Talk:Doom metal

Archives
June 2003 - January 2010

No Extreme Metal

Doom Metal is not a form of Extreme Metal. It is often very close to traditional Heavy Metal and differs very much from Extreme Metal forms like Thrash, Death or Black Metal. Of course there are crossover forms between those genres and Doom Metal, but that is a different story. --79.201.111.173 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Doom Metal is not a form of Heavy Metal anymore

The article presents Doom Metal the genre as being the Black Sabbath/St. Vitus/Candlemass style and treats everything else as a derivative sub genre. This is misleading because the vast majority of Doom Metal today is of the Death/Doom variety, and that defines the sound of the genre more than anything else. The article should make a distinction between Doom Metal characteristics (slowness, long songs, crushing/depressive mood), and the various incarnations along the years. The Heavy Metal derived version was a sort of 1st wave. Death Doom is arguably the second wave. --EpsilonVector (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)EpsilonVector

"Doom/death" is not even doom metal nor it's 2nd wave. It's mostly slowed down death metal with very little to no connection to doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.176.97 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Death Doom could be included in the article as a subgenre of doom metal.

Anathema, My Dying Bride and Paradise Lost were important bands in the development of this subgenre in the early 1990s.

Whether Death Doom/ Doom Death is or is not a subgenre of Doom Metal could be as well mentioned in the article.

All bands and styles are bridges that link musical genres, thus it is almost impossible to have a consensus on whether some bands or styles are part of a musical genre. But that doesn't mean that those bands or styles should go unmentioned. Inesbc2001 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

But Death/doom is already cited on this artcle. ABC paulista (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrupted

Can someone explain to me the connection between Corrupted and the Funeral Doom subgenre ? Should it be in Sludge instead ? The band's article doesnMt even mention funeral tendencies. zubrowka74 18:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Regional

Shouldn't someone add at least a short bit about the Maryland/DC Doom scene? It has been a big influence on a lot of bands, and does have its own sound and attitude. Bands like The Obsessed, Wretched, Iron Man, Internal Void, and Revelation sound very different than bands like Reverend Bizarre, Candlemass, Down, and Eyehategod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.167.13 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources supporting the existance of this regional scene, feel free to add it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

While I can't find any sources of my own, the "Music of Maryland" page here on Wikipedia has a paragraph about the Maryland/DC doom scene under the Popular Music section of the page. Someone already posted the information, as well as a source, but the site that was linked as the source must have been taken down. I don't know if that would still be considered applicable or not, though.

There's also quite a prevalent doom metal scene in the Pacific Northwest, in part due to a heavier evolution of grunge/sludge/stoner acts of the 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Traditional doom/epic doom

I recently removed the sections for traditional doom and epic doom, stating "Wholly original research. Neither of the two (weak) citations prove the existence of these genres". User:ABC paulista has re-added them, saying, "Aside from the OR, we have here some good sources. Let's try to find something before removing all. Besides, some sections are in worse condition than these". As per WP:BRD, I'd like it if we could discuss what to do with these sections. We both agree there is a lot of original research for these two sections, but it seems that we disagree with the citations. There are currently five sources between these two sections, so I'll go through each one.

The first does seem to imply that traditional doom has certain influences from 70s metal, while the second does not mention "traditional doom" anywhere in the article. It does, however, say that Reverend Bizarre is a "modern classic" in the genre, but it is original research to attribute the genre "traditional doom" to it. So, we really only have one citation for this section which uses the phrase "traditional English doom Metal". I don't think one single citation with a vague description of what traditional doom is qualifies as due WP:WEIGHT. Dedicating a whole section to what seems to be more of an adjectival description of doom rather than a subgenre of its own seems a bit weak.

The epic doom section now has three sources. While I'd say the same about the first source as I did about traditional doom, that a passing mention isn't WP:WEIGHTy enough, I'm willing to concede that the second source is much better, and perhaps justifies the existence of this subgenre. While I still have qualms that it probably isn't enough, I feel that we can at least improve the sourcing on this later. I do, however, have a problem with the third source, as it does not state the existence of this genre, but instead uses the word "epic" as adjectival description ("... combined massive riffs and dark melodies into songs of epic proportions"). I don't think that this is enough, especially as the Candlemass article, as well as the Epicus Doomicus Metallicus article only use the genre "doom metal" and not "epic doom". — Richard BB 07:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I kinda agree with you with the Traditional doom. Its section really lacks sources, but it's easy to find in the internet bands like Saint Vitus, Pentagram, Trouble, Pagan Altar, being labeled as traditonal doom bands. But, it suffers from the same problem of Old-School Death metal and Raw Black metal: Since they are the first, original forms of their own genres, their bands are often linked with the main genre, what make it harder to find reliable sources. Still, there is some sources out there.

Epic doom is harder to find sources because its status of subgenre is debatable. Some reviewers and authors treat Traditional doom and Epic doom as the same genre (similar with Hard Rock, which some people say that it's the same thing of Traditional heavy metal). Ironically, this section has more, and better sources.

Still, I'm more concerned about the characteristics section, which doesn't have any sources. It's a more important section, whith more OR and no verifiable info. Furthermore, there is a lack of sources on the Funeral doom section, and on the Stoner doom one too.

Besides, I found some interesting sources about the Maryland Doom metal scene, so I'm working on it now. ABC paulista (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed the sources you've added. Looking good so far; I'll see what I can find to add to it, but I expect there's not much readily available on the net. — Richard BB 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Beatles Song

The article wrote: The Beatles' 1969 song "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is sometimes considered to be the first ever work of doom rock/metal.

The reference to the Classic Rock Magazine is without any supporting text, and Allmusic refers to a part of the song about which is said: Also, this song may have inadvertently started doom metal. Sorry, this is to be taken with many grains of salt and does not figure as a reputable source for the claim. -- Zz (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to. We can only verify the first reference if someone has the magazine, or a digital version of it. The second one is a reputable and verifiable source, and it looks like that that statement was refering to the whole song. I think that that info is worth mentioning. ABC paulista (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the first reference, the burden of proof is on the contributor making the claim. As for the second reference, it is from a collection of songs claimed to be the heaviest before Black Sabbath, and they say the “heavy” part kicks in at the 4:37 mark, then builds and builds into something a twisted DJ would play as the pillars of the earth are tumbling down around him. Purple prose referring to a part of the song. Further they say (emphasis added): Also, this song may have inadvertently started doom metal. They do not say it is the first ever work of doom metal. The claim is clearly not supported as given. Weaseling words like the one in the article - considered by some - do not belong into the lead anyhow.

As for the list, it is made for entertainment, not for the purpose of researching Doom Metal. The purple prose and the wishi-washiness of the claim speaks for itself. The author can collect any kind of songs and describe them the way he feels like. For intance, they mistook a later version of Jacula piece (number seven on the list) for an earlier one, if that ever existed in the first place. They have been called on it. Still, the list is there without correction.

So, I suggest: move the claim from the lead to the body of the article, find better sources, and add a sentence or two. -- Zz (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand and respect now why you reverted my initial edit. I distinctly remember the Classic Rock article explicitly calling it the first Doom metal song. If I dig out my copy and find the exact quote, is this enough to justify the inclusion of the sentence? Shikari 123 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Let us say you dig up the reference (with a verbatim quote, if possible), and we move the section from the lead to the main article. Is it fine with you? -- Zz (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Still, there's another source giving the same description to the song, backing up the first source. So it may have some validity at all. ABC paulista (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

— It's totally irrelevant. We are talking here about underground heavy metal genre, mainstream magazines such Classic Rock shouldn't be considered as a valid source at all. And use some common sense: The Beatles weren't even a hard rock band, so they have nothing to do with doom metal. If few notes in minor scale or whatever PART of some song should be considered as "first doom" then we can include some classical music composers or medieval folk music here as "first doom". So what's the point in that? Please keep this article decent. I'm removing the line about The Beatles. Nothingagainst (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Printed media and magazine are considered the most valuable and reliable source here in Wikipedia, no matter what the subject. Wikipedia's goal is not to be true, but sourced and reliable, like every encyclopedia. And that's the case of this statement, that has more than a source.

And common sense has no value for wikipedia, especially in cases of sourced info. ABC paulista (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Guitar World source[1], I concur that the sourcing for this statement is weak; and inclusion in the lead section is WP:UNDUE. Per WP:ONUS, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I am removing the sentence from the lead, pending resolution here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

And what about the Classic Rock Magazine? It has no value? ABC paulista (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the comment by Zz above, the burden of proof is on the contributor making the claim. The Classic Rock reference is incomplete; and does not allow the reader to verify the information. The source was still, however, factored into the reasoning above: - One source, of unknown quality, does not provide sufficient support for inclusion of this claim in the lead section of the article. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

— Printed media is only valued over internet sources, but is reliable only when is related to the subject. The problem is that these articles provided here as a sources are not related to the subject. For GitarWorld article is already noticed that it's not genuine research of the doom metal genre, but a list made mainly for entertainment purposes and even about some different subject. Printed or not, but in reality it's just a vague opinion of one person, who's knowledge about doom metal could be questioned, because his article isn't research about doom metal. That being said, the article cannot be taken as a reliable source to support the claim. For Classic Rock magazine, we don't have any text presented to review it, so it cannot be taken as a source. As already suggested, the sentence about The Beatles should be at least removed from the lead section of the page, because there's not enough support. Nothingagainst (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Saying "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is just a couple of notes in a minor scale and doesn't make it root of doom metal clearly states they don't know what they are talking about, let alone heard the song. Also, a band that "isn't even hard rock" is totally ignorant of the fact that they DO have plenty of hard rock songs. Could a mod that actually knows their stuff come in and add the Beatles part back in?2602:306:8B83:4860:58D:190C:D4F2:3950 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Beatles as first?

I'D argue It's even older than that. Screamin' Jay Hawkins specially with I Put A Spell On You and Voodoo are primal earlier examples that show both Doom AND primitive Black Metal.Also how the opening riff from Iron Man (song) s not noted at the too under Black Sabbath is beyond comprehension. Lostinlodos (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any source? ABC paulista (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

— What's the point? Screamin' Jay Hawkins and The Beatles don't have anything in common even with hard rock, let alone doom metal. Nothingagainst (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Doom metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090508144856/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/rockdaily/index.php/2006/06/21/run-for-your-lives-blue-cheer-at-cbgbs/ to http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2006/06/21/run-for-your-lives-blue-cheer-at-cbgbs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)