Jump to content

Talk:Death metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 156.34.222.96 (talk) at 22:21, 10 March 2006 (Images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Necrovore and others

There's no mention of Necrovore, Deathstrike or Terminal Death on the "Early History" page. This should be rectified.

Deathstrike, and other bands featuring Paul Speckman, had no influence on the genre whatsoever. Speckman's repeated assertions that he is the father of death metal are products of his ego alone and recognized by no critics and very few fans.

The extent of Deathstrike and Master's influence is debatable, but they should be at least mentioned as one of the earliest bands in the genre.

Suggestions

We look at death metal as an artistic movement.

We start with its origins in hardcore and heavy metal, but point out where it differed, musically: narrative form.

We recognize that death metal is not a subgenre of heavy metal, but is substantially musically different, where heavy metal is a subgenre of rock.

Let's see what others think about those. www.anus.com 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at http://www.milius-web.de/sampler/death-metal.php as being a 1984 use of the term Death Metal, should this be used as an early use/coining of the term??

There is qualified information out there

If people stopped calling our web page "sub-par," the ANUS crew - who've been writing about death metal for over a decade - would be glad to fix this article.

For the record, I think ALL subgenres of death metal should be placed on this page. These are aesthetic variations without significant artistic or musical differentiation. And, drop NSBM. It's not a genre. It's a political tag, and the sooner people quit getting their panties in a knot over it, the sooner the kiddeez involved will realize the music is shit and bail out. 67.10.73.69 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"All IMHO" <-- the only NPOV possible

Bolt Thrower in key artists

Someone explain to me how this band is crucial to death metal or influential at all.156.34.212.21 01:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt Thrower's been around for a long time, and influenced many, but they and I both think they're grindcore. 67.10.73.69 19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BT were along with peers as Carcass and napalm death, the first bands to combine sheer brutality with with death / thrash metal and as such have influenced many other bands. BTW I don't see how any one can few them as grindcore anymore; their last 6 albums surely are pure death metal and have nothing to do with grind. Spearhead 12:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demilich

Demilich needs to be added to this page. Nespithe is one of the best death metal albums of all time, and this is objective fact. This page is too representative of the opinions of people who know nothing about real death metal and were listening to Hatebreed three months ago. I propose that only the opinions of enthusiasts of elite death metal albums such as Therion's Beyond Sanctorum and Demilich's Nespithe be reflected on this site. Worthless tripe like Behemoth, Cannibal Corpse and In Flames should never warrant a mention on a page that purports to be an encyclopedic article on death metal.

There is too little recognition for artists that stand out and produce something meaningful and too much of it for trends (some of which have marginal relations to death metal) and mediocre bands that best represent those trends.


Heheh, "objective fact." Nice oxymoron there. Anyway...

I can definitely respect Demilich's work. But as intelligent as the arrangements are, and as bad as their label screwed them over, that doesn't render their one album notable enough to be featured encrusted in diamonds in Wiki's death metal article. The fact you consider "worthless tripe" like Behemoth and In Flames to be trends, sadly, is proof of their worth when it comes to being mentioned as notable bands.

Here's a question; Do you think it's a happy coincidence that the death metal bands you consider to be "elite," are bands you just happen to be a fan of? Get over yourself, it's just music... 64.12.117.12 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I believe Demilich should be considered a main artist in the death metal genre, mainly because, along with Gorguts and Soulside Journey-Darkthrone, they influenced technical death metal, which is one of the bigger styles of death metal today. That really cannot be overlooked, Necrophagist and Gory Blister (to name but two), reek of riffs similar to those found on Nespithe. Just a thought guys...

Atheist

Spearhead, you cretin, how is Atheist NOT a key death metal band? How is their inclusion in the list vandalism?

Did you notice the comment? BTW if you prefer to call names... go to your fave weblog Spearhead 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You still didn't answer my question about Atheist, Dickhead. I don't give much of a shit about Wiggerpedia parlance but the comment said "rv", which I took to mean "reverted vandalism".

I don't think Atheist belongs in this category at all. They are a great band but not a death mental band. Having "growled" vocals isn't enough for the label.

I agree that Atheist should not be classed as death metal, their sound is far closer to some sort of jazzified thrash than death metal. Listen to "Elements," (the only album I immediately have on hand) it's certainly more like Exodus and Testament than any archetypal death metal sounding band; varying from Deicide, Nile to late era Carcass, or even the gothenburg stuff. I would show Cryptopsy as jazz-influenced (technical) death metal and keep Atheist to the thrash side.
Listen to Unquestionable Presence and you will find yourself wrong. Compare that with Sodom and Forbidden and you will find that there is barely anything "thrashy" about their sound on that album. If Nile and gothenburg are "archetypal" "death metal" to you, you might as well remove Possessed from the list too.
I'm afraid the only one I have to go on is Elements, but I'll take your and metal-archives.com's word for it, maybe "(early)" should be addended. To explain my use of the word "archetypal"; Nile I would say are archetypal for modern death metal, since other bands have started following their lead (Behemoth, for instance), and have certainly been referred to as "the saviours of death metal." Carcass are pretty obvious, and I did say "even gothenburg stuff" to imply a distinction between it and death/brutal death.

Dammit

Doom metal nagging.

Stop saying "Doom death metal." It's "Death/doom metal" as it is on the Doom Metal page and as it is on www.doom-metal.com and as it is on www.metal-archives.com. There's no such thing as "doom death metal" unless your band starts it. It's a doom metal genre anyways, not death metal.


What is Lamb of God doing in here? Growling vocals and loud guitars does not a death metal band make -- Dysfunktion 01:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) OK, after seeing some of Spearhead's edits, I'm going to go ahead and reverse some of them. If anyone wants to talk to me about it, go ahead -- Dysfunktion 01:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Yea, I've been trying to clean the list of bands there. Many of the bands listed were seemingly added by bands themselves for promotion or something as I have never heard of them at all or were not death metal. Also I removed Vader from the crucial band list as they have never added anything to death metal genre (except maybe triggered snare drums). Spearhead 19:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the Vader page, you'll see why it's notable. And God, someone stop adding Lamb of God. They are NOT death metal. -- Dysfunktion 14:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
exactly notable not crucial. Spearhead 19:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I guess I see your point. But seriously, whoever keeps adding Lamb of God, STOP. 16:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
complain to wikipedia about it and see who is editing in history. and yes i do agree lamb of god is no death metal. panasonicyouth99

EISREGEN IS NO DEATH METAL !

It would be really nice to include some sort of definitive information on the vocalization, or "growling," as this seems to be such a key feature to the music.

It's exactly what it sounds like. Deep growling vocals instead of sung ones -- Dysfunktion 02:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess what I meant is definitive information on the different types of growling, as there seem to be several distinct styles involved... it's reminiscent of the various styles of Tuvan throat singing.

What the hell is a "doom/death" hybrid? I know, I know. If you have to ask...

This is a decent article, but the picture choices are terrible. Celtic Frost are if anything early black metal, and while Entombed did release one death metal album, "Clandestine" wasn't it.

I'm going to add and remove some names on the band list, nothing controversial, just a bit of common sense.

(A "doom/death hybrid" would presumably be music containing features of death metal and doom metal. Or is that too easy?) Prawn


is Syllogism really a band? cannot find it on Amazon, cannot find it on the net, no country, is it an example of self-promotion?

also would take Coroner from the list - they are technical/jazzy thrash if anything, but sure not death - where are "low, growly vocals"?


How can you NOT call Clandestine a Death Metal album? I've always thought it superior to Left Hand Path. I thought the Celtic Frost picture was a bit odd, since the band wasn't mentioned. However, the influence of Celtic Frost and Hellhammer before that on Death Metal is undeniable. They were the first band to use death grunt vocals, and a lot of bands, like Obituary, borrowed heavily from their sound. True, they were one of the big influences on Black Metal too, but don't forget Death Metal.

To me, Clandestine was always a bit more hardcore punk and thrash than death metal. It doesn't even have blastbeats, does it?
Since when are blast beats are requirement for death metal? Many DM bands don't use them or have never even used them. And yeah Clandestine definitely is death metal. Any Entombed albums after that are argueable Spearhead 19:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How is death metal difficult to categorize? Fast and heavy music heavivly influenced by thrash metal with growl vocals? --Arm

Because that also describes genres that aren't Death Metal (to various extents), eg: Black Metal, Hardcore, Speedcore, Grindcore, etc. --Thedangerouskitchen 01:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

disturbing

if describing death metal as disturbing is POV (I have an extensive death metal collection, BTW) than what WOULD be a good way to point out that the vast majority of lyrics, if read and understood, would cause an average person to be disturbed? This clear tendancy toward the diabolical, deviant, abnormal, shocking and otherwise bothersome to grandma is an important fact to mention. I would like to hear an alternate suggestion. Are you a death metal afficionado yourself, snowspin? I'd reccomend having a glance at [1]. Sam [Spade] 03:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have a small death metal collection. I think that, in this case, the situation is similar in methodology, if not scale, to Adolf Hitler and the classic example from NPOV - describe the lyrics, trust the people to say, "Hey. That's disturbing." Snowspinner 03:59, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a meta-issue. There are two basic questions, in my eyes. #1. Does any reasonable person disagree? (you may not see this as being of any import, but I might). #2. Is this relevent/needed? I would say that on AH, the repetition was not needed, and that here there is practically no content describing what these fellows care to sing about. I'll do my best to remedy this. Sam [Spade] 04:07, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved. Good edit. Snowspinner 04:12, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who can add some information with regards to some of the other subgenres of death metal? I was looking in particular for descriptive text of florida death metal vs NY DM - Is there a distinct difference? Gothenburg and general scandinavian DM is easy enough to find out (or hear, for that matter), and in fact is linked already. Though you might want to add in a link to the (non-existent) New Wave of Swedish Death Metal. wgm

Napalm Death

I think Napalm Death really deserves mention alongside the bands listed. The band Death didn't originate death metal just because they were called Death. The Napalm Death entry in the Wikipedia states that Napalm Death is "grindcore" which I agree is appropriate in today's terms for their very early work and some relapses (although Bill Steer called their grindcore period "death metal" at the time) but Harmony Corruption from 1990 I would definitely classify as death metal, after Jesse Pintado appears as a songwriter in the band. An early sign of their co-existence with the Florida school is the Terrorizer album, that was co-authored by Jesse Pintado and David Vincent from Morbid Angel. So let's take Morbid Angel as an example, that is listed as a typical original death metal band in the entry.

Their "Altars of Madness", just like the early stuff by the band called Death, is fairly unsophisticated and derivative from earlier bands like the Californian band Possessed's "Seven Churches" from 1985. Anyone can have their definition of death metal, but in my opinion a good point of separation between Possessed-like growling and modern, more well-executed, death metal happened in 1990 and 1991 and was a concerted effort between Britain and Florida. Blessed Are the Sick (1991) is Morbid Angel's most classic and influential album containing music of this kind, and it came after the work by Vincent and Pintado in 1989, and the Napalm Death stuff with Embury in 1990. If you think Death originated death metal, Possessed really should be mentioned alongside with them, but then you have to separate off Morbid Angel and Napalm Death's post-1989 stuff as "modern" or "more technical" death metal, along with Death's "Human" from 1991 (that, again, came after "Harmony Corruption").

I didn't attempt to edit the entry yet since I was wondering if people really disagree with me or if the entry was just very unfinished.

128.111.16.181 20:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

People probably do disagree with you, and the entry is very unfinished. The wiki way tends to produce some crappy articles until someone like you comes along that can tie everything together... The current article was basically written by a badly-organized committee. Many of wiki's articles on death metal and other metal subgenres are very subpar. Go ahead and be bold! Tuf-Kat 02:48, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
I tried! Probably all kinds of fans (especially Cannibal Corpse ones) will kill it, but wrongly so ;) Marcus B 22:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While I agree that Napalm Death's output after From Enslavement... was Death Metal, they weren't really innovative contributors to the genre by the time these albums were released. That's not to say that they should be removed from the article, but bands such as Repulsion (often lumped into grindcore when they were an equally important influence on death metal) aren't even mentioned. OnwardToGolgotha 03:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Napalm Death is grindcore. 67.10.73.69 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that black metal is closely related to death metal?? All black metal music are minimalistic and very limited in way compared to death metal.

There is somekind of relation betveen them but not close. Venom is a example. Its more black metal but has many kinds of parts from death metal.
Except that Venom is much older than modern death metal and musically isn't even related to black metal -- Dysfunktion 20:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early scene

I was thinking of adding a genre box for this page, but I'm not exactly sure about the early (mid 1980s) death metal scene. I was thinking Florida (Death, Morbid Angel...) and South America (Sepultura, Sarcofago...). How does this sound?

Children of Bodom

I saw Children of Bodom on the list, would you really consider them Death Metal? I think they are more Power metal with growling vocals as they probably are.

They growl. These groupings are far from scientific, maybe some day a technique for precise musical diagnosis will be developed, until then catagories are vague. Sam Spade 01:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is are they a notable example of death metal? Methinks not Spearhead 22:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I got to know death metal through them, so yeah, they must have some influence. However, I have no intention of getting into this "who is death metal" debate. These lists are utterly pointless. The creators of the genre should be listed and that's it, since genre is completely subjective. Who can define with authority to what style precisely a band belongs? Very few bands on the list can't be questioned in some manner. The article should be improved intead of reverted to death. --Sn0wflake 01:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please remove the "key artists" list

Don't make it "most popular artists"; reserve it for artistic notables. Children of Bodom had nothing to do with the creation of the genre. "No two people" may agree on the list but it's useful to give listeners a start. I would limit it to ten bands, and do it historically by development of genre. Sodom, Celtic Frost, Bathory, Massacra, Sepultura, Morbid Angel, Deicide, Immolation and Suffocation. 67.10.73.69 19:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great effort here, for the most part. I'd really like to see this article contain only the overview, the history, and definitions/examples of the subgenres; and scrap the "key artists" list. No two people are going to agree on which bands deserve inclusion on the list, and IMHO it really weakens the article to present something so obviously subjective under the pretense of being definitive. - Murphy S., metal listener for 20+ years

  • Note there are two lists: key artists and List of notable death metal bands. The former is actually quite stable. The latter is not - some ppl keep adding irrelevant bands to that list (maybe a good idea to require registration for editting anyway) and other remove them again (notably Lamb of god) - but basic list is also quite stable. Anyway, most of the article could use some work, mostly the post 1990 section. Spearhead 15:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very reasonable and argumentative of you. Instead of exposing your point of view, you state that you are going to start an edit war in case things don't go your way. How about argumenting like Spearhead?
To make this clear: I AM IN FAVOR of the Key artistist section. What I am AGAINST is the List of notable DMB' --Sn0wflake 18:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

List of notable death metal bands, which can be included in the see also section. I don't want these lists deleted because they are extremely useful to me as a reader. Before editing on the wikipedia I was a reader for a couple of years, and I (and other readers I know) use these lists for a source of bands to look into. If its becoming to much of the article it needs to be moved to list page. Sam Spade 19:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. I concur --Sn0wflake 19:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I object. It doesn't solve the problem. I think the keyword here is 'notable' which is rather personal. Second, it is superfluous as List of heavy metal musicians covers it.

OK, I've done my best to address the above concerns, what say you now? Sam Spade 20:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seems fair.... tho it seems that List of heavy metal musicians is a bit obsolete anyway... So my proposal would be for that list to be make it into a list of heavy metal subgenres or so pointing to lists of each genre. What do you say? Spearhead 21:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly. Be bold! Both sound like good ideas. I'll look into it. Sam Spade 22:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stop filling the list of key artists

Keep this list clean. The list is fairly complete as it was, altho there are some bands overlooked. The list of Death Metal bands is for listing death metal bands as it says. Spearhead 19:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lamb of God

Why isn't Lamb of God Death metal? Sam Spade 19:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see article --> Lamb Of God is a five-piece progressive thrash metal band from Richmond, Virginia, US. Not that I have ever listened to them tho...

anyway, not wanting to discuss what style it is precisely, LoG don't appear to be very notable in the first place... that goes for some other bands on the list as well. anyway the lists seems to have gone now anyway... Spearhead 20:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the subtleties of music genre and article notability are a never ending debate. Any idea what genre hank III is, btw? Does his self chosen "hellbilly" count? ;) Sam Spade 22:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Lamb of God, and they are not death metal. Metalcore and death metal are both fast and have growling vocals, but they're not the same (hell, Killswitch Engage's singer had deeper vocals but they're not death metal). I don't claim to know much about metalcore, but I do know death metal. Lamb of God has a different rhythm than death metal (Lamb of God is kind of "spastic" or "chunky" sometimes, and most death metal has a steady flowing rhythm like Deicide and Malevolent Creation, although it's not always as strong), and breakdowns, which from what I've heard are a staple of metalcore and hardcore. Lamb of God would make a good death metal band, but strictly speaking, they're not metal.


Sub Genres and the possible addtion of technical musical details

I think the entry was well written. However i found that in the sub-genre section there was no mention of florida or new york death metal so i have added them. i believe at a minimum and entry on death metal does have to include something about florida especially if it mentions sweden. i also mention carcass's role in gore grind and added exhumed and impaled as they typify gore grind i believe. also i am not sure of slam death metal. i have never heard the term but it may be similar to new york death metal and they could be merged if this is tru. also i have added death thrash. i am not sure if what i wrote is entirely correct so i would like feedback.

also i was looking at the anus.com and it has a lot of detailed facts about the music and vocals. it has been written with a lot of technical details about music theory and more. it classifies the different song structures of the genres, different vocal styles, etc. someone here as asked about including the info on the various vocal styles. is this appropriate here? i would like an opinion.

i agree with most of this entry. i found the clarification of the early roots useful. also i believe something should be said about this: although death metal in definition must have grunted vocals and blast beats this is not always tru as some Entombed albums like clandestine do not have blast beats but they are death metal no less. (of course the newer death 'n' roll cds by them are NOT death metal.) there may even be examples of death metal without grunted vocals i do not know of. so this criteria should not be rigid but a generalized basis. more should be elaborated on the attitude and philosophy and maybe a classification of the lyrical styles would shed more light for example the 4 main types of lyrics: satanic/religious (some pro-christian bands r DM), gory/medical (carcass), philosophical (death) and socio/political (napalm death.) i didnt want to change too much as i am nu here. but i felt that mention of florida was important. also i feel scot burns should be mentioned as the premier producer and those 2 famous studios (one in sweden, one in florida.) also the links to the various labels would be good and i could do it if you guys agree. and there is no mention of noise core as some bands do incoporate influences from death metal. i do know it is not death metal and even more distant than grind core.

also i believe lamb of god is NOT DM. it is thrash. i feel the latest testament album sounds more like death metal than LoG. it does have the growls sometimes but otherwise it is thrash. slayer stylistically is closer to death metal. even old sepultura can be said to be death metal. but not LoG. but i dont think LoG is metalcore like killswitch engage.

ADDITION:

is cannibal corpse considered new york death metal? they r not from new york, nor are they similar to the new york sound. only thing is they have that chugging rythm but other than that i would say they r florida DM.

RE: TECHNICAL DEATH METAL: The list of technical death metal bands should include Martyr from Canada who are as technical as Theory in Practice and are also directly influenced by Cynic, Athiest and later Death. Martyr's insanely technical musical output should be noted (their guitarist even played on a Gorguts album and they are much less technical, yet mentioned with the others).

ok by me (not willing to discuss which band is more technical) Spearhead 5 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

Definitely merge the Florida and Brutal Death metal entries with this one. One is a region and the other is a qualitative descriptor. Even though so many bands from Florida sound the same, they should not be considered apart from death metal as a whole. Better still, there should be sections in here about Swedish death metal (Entombed, Unleashed, Dismember, Grave, et al) because they have a distinctive sound. A Quebec death metal section would be nice too though so many bands from there have gone from copying the Florida sound to a more European sound and then back again over the years that it's hard to pin down any trends except for a lack of originality. (Cryptopsy is the only exception to the foregoing.)

Merger with melodeath?

Am I the only one who thinks it's a mediocre idea to merge Melodic death metal into this article? --Sn0wflake 15:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I'm pretty neutral myself in this case. But in general there are too many nonsense metal subsubgenre articles on WP - so it's a good idea that people propose to clean that up. Spearhead 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quite firm distiction between the 1990s Gothenburg (melodeath) scene and the rest of death metal. In essence, the styles are very different, especially if you use early In Flames for comparision. --Sn0wflake 17:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
many of bands on the list that I know, I would consider rather straight death metal bands: Arch Enemy, * At The Gates, * Callenish Circle, * Carcass, * Dark Tranquillity, * Edge of Sanity, * Entombed, * Hypocrisy, * In Flames, * Unanimated. Many of these bands are only a small step away from like Carnage, Dismember, Grave, Merciless. And sentenced isn't even mentioned, as North From Here is probably the first gothenburg style dm. The same train of thought actually goes for Brutal death metal as well. And many more metal pseudo genres: Celtic Metal, Pagan Metal, Punk Metal, Tech Metal, NSBM, ... Then again I'd give melodeath the benefit of the doubt. Spearhead 18:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming the article is any good, but it does seem to deserve its own entry. I have to disagree with some of the examples you cite, especially Arch Enemy and At the Gates, but we don't have to agree with everything. As for brutal, I do have my doubts, but a few bands of that subgenre do set themselves apart from classic death metal. --Sn0wflake 20:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, although I think the article title should be changed from "Scandinavian Death Metal" to either "Gothenburg" or "Melodic Death Metal". "Scandinavian Death Metal" makes it sound like it should be merged; it's a misrepresentation of the distinction.

Then again, I'm also one of those people who'd like to sort articles effectively and efficiently. We could just put it as a subsection in death metal, as a distinction (although given the trend in Wikipedia to as many different article pages as possible...)--24.126.30.46 06:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arch enemy

Why aren't arch enmy on this list of death metal bands? Cos they are. and mastodon, I though they sounded like death metal. And venom aren't black metal? they started the whole black metal genre you tool.

venom was classified death at the time. as for arch enemy, it is more melodic death metal and they haven't had a greater affect on death metal as the others. lastly mastodon, they are not death metal, they are more like sludge metal though it is hard to put them in a category since they have grind, death, jazz and hardcore in them with melodic instrumentals. panasonicyouth99

As panasonic said, Arch Enemy is melodeath. Mastodon is ranked somewhere around sludge metal or noisecore, but they're -definitely- not death. Oh, and about Venom. Without Venom, black metal wouldn't have sprung up... Then again, without Slayer or Metallica, death metal probably wouldn't exist either. That doesn't mean either band is death.
Logic is fun, tool.
Venom were Death Metal (to some extent - I mean, they are much more like Death or Possessed than Immortal - that's how I see it) - although their album/song "Black Metal" sparked off a whole new "subgenre" of Death Metal which ended up becoming the perverse monstrosity known today as "Black Metal". I would NEVER think of calling Arch Enemy proper Death Metal - even though the heavy riffs and Cookie Monster Vocals are there, they are hardly as brain-splittingly blast-beatingly good as bands like Decapitated, Cannibal Corpse, etc. thedragon5000

Overhaul

I did a major overhaul of this article, as there is a lot of redundancy, poor wording, inaccuracies, not to mention an intense amount of biased POV towards the band Death. I also scrapped the entire 'sub-genre' list as the genre classifications serve no purpose other than name dropping and making death metal more complicated than it actually seems, not to mention many of them are inane. An entirely new paragraph is needed for post 90s death metal. We don't need sub-sub genres of metal, people. We want quality, not quantity. kultron

What should not be linked to

  1. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See

External link spamming.

(Opes 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"Cookie monster" edit war

Hi. Please do not edit war. Further, both parties, User:Deathrocker and User:156.34.234.101 should refrain from calling each others' edits "vandalism" or "trolling". This is clearly a content dispute. It should also be an easy one to solve. User:Deathrocker, the unreferenced assertion " due to the nature of the vocals detractors of the movement often label this style “Cookie monster metal”. " should be removed until it is properly referenced, as it is a disputed fact. When you find a reference for it, it should be in the article as "Prominent music critic John Doe describes the style as "Cookie monster metal"[reference]". "Detractors of the movement" is a broad generalization that we should avoid (see WP:AWT for more about this). Going forward, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and use article discussion pages when there is a dispute. Thanks. Jkelly 17:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do a search on Google for Cookie monster Death metal, it is undeniable that a significant amount of people refer to it as so, regarding the vocals, that is why it is stated purely as a term used by detractors and not fans of the movement. To not include it would be bias. - Deathrocker 02:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deathrocker, I appreciate that you are right, insofar as not having any criticism of the genre would violate our Neutral Point Of View policy. However, saying "Google for it" when someone asks for a reference from a reliable source isn't ideal. When we contribute to Wikipedia, we are expected to cite all of sources, and the burden is not upon other editors to track down the references. The correct thing to do, oultined at Wikipedia:Citing sources is to cut the disputed material to the Talk page until it is verified, which is what I am going to do. Jkelly 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of the vocals detractors of the movement often label this style “Cookie monster metal”.

And this link is to a Google search on "Death metal" and "Cookie monster". I would like one of our experts here to review some of those links and identify those that are the most reliable sources in the field. Thanks. Jkelly 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "not reliable"?? There is clear evidence that detractors of the movement, refer to it as "cookie monster" metal, it is senseless to leave it out espeiclaly when you have evidence of it right infront of you and considering the other party in this argument, can't be bothered to show up here to atleast debate otherwise.

A few examples:

http://rocknerd.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/15/1626209 http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=50398 http://heavymetal.about.com/od/glossary/g/gl_cookiemonste.htm http://www.metalstorm.ee/articles/article.php?id=18 - Deathrocker 02:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the sentence to avoid generalizing and added a footnote for proper referencing. I trust that User:156.34.234.101 will be satisfied that this characterization is now well-sourced and belongs in the article. Jkelly 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Metal in the LGBT

Could someone please provide a source for this statement: "It is of no suprise that death metal is a mainstay in the gay and lesbian community. With the rise of AIDS and other deadly sexually transmitted diseases, alot of these people are turing to death metal as an outlet." - I have never once heard of this, until seeing it here in this article. This statment sounds VERY POV to me, the classic AIDS=gay sterotype. Avador 20:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of history section

I wrote much of the original history text here quite a while ago, and partially it has been improved upon since then, but mostly it got worse, so let me comment upon the new changes/repristinations I made.

1.Influences Deleted calling Venom an "early" heavy metal band, as far as that genre is concerned they were pretty late, and it already said "metal" in the previous part of the sentence. Deleted "It has been said that Slayer's early music, most notably Reign In Blood and Hell Awaits are hugely influential." Any particular band that said this? Why these particular albums, and why list them in anti-chronological order? I rewrote it, but I do agree that it fair to mention one early thrash metal band in the history part, and Slayer seems like one of the most aggressive representatives.

2. Venom/growling "... as genres are not usually identified solely by aesthetic form." I was making a point that growling cannot be the only identifying factor of death metal. What does esthetic form have to do with this? Since I couldn't exclude that there was some thought behind this, I didn't delete it in case someone wants to defend it.

3. Special preferences/bias

a) I don't think the band Master ranks in influence with bands such as Possessed or Death, but I left it there for now to see if someone wants to argue.

b) I don't think Suffocation was nearly as big a deal in the merging/creation that went on in 1991 as any of the other bands I listed, in particular Suffocation *debuted* in 1991 and the other bands were older bands that were moving into new territory. Unfortunately I don't have that album here so I can't remind myself of how it relates to the other ones right now. But noone can try to motivate that they would be the "most plagiarized band" in the field. Also that person had put "Effigy" as their debut album, which seems incorrect to me.

4. Early vs. modern As I had anticipated, some from the "early death metal" group of fans/historians started putting Chuck Schuldiner right in the middle of the discussion, making a reference to the Human album, even though the "early" part of the discussion was clearly marked as pertaining to 1983-1987. "Human" should appear exactly where it appeared chronologically, *after* the discussion around Harmony Corruption in 1990. If you want to change the statements about Death in the early period 1983-1987, feel free, but you cannot use the as yet untranspired events around Human in doing so. I have tried to make the discussion fair to what I have the impression are the two main views of when death metal was created: very roughly speaking, the "1985" view and the "1990" view. I think the only way to get peope to agree on this is to clearly state who recorded what and when, and only put in one or two comments to the effect of "this is when someting new was created" without claiming authority on when death metal was *really* created.

Effigy of the Forgotten is Suffocation's debut album. They released an EP prior to this.

Musikbands

I have seen that some bands (AfD results for Brutality (band) or Demilich (band)) were deleted, because anybody who don´t know anything about death metal believes these band or another is not important. I don´t know the criterias for bands in the english WP, because I´m a user from the german WP and there is enough to do! So everybody who cares have a look to the list of death metal bands and discuss when anybody will delete a band.--DanielMrakic 15:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible. It really goes to show what a shithole of ignorance wikipedia is. Their criteria for "notability" is measured in how many results google returns. Absolutely idiotic and appalling.
Demilich (band) is Back!--DanielMrakic 11:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded deletion

Who the fuck keeps deleting metal articles? I can understand cleaning up bullshit genres such as "battle metal" and "troll metal", but why do people with no understanding of metal have to start meddling in useful and informative articles? Aside from the deletion of the pages of two important bands, I noticed that a lot of the links on the page, such as the one to "Slam death metal", simply redirect back to the death metal page, presumably because the original article was deleted.

As a precautionary measure I advise that all metal articles from now on carry some kind of tag near the bottom telling inexperienced users or moderators with marginal knowledge of the subject at hand to fuck off and do something productive rather than get some perverse fix out of deleting the most articles per day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.219.173 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:MUSIC for inclusion criteria and also Wikipedia:Civility if you would like to contribute to the discussion. Jkelly 05:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This are the important criterias for an edit of DM-Bands:

For performers outside of mass media traditions:

  • Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.
  • Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
  • Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
  • Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.
  • Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

--DanielMrakic 10:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Chasm

I add The Chasm into the list of notable DM bands. In hindsight this is probably not a good move considering no matter of how much quality their work is they are still relatively unknown. Feel free to delete I guess.

--Lone Isle 13:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

There used to be some images of album covers on this article. Why were they removed? I think images should be added to the page, both of album covers, bands and live performances.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_metal&oldid=43203471"