Talk:Post-metal

This article was nominated for deletion on September 6, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Legitimacy (1)

This genre doesn't exist. It's just made up to (for whatever reason) further categorize bands that already have genres. The 'criticism' topic on the article offers no arguments why it should exist, just that a lot of people think it shouldn't... Evanmontegarde 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)evanmontegarde

It 'exists' in just that way - it creates label for a group of similar-sounding artists whole music is a merge of countless others. A jazz enthusiast might subcategorise genres and styles in a way that someone unfamiliar with jazz will be completely mystified by, and this is a metal/alternative music equivalent. Seegoon 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a music reviewer for Harm.us and I would be hesitant to create post-metal as a genre. It seems too pretentious too me as a label and further obfuscates already ambiguous and hotly contested genre distinctions. There is no common linkage to these bands. There is no popular or consensual impetus that warrants the creation of this page. I am a music critic by trade and even I believe that this category is merely a ruse to stroke the egos of music elitists so they can pontificate and point to this article as a verification of their outlandish fantasies. 203.214.47.30 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To something to be Post-, the genre before it has to die. Metal is a thriving genre. Post-Rock is also non-existent. Makiyu 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Post- genres, social movements and political philosophies can, and do, co-exist with their origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootmotl (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock still exists. And, well, the name POST isn't maybe the most correct, but post-rock exists, so why not post-metal. Though usually music can be both post-rock and post-metal. There are subgenres for these (Post-rock from indie rock to ambient, post-metal from free experimentation to sludge metal and more ambient structures), and that's one legitimating subject here. Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The guy from Isis did not coin the term "thinking man's metal", nor has it anything to do with post-metal. Queensryche used that term to market their genre of progressive metal years ago. Also, something I'd like to bring to the table: What exactly is the difference between "avant-garde metal" and "post-metal" (besides the fact that both "genres" use pretentious and abstract terms to identify themselves)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.38.41 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, avant-garde metal are those things in music that are more clearly from other genres, and you should remember the slight differences between avant-garde and experimeltal music. Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable bands

While I am in favor of the use of the term "post-metal," I don't see the reason for having Kayo Dot and maudlin of the Well in the list of notable bands, as they already fit so perfectly into the "avantgarde metal" genre. I don't think that they share the similar sound of ISIS or Cult of Luna. Also I would say the same thing for Boris because (as far as I know) they don't have any releases that sound similar to the rest of the bands. Brownishleaf 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you. A specific sound has to be labelled, and I'm not sure that bands like that adhere to it strictly. Seegoon 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded… if you look in those artist articles, Boris is clearly sludge/doom/stoner and Kayo Dot is experimental/alternative. I don't necessarily agree with those uncited genres but nowhere do they say post-metal. (Nor do either sound like it.) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What I'd like to propose is to include one or more sources for every band listed (and meanwhile comply with WP:LIST). It discourages people to add dubious bands and it makes every entry verifiable. I did it on several lists and it seems to work.. I'll start searching for sources... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Boris needs to be removed from this article. They have one release (2000's Flood) that could be called post-metal, but that would be so far of a stretch that it does not warrant them being mentioned at all in this article. Also, the mentioning of orchestral music incorporated into post-metal, when was there ever orchestral music in any Intronaut song? 76.232.33.78 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned out the "Notable bands" section again, and I think it should stay limited to about 10 bands (If you think a different band should be substituted, please make a case for it) The existing list was (with a ! after the ones I removed):

• Battle of Mice !
• Burst
• Callisto
• Cult of Luna
• Godflesh !
• Intronaut
• Isis
• Made Out of Babies
• Mouth of the Architect
• Neurosis
• Pelican
• Red Sparowes !
• Rosetta
• Russian Circles !
• Sunn O))) !
• Thy Catafalque !
• Tool !

Battle of Mice was unsourced, Godflesh is generally not included in most accounts I have seen of the genre, Red Sparowes and Russian Circles are post-rock (and Russian Circles has already been discussed), Sunn O))) is Drone metal, Thy Catafalque does not have the necessary basis in sludge metal (and I do not believe that they are notable enough to be included in such a section), and Tool is a progressive metal/rock band. As was said previously, in an article of a genre as disputed as this one, I do not belive that we should be including bands that are borderline at best in the "notable bands" section.

On a different note, I didn't edit it in, though I feel like The Ocean Collective has more claim to this list than, say, Burst and maybe Callisto (in terms of genre) and Mouth of the Architect or Rosetta (in terms of notability). H2ostra (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Minsk may also deserve mention on the list. H2ostra (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, and there were reliable sources for all the bands removed except for Battle of Mice, who are called post-metal on their page (that should be sourced also, but considering the band's sound it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source). I really don't like genre arguments, so I'm going to make a proposal to try and cut this short: for controversial additions to the list, there must be more than one reliable source stating them to be post-metal. Is that acceptable? --LordNecronus (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be the best course of action for now. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that "post-metal" is used as the name for a specific sound and genre (descended from sludge and post-rock, as best demonstrated by Isis, Cult of Luna, later Neurosis, and Pelican), but is also, less commonly used to describe a much broader movement away from more conventional metal structures, which would include such bands as Sunn O))) and Agalloch. H2ostra (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of list

I've been bold and cut down the list to the most notable exponents of the genre. Many of them were redlinked, or only labelled post-metal by a stretch. I feel any more additions should be more carefully considered, and possibly discussed here. However, for legacy's sake, here's the list as it stands before the edit:

• Agalloch
• Amenra
• Boris
• Conifer
• Callisto
• Cult of Luna
• Fall Time
• From Now On
• Giant (NC band, not late 1980's band "Giant")
• Isis
• Jesu
• Kayo Dot
• Minsk
• Mouth of the Architect
• Neurosis
• Old Man Gloom
• Om
• Pelican
• Red Sparowes
• Rosetta
• Russian Circles
• Silence Kit
• Splintered
• Tides
• Unfold

I can't claim to be an absolute authority on the genre; but niche/redlinked bands don't truly contribute to the encyclopaedic or informative nature of the article. Seegoon 13:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea to me this this sounds like a BS genre, made up by music critics who think they know everything. Most of these bands don't even sound similar, or can be labeled a legitimate genre. T REX_speak 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a distinct sound forming/that has formed. Listen to the similarities between albums like Panopticon, The Eye of Every Storm or Oceanic with bands such as Mouth of the Architect, Pelican (band), 1-2 Seppuku, Russian Circles, Red Sparowes etc. etc. etc.. I think there is a case for labelling this. There are a lot of post-rock elements yes, but at the same time, the approach and result are both quite different to what is most often describes as post-rock. Mwhale 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um OK. Anyway, new rule should be enforced here: don't link to redlinked bands. It's a list of notable bands, and if they're notable, they're likely to have their own article. I know this means the removal of some archetypal bands, but until they have their own pages the links are useless. Seegoon 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Removing of Russian Circles

They're often referred to as post-metal, but it's hard to find a definitive reference to such. Any ideas? Though they are post-rock, no doubt, they also seem to fit post-metal as well. That's the trouble with post-metal, it's often very close to post-rock, and is thusly difficult to classify without at least some crossover. Thoughts? Moonty 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an understandable sentiment, but Russian Circles are borderline. And, given the dissent expressed for even having this page, we should probably refrain from including any questionable bands. There are already several decent examples on the list and it would be best to stick with obvious examples. Abbenm 02:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Moonty 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy (2)

I truly believe that some views expressed above are not shared by people who consider themselves fans of the mentioned bands. If anyone feels it will contribute, I could gladly assemble a list of reviews/interviews (and perhaps band biographies) that clearly and obviously associate many of these bands, and that suggest the emergence of a common genre they are all a part of. Here is a quick sample from About.com's Heavy Metal section on Mouth of the Architect's Time and Withering album, second sentence:

http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/fr/mouthofarchitec.htm

These kinds of references are easy to find and almost obligatory on sites that regularly encounter and review this type of material, and I will gladly draw up more such references if anyone thinks they would be useful. Also, if you check for any Isis albums on Amazon.com you will find many of the listed bands there as well. You can also read opinions at Isisboard.com (Isis fan community) and see that a large group of people associate these bands in a way that is well-represented by this article.

As for Harm.us, I looked at that site, and they only even review two of the listed bands (Callisto and Mouth of the Architect), with nothing at all on Isis/Neurosis. And, even those two reviews were from an outsider perspective of a generally mainstream metal oriented site, obviously unfamiliar with this common sound that regular fans generally seem well aware of. I respect your site's metal credentials generally speaking, but Harm.us is not familiar these kinds of bands.

In general, I think this article is at least well founded and that it clarifies the standing of these bands, rather than obscures it. -glenstein aka Abbenm 76.179.26.12 04:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All this proves is that Mouth of the Architect is not an obscure band. This doesn't prove that post-metal is an actual genre and not a term Isis made up. Makiyu 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates more than that. It proves that people who have encountered these kinds of bands (including music reviewers) ascribe a common sound to all of them, and associate them together in a way well represented by the article.

Also, a short sampling of reviews finds music reviewers using this term to describe them as well. A few reviews which describe the relevant bands as post-metal:

sputnikmusic review on Callisto

Metal Storm review on Mouth of the Architect

IGN on Isis

The Skinny on Red Sparowes

And of course that is just a brief sampling. It is a fact that this term has permeated music circles and that it is used to describe these bands. Abbenm 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that the most common criticism of the term is that the bands listed tend not to want to identify themselves as "post-metal". But I just think I'll point out promo material for Isis describing them as post-metal in a serious way with not contention about the genre: Southern Records' page on Isis. I know it's not the be-all and end-all, but it does demonstrate record labels wanting to go down that route. Seegoon 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers using the term means absolutely nothing. Reviewers have called Slipknot thrash metal, Children of Bodom black metal, are they correct? It's not a question of whether the term itself is valid - It's a question of whether it's needed, which it isn't. Looking at every band mentioned on the article, they can all be put in subgenres that already exist. It'd be like taking a bunch of death metal bands that sound similar and putting them in "Lifeless Metal" or something. Post-Metal is a term which has no reason to exist. Looking at this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sludge_metal#Atmospheric_sludge you can see quite clearly that there is a huge overlap with atmospheric sludge (A valid genre that's been around far longer than the term 'post-metal'). What is the point of calling Russian Circles, a post-rock band, and Rosetta, a (mostly) atmospheric sludge band, a new genre when they already have ones that fit perfectly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evanmontegarde (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I second Evanmontegarde's argument and introduce some more empirical evidence. Post-punk as a genre exists within the journalistic and popular lexicon due to having inherent sonic dissimilarities to it's predecessor while retaining the fundamental aesthetics of it's predecessor. Post-Punk for example utilizes synthesisers and electronic sounds, eschewing distorted guitars - earning it's label as "post." It still retained its anti-establishment stance, retaining the "punk" term. The article describes "advanced lyrical and musical structures" but Post-metal does not feature any production techniques, musical form or lyrical themes that are completely exclusive to this "genre". I am yet to see any such formation of a post-metal "movement" and I believe that those who do are largely imagining it.Crushtor 06:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moonty

Was there something wrong with my line 47 edit that got removed? I'm guessing you just reverted to the version before my edit, because you also restored a misspelled version of the word "reinstatement". There should be some sort of message there however to discourage the addition of bands to the list, and the present message seems to address this only indirectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbenm (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A more coherent debate

I can see there's a fair amount of back-and-forth here regarding the validity of this genre, and its labeling as such. To work towards a really decent, solid yay or nay, there are some pertinent questions which need answering, from both the pro- and anti-labeling camps. I'll tell you now that I am for the use of the label, so expect a bias in that direction. However, any conceptually adequate, complete argument against it will also bear my full consideration. Here are the important questions - feel free to add more, or respond in whatever constructive manner you see fit.
1. Is there a prominent and cohesive enough musical movement to justify the use of one label for all bands?
2. Do the people using the labels carry enough reputability for us to distil the term from their use?
2b. Bearing that in mind, do said bands self-identify as "post-metal"?
3. Why, among all the myriad names attributed to this genre, is "post-metal" chosen?
I'm sure there are more which I've missed - add any you see fit. Seegoon 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seegoon's response

I know this is a bizarre concept, but I'm going to respond to my own questions and hope you guys will follow suit.
1. I reckon so. Beginning with Isis and Cult of Luna, we've seen a legion of soundalike bands formed in the past five or so years. Although few of them have achieved the reputation of Cult of Luna or Isis, their influence is clear. I'll name a few: Pelican, Tides, Rosetta, Russian Circles, Fall Time, Callisto, Finger of God, Jakob, Red Sparowes, Mouth of the Architect, Khoma, The Ocean, Transmission0...
2. This is one of the most contentious issues, I'll admit that freely. However, in our sources we can see New York Times journalism and magazines such as Terrorizer and Rock Sound have begun to take it up.
2b. This is another issue. However, it is rare for any band from any musical movement to volunteer themselves into a fixed genre. That said, I've seen Isis promoted as post-metal more than once. I'm talking about a fixed decision by their distributors and record companies. A sticker on the cover of either SGNL>05 or Celestial described them as "post-metal alchemists", and a Southern Records promo sheet also uses the term. I haven't dug around for other bands so much, as Isis' page is a pet project of mine and I focus my attention on that.
3. Another hard-to-answer question. Simply put - it's the only one on which there appears to be some form of consensus. You see "instro-metal" and suchlike banded around, but if you mention post-metal to someone, they tend to know what you're talking about. Likewise, it implies some form of progression from metal, which I believe is a fair piece of conjecture. If you look at post-rock, it isn't so much a direct progression of rock, but an altered perspective on what came before it, over time morphing from one thing into another.
I know these aren't all great points, and I haven't completely convinced myself. However, I hope it'll spur some creative discussion on. Seegoon 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole creation of the Atmospheric Sludge Metal/Post-Metal is wishful thinking. This whole school of bands who ripped off Neurosis and Godflesh are not Metal atall. To be begin we need to first need to all accept that both founding artists came from “Core” backgrounds and arrived at their sound without influence from Metal. Before claims of “Guitar Tone” get posted you should be aware and hopefully accept the fact that “Heavy” music exists and sometimes it isn’t actually Metal. They have cited their influences many times infact never implying any Metal let alone Doom but rather experimental music and industrial. Lately post-rock has become a even more prominent part of this school of post-hardcore bands. Not alone that but the big players in the school of bands who did infact rip them off also had core backgrounds.

Cult Of Luna’s previous incarnation was a hardcore band. Isis used to be hardcore and their songwriter runs a hardcore label. Neurosis used to be hardcore. Callisto fashion themselves as hardcore and infact share a lyrical theme of Christianity which is very prominent in a number of hardcore bands. Buried Inside call themselves a hardcore band. Pelican members (apart from one) were all involved in “core”.

This page needs to be deleted

--Lysergix 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The genre exists, so the article shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps given to a better name, or at least merged with post-rock. The problem is nowadays articles are using 'post-metal' among other terms to describe these bands. I've added to the Criticism section an insightful quote by a Pelican guitarist who says they are more punk and hardcore than metal. –Pomte 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

merging with post-rock could be a good idea 211.31.37.3 03:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to any argument for deletion of the article for now, but only lightly, not strongly. Simply because I am a big metal enthusiast, and yet have never heard the term before. There is already a big problem with the myriad of sub-sub-sub-genres and so on, my argument here would simply be that we already have a problem with a band being given a new genre to itself just because it's a little bit different. Sure, it might be worth noting when a band sounds different, but a genre by it's very definition has to include a variety of sounds under one general heading. I would only see a reason for this article to exist if I listened to a good number of bands termed "post-metal", say a dozen at least, and could not legitimately put them into any other category. If this cannot be done there simply isn't cause for the term to exist. The reason I'm a little hesitant is I admit that I have not yet sampled the artists listed.

Now, I do realise that really, for this article to exist, all it needs is for people to be using the term, however innaccurate it might be. But I put it to everyone else here that the existence of an article in of itself encourages such a thing. If people see an article here they will start using the term more, and so it justifies itself. Thus, I would be VERY cautious about this article. All the more so because the very term "post-metal" sounds, to be frank, absurd. There might be a genre described within this article, but I would suggest in the strongest possible terms the phrase "post-metal" be replaced as soon as possible, if the article remains that is. It's ridiculous. The term could mean two things. Either A) Something after metal has gone, which is hasn't. Or B) A different kind of metal, while the original still exists. But this tells you nothing. If we're accepting the existence of "post-metal" while "original metal" still exists, then surely everything done from now onwards is "post-metal". Prophaniti 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is a bit weak. Post-metal may sound absurd but there are quite some genres called post-X (post-grunge, post-punk, post-hardcore, post-black, post-bop, post-rock) while the original genres still exists. I used the term post-metal before I knew of this article, and a lot of people do, just look up some reviews etc: e.g. [1], [2], [3]. I think post-metal is a straight forward term that originated from its rock equivalent post-rock. Simply put, post-metal is metallic post-rock (incorporating metal elements like heavy distorted guitars, shouted vocals).

Like post-rock post-metal is:

• hypnotic and often droning
• more concerned with pure sound and texture than melodic hooks or song structure
• usually instrumental, and if it does employ vocals, they are often incidental to the overall effect

source [4]

Post-metal may not be a genre that is used often, but that's just because it's a fairly new phenomenon (but with very clear musical traits). This is a legitimate term and the article should be kept. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Post Metal Boring?

Does this actually bring anything to the page? This is one reviewers opinion, and as far as i am concerned and my friends that like post-metal are concerned, live performances of post metal are certainly not boring. I do understand that this is just opinion, and surely citing a reviewer (12) cannot be justification for adding this. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.177.5 (talk • contribs)

You're right. I've removed that section, but I think it can be recreated when we find a more variety of sources about the nature of post-metal shows. –Pomte 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversion

These two sentenses seem to be in Controversion

• Isis' Panopticon (2004) is a prime example of post-metal
• Isis are often credited with laying down the conventions and definition of the genre in less nebulous terms, with their release of Oceanic in 2002

If Oceanic (2002) was already post-metal than Panopticon (2004) was not prime --A4 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ufomammut

I dont think Ufomammut should be in that list, it's straight up stoner doom not post-metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.249.161 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic origins

Ok, the "stylistic origins" box is out of control.
Let's pare it down to the sources discussed in the article. So Aaron Turner says the prime forebears are Flying Luttenbachers, Melvins, Godflesh, and Neurosis. Flying Luttenbachers are a punk jazz group, Melvins and Neurosis are sludge metal groups, and Godflesh is an industrial metal group. Actually, Godflesh could also be considered sludge, so let's just cut it down to punk jazz and sludge. I guess we're considering Helmet to be post-metal, and they're a noise rock group, so that gets added. If Tool counts, they always cite King Crimson, so we'll add progressive rock. Seems to me like this is enough. If we're going to add some other stylistic origin, I think some source or argument should be presented. Shoegazing should be added, too, given the prevalence of the "metalgaze" label. Aryder779 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Isis Panopticon.jpg

The image Image:Isis Panopticon.jpg 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. --04:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thy Catafalque and Lento

These sources for Thy Catafalque and Lento, are they reliable? --LordNecronus (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

List

I really think the list should be kept to 10 bands, as this is a genre article, not a list article. It really doesn't need to include every band that anyone has ever called "post-metal", just a few of the most notable examples. If anyone feels that there should be a complete list, a separate list should be constructed. As of now, I have only removed bands that did not have a reference from the list, because I didn't want to impose my own subjective view of the genre. The bands that I think should make up the list:

• Isis
• Neurosis
• Pelican
• Cult of Luna

These top 4 are easily the most often cited members of the genre, and should all definitely be on the list.

• Rosetta
• Minsk
• The Ocean Collective
• Mouth of the Architect

Aside from those 8, perhaps Godflesh or Intronaut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H2ostra (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, the list should stay as it is (with sourced additions, of course). If it gets too big, then we can create a List of post-metal bands article and move the bands there. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Presence of Tool in article

I'm not sure Tool counts as post-metal, despite the apparent labeling of the band as such. Rather, my interpretation of the sources is that they mean to describe something that comes after metal, and while post-metal may hold similar meaning -- turning away from convention, particularly -- I'm not convinced that's what Tool is doing. The term is being used differently than is meant when we discuss the genre-term. Thoughts? – moonty (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)