leon Sword 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright fine; but I still stand beside the fact that the logos are not discussed explicitly anywhere in the article. I would also like a second opinion. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I just re-read WP:LOGO and all logos in the article meet the criteria for inclusion into the article. Furthermore, WP:LOGO states that if an historical (old) logo is used the caption should mention this, and they all do. --Leon Sword 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by non-owners for purposes of criticism and commentary." There is no criticism or commentary of the logos in the article whatsoever.

"Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance." It would be nice to have kept the old PNG-format logo that we used to use in this article. The black backgrounds are kind of unsightly, especially the bad anti-aliasing jaggies in the old logo. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the logos in the article qualify under purposes of commentary. I have been considering converting the logos to PNG format, however I'm aware that if not done right it will mess up the logo. If you can convert them to PNG without degrading the image of the logos please do so. --Leon Sword 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally can do that. I've done several PNG logos for Wikipedia already and used to have some really high-quality copies of all three logos on my computer somewhere… let me see if I can find them. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Check these out:

• old
• mid (kinda iffy, because it doesn't have the Soilwork-logo-esque chopped-up style to it)
• Used & Abused style
• keep the new one I made?

= ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are very nice, I definately can't do that (I'm a newbie in image editing). The old one is very nice, but aren't the letters supposed to have a border? The mid one is missing a lot of detail, but it has a good outline. The Used and Abused one is unnecessary since the band only used on that box set. As for the new one, the height is very small and makes the logo hard to see. I don't think there's a policy against removing so much detail from the logos, so that doesn't matter too much. Could you however come up with a "taller" version of the current logo? That would be great. By the way, you can upload the new images over the current images, that way you don't have to set up three entire new description pages. --Leon Sword 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks… I can definitely add a border to the old one and maybe some detail to the mid one. I had the same feelings about the Used & Abused logo but threw it in there for good measure; I don't care if we don't use it. I can also fix the new one, no problem. Also I'm pretty sure I can't upload PNGs over the JPGs since they will have different file extensions, but the old ones will get deleted eventually and it won't be a problem. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about the file extension thing. --Leon Sword 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Genre

Ok who the hell thinks this is melodic death metal? They play this stuff on the freakin radio, thats the first evidence that this is not anywhere near death metal...they may have been remotely close to melo death a while ago, UNTIL they sold out to the mainstream...now they sound like regular rock they play everwhere. Please dont insult real melo death (amon amarth, carcass, etc) with this crap, CHANGE THIS!!! Please, someone compare any Amon Amarth (a staple of melo death) with any song from In Flames' new cd...and find me 1 similarity...the vocals (harsh v. soothing), screams (scratchy v. soft), the guitars (heavy v. light), and the overall tone of each song (flesh-ripping v. "this will sound good on the radio and to the public").

sorry to bring this annoying subject up once more. But on a majorety of metal pages ive read they state In Flames as Modern Metal rather than Melodeath, and i think its more acurate than melodeath. thou i wont change a thing with out aproval by anyone. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

In Flames is melodic death metal. That is all. Kl4m 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Modern Metal" is a blanket term used to describe a style of metal, it is not a genre. --Leon Sword 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

to call In flames melodic death metal is rather confusing, they dont sound a thing like ´´real´´ Melodic Death Metal bands for instance Amon Amarth, Arch Enemy or Dark Tranquillity. Maybe some of you should open your eyes to the truth In flames isnt Melodeath its even more fitting to call them metalcore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 20:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

In Flames is one of the pioneers of melodic death metal along with Dark Tranquillity and At the Gates, so there is no other band that plays more "real melodic death metal" than In Flames. It's a genre they helped pioneer and they are making up the rules of what the genre is as they go along. --Leon Sword 03:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what they may have done early in their career, In Flames does not define the genre based on whatever new album they put out, any more than Metallica is expanding the definition of thrash metal - both bands have simply drifted away from the genres they originally contributed to. It's obvious you're a big fan, and it's cool that you enjoy their new material, but it's pretty demonstrably not DM, melodic or otherwise. Can we get some objectivity here, and a consensus edit on the genre? --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I like old and new IF, but they are definitely not a "melodic death metal" band anymore. I agree that they pioneered the genre, but that does not mean that they still play within the sound that they helped to pioneer. Their new music, be it good or bad in anyone's subjective opinion, is not death metal anymore. I'd say that around Clayman or Reroute to Remain, they became more of a melodic metalcore band. I believe that they are still good and metal and all that, but to claim the "death" tag and separate them from other bands more similar in style honestly is a bit misleading. MXVN (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

but listen to the music, lets just take come clarity since its the most recent, i cant hear a single Death metal riff in that album. And if they keep lowering the bar then soon we can call soilwork and Sonic syndicate Melodic Death Metal too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Leon Sword- Lunar Strain, Jester race and Whoracle are melodeath, but their newer stuff isn't. Someone please change the genre to metalcore for everything but Lunar Strain, Jester Race and Whoracle. XXMurderSoulXx 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the biggest metal site says they aint metal no more.....they help pioneer the gothenburg sound..leon get ur facts straight..Carcass was the ones who started it by adding melodic elements to death metal, http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=11 Band statement: "Dark Tranquillity is the longest standing band from the famed Gothenburg metal scene". At the gates disbanded, In flames along with Soilwork sold out and turned Nu Metal. How can you call tracks like Cloud Connected etc Death metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.188.96 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys should really do some hard research before you make such big claims. First of all, Anders does not rap in any of In Flames' songs and I think that even you guys will agree that no In Flames song has hip hop rhythms or feeling to them, so you can't even consider In Flames to be a nu metal band. Second, metal-archives.com is not the biggest nor the most reliable metal website. That website is user edited/influenced and it is very biased; you can't possibly expect people to take your argument serious when you're using that website as a reference. Third, Carcass didn't release their "melodic death metal" album until after In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates were already established. Carcass was not the first melodeath band and their style of melodeath is not the same as the Gothenburg melodeath style of In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates. Fourth, the group of people who play in Dark Tranquillity may have gotten together in 1989, but they formed under Septic Broiler, a band which didn't play melodeath. The band that you recognize as Dark Tranquillity didn't come until later. Fifth, At the Gates may have broken up, but the core of the band went on to form The Haunted, a band which mixes thrash metal with some of the melodeath elements of At the Gates.

Please stop throwing all this flawed arguments that In Flames is not a melodeath band anymore. I will be the first to admit that their newer albums, especially Come Clarity aren't exactly The Jester Race Part 2. However, melodeath has evolved, just take a look at all the other early melodeath bands. None of those early melodeath bands sound like they used to, yet if you look around, you'll find that most people and music databases still consider those bands melodeath bands. Dark Tranquillity has changed right alongside In Flames and with every album they release they keep progressing towards a more symphonic/gothic metal sound. At the Gates may have broken up, but it's successor, The Haunted doesn't sound like the classic melodeath band that came before it. The Haunted has taken what At the Gates started and progressed towards a more thrash metal sound. I could keep throwing names of all these melodeath bands that no longer sound like they used, but it is pointless. You need to get used to the fact that melodeath has evolved for better or for worse. By the way, it seems that at least one of you is confusing melodeath with death metal. --Leon Sword 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

By that definition, melodeath evolved into metalcore. Theres still plenty of melodeath bands that sound like old In Flames, At The gates, etc around now. The truth is, In Flames is nolonger melodeath. XXMurderSoulXx 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Carcass may have pioneered Goregrind before they progressed into Death Metal, but they were still the first to actually record an entire album under the MDM sound. Dark Tranquility and At the Gates may have also been considered pioneers and also been Death Metal with the twinge of melody before Heartwork, but they weren't full fledged until after Heartwork. Also, the last three In Flames albums are closer to Rock if anything. Camalus (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As for Hip Hop rythms listen to the track Touch Of Red. It sucks that they got a stupid sheeplike fanbase with people like Leon Sword. Just listen to Amon Amarth and that is real melodic death metal or In Flames Lunar Strain. Leon sword is a fanboy some just report him for inaccurate details. - As my contribution to this argument, I'd like to point out that while many of the people arguing for the genre change are rather spelling-challenged, Leon's arguments simply do not hold water. In Flames [i]are[/i] an influential band, but they are not by any means the bell-weather that gauges how MDM is defined. A simple examination of the genre name (Melodic + Death Metal) should indicate quite clearly that In Flames' output since [b]Reroute to Remain[/b] is no longer appropriate to be labeled as such. This is not a judgment of the band's quality since they made the changeover, it's a statement of fact. Someone made a comparison using Metallica earlier, which is highly applicable to this question. Metallica helped pioneer thrash, but they no longer perform thrash metal. Slayer on the other hand are still, regrettably, a veritable thrash metal band. In the MDM genre, Arch Enemy have evolved their sound at times but are still recognizably a melodic death metal band. In Flames are not.

And for the record, Carcass' [b]Heartwork[/b] is without a doubt the first melodic death metal record, although it is of a different style than the At the Gates/Gothenburg-style. - OlympicSharpshooter, Metal-Archives.com moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.44.201 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Unanimated? Their album, In the Forest of the Dreaming Dead was released in 1993 as well, I think that you don't have to be well known to pioneer something. In fact this is a useless debate, there were many bands that played Death Metal with "Melody" at the time such as Amorhpis, Callenish Circle, Centinex, Chastisement, Crimson Death, Dark Age, Edge of Sanity, one way or another they all helped shape Melodic Death Metal to be what it is, and there have been many different styles of Melodic Death Metal in recent years, many amalgamation's, one way or another all these bands would soon change their sound (you can't just keep recycling your work), including In Flames, but hey does that mean they aren't Melodic Death Metal? I wouldn't say that, they still have it in their music, yes, there has been a lot of different influences in their style such as Metalcore and Nu Metal (Nu Metal doesn't necessarily mean you Rap in your music) in recent years... but if you seriously can't find similarities between present In Flames and old school In Flames then you probably should listen to it more, at least that's what I think. In Flames is still Melodic Death Metal. They still have a strong thrash metal influence to their music, even on A Sense of Purpose, and of course lots of influence from Heavy Metal music (Iron Maiden) Kryptic666 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

In Flames is not Melodic Death Metal. Period. I don't understand how this is still up for debate. First and foremost, Melodic Death Metal is not a genre, it is a sub genre, that combines elements of death metal, heavy metal, and occasionally thrash metal. Carcass, At The Gates, In Flames and Dark Tranquillity pioneered the sub genre by combining these elements. Saying that In Flames decides what is and is not Melodic Death Metal is also saying that they decide what is, and isn't, heavy metal, death metel, and thrash metal, and they do not. While Dark Tranquillity's sound has evolved, they still retain a style of Melodic Death metal. In Flames evolution took them up a different path, toward hard rock, I would even go as far as to say heavy metal. But in order to play melodic death metal, you need one key thing, and that thing is death metal. Every album post-Colony has lacked that key element. Melodic, sure they are. Metal, i'll give them that. Death Metal, not a chance. That being said, per the definition of Melodic Death Metal, In Flames is no longer a Melodic Death Metal band. Xzana —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

At least the previous two posters have missed the fact that this is not a forum. Literally no-one gives a shit about your opinion. Find a reliable source for whatever it is you want to say and come back. If you can't, just don't come back. There are plenty of places for you to waste your time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I quote the wikipedia page for Melodic Death Metal. "Originally the genre combined the harmony style and groove melodies of heavy metal with the harsh thrashing sound and vocals of death metal." Originally. "Later the genre evolved due to many different influences, a notable evolution in the genre being the addition of keyboards." However, In Flames still retains all of those elements. To say that it's not Melodic Death Metal period just shows your lack of understanding of Melodic Death Metal as Melodic Death Metal isn't Death Metal, they are very different. That's just my 2 cents...Kryptic666 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that this has been blown out of proportion a little bit by now. However, I still feel compelled to point out that the quoted page for melodic death metal does in fact allow for many outside influences to come into the genre. For instance, Dark Tranquillity has incorporated influences from all over the music scene, and yet in many ways still manages to hold onto a bit of that old death metal sound. In Flames does not, though. Thay have taken in outside influences and have also simultaneously dropped the death metal aspects from their sound. Again, I do not say this as a good or bad argument, but simply one of what I believe to be truth. Yes, melodic death and death are different, but the newest music by In Flames and Soilwork really isn't either one. I know that people like to keep bands tagged with the genres that they helped to create, however that does not make those tags the most accurate. I do not believe that the article should eliminate the "melodic death metal" assignment altogether, but should at least add another one for their more recent works. MXVN (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New album

Something needs to be put in about there new album, they are already half way through recording and have pre-released one of thier new songs which can be found here http://www.vivalabands.com/cd.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.157.147 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There is something about the new album already in there. I would have added more but In Flames have been awfully secretive about their new album so there is not much more that could be added for now. However, as soon as reliable relevant information starts showing up you can be assured it will show up here. By the way I have yet to see a confirmation that the "Abegnation" song will even be on the album. --Leon Sword 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please quit editing the 9th studio album to "A Sense of Purpose" until you can provide proof that is the album name. Thanks --Kobkobkob —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nebraskan* What about Gothenburg (metal) as a genre? In Flames, along with Dark Tranquillity invented this genre, and it is kept alive today by bands like Amon Amarth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• In some of the Studio Diaries you can hear Abnegation being recorded, and they have also released the final version of the song, that's going on the record, with stronger melodic vocals and cleaner production http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXe8PZ9P3qc

Joe Dull (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pioneered melodeath?

This is not sourced, and not wholly true. Carcass played a huge part with Heartwork. I have a source for that right here. http://www.maximummetal.com/columns/tales/37.asp--Wick3dd (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Carcass was one of the first bands to release what is now considered a melodeath album, but what they did barely scratched the surface. In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates were the bands that truly pushed further the genre and made it what it is. These three bands are the most often referenced to as the pioneers of melodeath, this is a pretty well known fact and I do have multiple sources available supporting that. Also Carcass was not the first melodeath band nor did they produce the first melodeath album, in fact, both In Flames and Dark Tranquillity recorded their debut studio albums at the same time Carcass recorded Heartwork. Furthermore, Sentenced, who was also one of the first bands to release a melodeath album, also happened to release their North from Here album in 1993 and At the Gates also happened to release an album that year. Anyways, Carcass was very much like Sentenced , they experimented with different genres, stumbled into melodeath for a while but then moved on. Both Carcass and Sentenced contributed to melodeath, but their contributions were small when compared to the contributions of In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates. Carcass and Sentenced would be much more appropriately mentioned as pioneers in the melodeath article, not here. --Leon Sword (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

They were never melodeath. They're just a mainstream rock band with some metalcore/nu-metal influences. Always have been. Just because they had a singer who used some screaming vocals is not reason including them as melodeath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka (talk • contribs) 20:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)