Jump to content

Talk:Black metal/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Black metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-black metal

I think post-black metal should have it's own page. Blackgaze has it's own page which is great, so I think post-black metal should have a page too to provide context for genres like blackgaze. Currently, Post-Black metal and Post-Black Metal redirect to here in the stylistic section, and Post-black metal redirects to blackgaze. This should be distinguished, as it has plenty of coverage ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9], as well as others). I think black metal fans and people that don't know anything about black metal would appreciate this page. Thoughts? SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 23:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No objections, so I went ahead and created the page. Feel free to add to Post-black metal. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 01:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@SuperLuigi22 now that it has been added do you believe post-black metal should be a subgenre of Black Metal as it is a more experimental form of Black Metal or should it be added as a fusion genre as it fuses Black Metal with Post-metal? Dekai Averett (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dekai Averett: It should be a subgenre, as post-metal is just one of the many fusions that post-black metal can form into. It's not really a fusion genre because, similar to post-punk and post-hardcore, it can take on many forms with a black metal face. SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New Article Required for Black Metal

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

Blackened Melodic Death Metal is that covered, so that would mean it cannot have it’s own page. Everything is according to sources. Oh, and I looked, and I found nothing reliable talking about melodic black metal. ~SML • TP 22:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I doubt there would be enough sources and information to have a page just on melodic black/death, but it doesn't seem unlikely that there could be a blackened death metal page, which could have a large section on melodic black/death. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Politics

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

Sixty Minute Limit is referring to this edit. Instead of having one section on NSBM and another section on RABM, I think it would be better to have a 'Politics' section discussing politics in black metal generally. That way, we could deal with both of those ideologies as well as others which don't fit under those labels. I also think giving them each their own sections and headings gives them too much prominence. Both are tiny minorities in the scene—only a few dozen bands identify as NSBM and only a few identify as RABM—yet each have their own sections alongside Satanism. Furthermore, there are only a few useable sources which even mention RABM.
This is the kind of thing I suggest. Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Having the politics section may be helpful, but I think the subsections should be kept, because if you want to add another political philosophy, you can just add a new section (it doesn’t have to be that big). But you do need conscencus, so maybe you should wait a little while until someone agree with you, I imagine most will. ~SML • TP 01:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with Asarlaí on this one, since Black metal is way more known for its religious themes and imagery rather than the political ones. It's all about WP:WEIGHT, and thus its religous side must have proeminence over others. ABC paulista (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't say I didn't know that was going to happen, but since two win over one, then add it. With a politics section, there might be a subsection dedicated to DSBM. ~SML • TP 11:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

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

"RABM" is a newly-invented internet term, only a few bands seemingly identify with it, and only a few useable sources even mention it. "NSBM" has been around for a long time and has been discussed in lots of books and documentaries, but still it's only a tiny minority in black metal – altho it's a much bigger minority than "RABM". By giving them both their own headings we're giving them the same prominence as eachother (even tho one's much bigger than the other), and we're giving them the same prominence as Satanism. It'd also mean we'd have to add a heading for every other political ideology we mention. It's better to deal with them together under "Politics", along with other ideologies which don't fit those labels. The Table of Contents is much too long already. ~Asarlaí 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
1) Bands don’t necessaryly need to identify as such (e.g. Kreator identefies as “Hate Metal”, though we all know it’s nonsense). 2) They don’t give as much prominence as other section. Subsections are just fine for them. ~SML • TP 19:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Asarlaí: I disagree on the proeminence comparison between NSBM and RABM because both are part of the same subject, so it's not like that their importance is being measured and compared, but just a means to better organize the article and give them proper spot on the summary. And I strongly disagree on the proeminence comparison between both and Satanism since the latter is above both NSBM and RABM on the "summary hierarchy", lumped together with the Politics subsection and inside the Ideology section. ABC paulista (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there; I've not been around for a while, but WP:RS doesn't appear to have changed. Looking at that section, there are a number of sources that appear to fail WP:RS - Lords of Metal is a webzine, with no print content, and I'm not sure where to find the Pitchfork print content (I don't doubt Pitchfork's notability, merely its capacity to pass RS, which looks doubtful at first sight). There's then some interviews with bands describing themselves as "anarchists", but it's not describing the term RABM, making it WP:OR or contravening WP:NEO. £0.02. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Blackmetalbaz: The Lords of Metal can be removed, but I still wan’t to keep the RABM section. ~SML • TP 11:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Post-black metal

If it is an umbrella term, then it shouldn’t be listed a subgenre. They are not the same. ~SML • TP 18:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC) @ABC paulista: ~SML • TP 18:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

First, you don't need to ping me since I've already put this page on my watchlist for years.
Second, I don't see the problem with listing it, since Extreme metal is also listed as a subgenre despite being called a "loosely defined umbrella term".
Last, the source used for Post-black says that about the genre: the description is rather loose, applicable to bands new and old; a horde of artists who took the second wave of black metal’s conventions and broadened their horizons, evolving past the genre’s limiting conservatism.. And if we compare it with the definiton of Umbrella term (a word or phrase that covers a wide range of concepts belonging to a common category), we can see that the description that Louder Sound gave to post-Black is more akin to a umbrella term rather than a subgenre. ABC paulista (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Fine, change it. But I will remove post-black metal, from the list of genres section of the extreme metal page because it’s a umbrella term. ~SML • TP 19:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Like I said, Extreme metal is presented as a umbrella term, but stil is listed as a subgenre of Heavy metal music, so I don't see why Post-black cannot be treated the same way. ABC paulista (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
How about not having it’s own sound? Which is the same case for extreme metal. ~SML • TP 19:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Which further emphasizes my argument. If Extreme metal can be listed as an subgenre despite not having it's own sound structure, so do Post-black. And Post-metal. ABC paulista (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Extreme metal shouldn’t be listed, as well as with post-black metal. And post-metal is sourced as being just a subgenre of heavy metal music, not an umbrella term. ~SML • TP 19:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Kinda disagree, because all genres that spawn some subgenres become an umbrella term on some form and degree. ABC paulista (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Folk black metal

Pagan metal and Viking metal are subgenres of folk black metal, but they’re unsourced I think. ABC paulista, you may want to put a source there, because if it isn’t, it would fall under original reasearch. ~SML • TP 15:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Both have their own articles that have plenty of sources in them, so I think that they are well covered already. ABC paulista (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They’re unsourced as being subgenres of folk black metal.. ~SML • TP 15:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
The three are combinations of Black metal and Folk music by some degree, so it's important to lump them together somehow, just like Deathgrind, Goregrind and Pornogrind were joined in Death metal. ABC paulista (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But remember, that’s original research, I think. So if the sources don’t say something like “the folk black subgenre of pagan metal” or something else, it would be original reasearch. I’m going to leave them from now, but I suggest you look for atleast two or three sources saying that. ~SML • TP 15:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Reorganized it to remove some kind of hierarchy. ABC paulista (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They’re still different, Viking metal and pagan metal are different subgenres from folk black metal. It only talks about folk black metal there. It’s not at all hard to blend those paragraphs. In fact, I’m going to do it myself to see how it ends up. ~SML • TP 16:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that because, since they were joined on one section, the main reasoning should focus on their general and similar traits. Please, see the Deathgrind, goregrind and pornogrind section for reference, and how they are dsicussed together because of their similarities. Their own particular traits can be discussed in their own article, if needed. ABC paulista (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You also need to put citations saying that they’re as related they are. ~SML • TP 16:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no need to. All three have sources stating that they combine Black metal and Folk to some degreee and variation and on some occasiations they are used to describe the same stuff, so that should suffice. ABC paulista (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You’re putting those three subgenres as if they were the same thing. Please stop. If there’s no conscencus, then it needs to be like when I first added folk black metal. Oh, and I think that deathgrind, goregrind, and pornogrind need to be talked about by the characteristics that make them different. You can imagine someone reading about it for the first time, and that person would most likely think it’s the same thing.~SML • TP 19:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm joining them for the sake of WP:CONCISE, since the info stated on their own sections were very similar to each other and keeping that way WP:REDUNDANCY, but at the same time acknowledging that they're considered their own stuff at each other. You can cite what makes the distinction between them, but the focus should be on their general traits and similarities, otherwise the joint section would lose its purpose. ABC paulista (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
That’s what should be done, merging the paragraphs, but at the same time talking about what makes them different. It can go something like “X, Z, and A are subgenres of B wich combine elements of T. (X’s characteristics). (Z’s characteristics). (A’s characteristics). (Some other information if it’s wanted). ~SML • TP 19:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the focus should be almost all on their similar traits, with one or two lines stating how they're different. If they needed to be discussed separately, they shouldn't be joined (but the non-joined option would fall on WP:REDUNDANCY). Otherwise the subsection would be very convoluted and filled with info that is not pertinent to this article. When, joined, we should avoid discussing them separatedly more than the essential. ABC paulista (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
We’re practically saying the same the same thing. Saying that with only one sentence is good enough. “B, A, and Z” differ because (differences”). That’s good enough of a sentence. But treating them as if they were the same is bad for a first time reader. ~SML • TP 19:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So I went there and changed to see how it goes. I still think that the differentiation part could be trimmed even more. ABC paulista (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m going to do the same for death metal. ~SML • TP 19:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

kvlt redirect

kvlt redirects to black metal - that might be a good thing in itself, were it not for this page not mentioning kvlt anywhere. Dr. Azrael Tod (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Ambient black metal

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

Proof? ABC paulista (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The term 'ambient black metal' may cause confusion because some black metal bands and albums may feature an ambient song while being 'trve' black metal. Burzum's self-titled album is a good example; it comes with an ambient song(Channelling the Power of Souls into a New God), but the album is more of a raw black metal as a whole. Yamatograd (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Again, proof? ABC paulista (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
If you have some time, go listen to that album and one random atmospheric black metal album. People "do" get confused, especially for those who use English as their second language. Yamatograd (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yamatograd: Nothing of what you said does matter. I understand that you're new here, but as an editor you must know that every information shown here must be backed up by reliable sources, per the guidelines, and there is none citing that either Atmospheric black metal is more commonly used or that Ambient black metal causes misinterpretation. Also, you cannot say "go listen the album to perceive something" because every info generated by the editor's perceptions constitute as original research, which is against the rules since no user can be a source by itself and all info must come from third-parties. Also again, you should become familiar with the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy, because there is stated that a revert cannot be re-reverted, disagreements should be solved through discussion and no further changes to the subject should be made until consensus is reached. ABC paulista (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yamatograd:@ABC paulista: I found a book source that says ambient black metal is different from atmospheric black metal.[10]

@Sixty Minute Limit: The book's cover literally says that its editors are wikipedians and its layout is all copypasted from a wiki. You really should check the book's provenance before posting it here. ABC paulista (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://teamrock.com/feature/2016-11-30/the-10-essential-post-black-metal-albums
  2. ^ http://www.treblezine.com/10-essential-post-black-metal-albums/
  3. ^ http://arcticdrones.com/staff-picks/post-black-metal-bands/
  4. ^ http://www.angrymetalguy.com/tag/post-black-metal/
  5. ^ https://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=99226
  6. ^ https://rateyourmusic.com/list/Belphybear/what-is-post-black-metal-old-definition/
  7. ^ http://www.heavyblogisheavy.com/2016/11/10/promises-kept-how-oathbreaker-have-raised-the-bar-for-post-black-metal/
  8. ^ https://heathenharvest.org/category/music-reviews/metal/black-metal/post-black-metal/
  9. ^ http://www.deathmetal.org/tag/post-black-metal/
  10. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=wrYwmyXzwkAC&pg=PA127&dq=ambient+black+metal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjplq_HkNfdAhXL0FMKHcK7DZwQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=ambient%20black%20metal&f=false

Why even bother with this wikipedia for definition of genres, @Sixty Minute Limit:? Metal-archives is extremely more reliable than this nonsense, you won't find ambient black metal attached to Wolves in the Throne Room or Agalloch there, this page is just the interpretation of a couple of people. @ABC paulista: Ambient Black Metal is, get this, a fusion of Ambient music and Black Metal, nothing to do with WitTR or Agalloch. Try the album 'Wonder' by Lustre or 'Summer' by Nebula Orionis or even Basarabian Hills and so on. It's basically a sub-genre of Atmospheric Black Metal where the Synths/Keys are the prominent part of the genre. Like already mentioned that source you provided was lifted from an article written by Wikipedians where the bands used as an example aren't Ambient Black Metal. And I know you lifted the description for this Wikipedia page from the 'Atmospheric Black Metal' tag on Last.fm and re-labelled it 'Ambient Black Metal'. The two aren't interchangeable. Spacepd'h777 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

There is any reliable source to back up any of these claims? "Try the album" is not considered a reliable source. ABC paulista (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: There isn't going to be any 'hard' source on what constitutes the difference between many sub-genres (that includes others beyond the stub in discussion here), but the general overview/consensus is that, like I mentioned, is Atmospheric Black Metal prominently has underlying keys/synths providing atmosphere and Ambient Black Metal is a sub-genre within that where the synths/keys are more prominent feature within the style. You can't be relying on that link provided above since Xasthur are DSBM and correctly listed so on the Wiki page. Blut aus Nord have various styles including Avant-Garde/Black/Industrial and are listed in the Industrial Black Metal section. Nortt are Doom Metal and listed as such in the related section on this Wiki page. Summoning are Epic/Atmospheric Black Metal and are in no way Ambient BM, Leviathian are straight forward Black Metal with isolated ambient passages at times, Darkspace are Atmospheric BM with isolated ambient passages, Wolves in the Throne Room are straight forward Black Metal that incorporate various other elements that wouldn't define them as ambient (with exception of the Celistite album). Unsure on Velvet Cacoon and Abruptum, but the only real one you can make a case for being Ambient BM is Striborg. That's based on my listening experience and backed up by metal-archives.com which is as reliable as it's going to get when assigning genres since it's observered, monitored and edited by thousands of users on a daily basis. Spacepd'h777 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Spacepd'h777: First of all, that link wasn't provided by me, but by Sixty Minute Limit, and I was totally against the source since it was obvious that its content is a mere copypaste of previous versions of Wikipedia's articles, thus being completely unreliable. Also, well, you can say whatever you want about your opinions on bands, genres and related subjects, but in the end all of that doesn't matter, because wikipedia's user's opinions and "listening experience" have little to no value on here, since per WP:RS and WP:V all info must be source by credible and reputable sources, and no wikipedia's user can be considered a reliable source, me and you included. Finally, Metal-Archives is not a reliable source and can never be considered as such, since it is amateur, user-generated and in encyclopedic format, and per WP:RS and WP:TERTIARY having any of these characteristics imply in non-reliability. All sources must be, either generated by professionals/credible people in the subject, or written in peer-reviewed academic articles and must be secondary, critereas which Metal-Archives doesn't attend. ABC paulista (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: Well to be honest, I'm not gonna get involved I don't care about Wikipedia as a source on Black Metal anyway. Any old person can write an article on bands and label them any genre they feel like and they'll be used a source apparently, much like the ones used for WitTR and Agalloch under Ambient BM. But I guess you could always use their actual Wikipedia page as I'm sure it's well sourced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_in_the_Throne_Room
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agalloch
No Ambient Black Metal in sight. And like I've already pointed out, much of the description for Ambient BM was lifted from the Atmospheric BM page on Last.fm lol. Very credible. https://www.last.fm/tag/atmospheric+black+metal/wiki I'd actually rather it is left the way it is, it at least provides some comedic value amongst people into the style of music that I've seen mention this and further highlights how inaccurate wikipedia can be at times.Spacepd'h777 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Not again. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is user-generated, it also falls under WP:TERTIARY and fails both WP:RS and WP:V, that's why all souces must be third-parties and wikipedia cannot be used as source for itself. About Last.fm, both have this info for a long time, but if I'd guess I'd say that it was them who copied the info from here. But the info was written before I found both sites, so I don't know exactly. ABC paulista (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

make paragraph Conflicting tendencies; the importance of antichristianity versus political rightism

We can use Patrick Winston's text analyzing techniques and ask the views of blackster musicians and fans.

Most (not-all) black metal bands are antichristian.

A lot of black metal bands support the political right but less when compared to the percentage of those who support antichristianity. This according to their recorded opinions and lyrics. Also the level of connection to the right isn't as explicit; for example many band are very descriptive when they express antichristianity, and sometimes merely historical when describing Nazism. (Specifics do matter in the hierarchy of values. Also statistics is based on measurement; not in persuasion.)

Most right wing political parties and far right which have enough strength to be parliamentarily represented / elected are Christians.

Values are ordered hierarchically. Usually one value has to be compromised if we really have a superior goal (antichristianity).

Otherwise we boost the tendencies of the majority (Christianity).

Pagan and non-theist / Nietzschean far right groups do exist, but they don't attracte enough supporters ever to be elected, or even if they're elected to be part of a government.

Even the non-christian rightists, they boost the overall rightist movement. The general public doesn't see Christianity threatened by the far right, but from Muslim immigrants.

This is a major issue in black metal.

This: antichristianity vs Christian hypernymous political groupings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8266:AA00:1D2F:CD04:7DB:3621 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Saudi Arabian band Al-Namrood into the page.

This band has been around for quite some time and deserves a mention, they've been around since the early 2000's. https://shaytanproductions.com/al-namrood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7A86:A400:0:0:0:1226 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Any reliable source to back up its supposed notability? ABC paulista (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

National Anarchism

Putting peste noire as left-wing is not understanding what anarchism is; national anarchism is just right wing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.40.230.48 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

They're not put as left wing on this page, they're in a section that covers left wing bands and anarchist bands. Some bands are left and anarchists, some only fit into one or the other. National anarchism is still a form of anarchism so grouping them with anarchism seems best, however I think it would be better to separate their sentence from the rest of the paragraph as other than them it only covers left wing anarchists. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Peste Noire as self-described as National Socialist black metal and thus should be under that section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Claim that Corpse Paint goes back to KISS

The article stated: The use of corpse paint in the black metal imagery was mainly influenced by the American 1970s rock band Kiss.<ref name="Patterson, Dayal 2013. pp. 1-5"/> I would love to know why this source is considered to be reliable by Wikipedia standards. -- Zz (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't you present your reasoning first on why the info and/or source should be considered unreliable? ABC paulista (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The burden of proof was on you. It works this way: you are supposed to show why your source is reliable - WP:Source. Googling and taking what you find along the way on the Web is not how Wikipedia works. P.S.: Do not consider yourself to be the arbiter in a discussion you have not entered in the first place. -- Zz (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
You are the one questioning the sourced content, so per WP:BRD it's you who shoud bring up first why the problem is actually problematic in the first place. Also, the source wasn't brought here by me, is been here for a long time and is widely used on the article. All in all, I don't see what could be questioned about the source itself. ABC paulista (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason this is highly dubious is twofold: 1. For one there are interview statements by members of Mayhem saying that Dead invented corpsepaint because he wanted to look like he was dead/a corpse. The white paint represents a corpse's paleness, the black paint representing darkening of a corpse's eyes and lips (I think because blood collects there). This claim checks out by his pseudonym, the name 'corpsepaint', as well as the fact that he had a strong deathwish, leading to his suicide. 2. KISS is the antithesis of Black Metal. They are a very commercial rockband focused around love lyrics, whose musical style is very different from what the first wearers of corpsepaint played. Why would they have any influence on the scene? I highly doubt the source given at this point makes a convincing case for this; I expect it just says something like 'this kind of make-up goes back to KISS', meaning something similar was done before. Korn (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you have sources to support your first point? Subjective and personal definitions, like Dead's pseudonym and his mental health, does not serve as proof or evidence for such point, thus being WP:OR. The second point is even more subjective and circunstantial, playing with the idea that, because of the highly distinct musical styles, they couldn't take a very particlular imagery inspiration from a band. Textbook WP:POV. ABC paulista (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
They didn't take a very particular imagery inspiration from a band, original corpsepaint looks absolutely nothing like KISS. Besides, there's plenty of sources at corpse paint contradicting the claim, and it is not proved that the source actually supports the claim. Korn (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Go on then, present these sources. ABC paulista (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The sources given source the statement as written. You seem to be conflating corpse paint, a cultural expression of the black metal scene, with random monochrome stage make-up. If you want to make the claim that the make-up of KISS is or was considered to be corpse paint, burden of proof is on you. If you want to make the claim that KISS rather than Mayhem invented the concept of corpse paint, any reference to KISS wearing corpse paint would further have to predate Mayhem to prove it isn't a retrofit application of the term. Korn (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Korn, please don't edit war this on the main page. Let's resolve the discussion here first and achieve a consensus. I agree with Paulista in that the existing sources are what back up this claim. You would need to actively show that the source we have on the page isn't reliable in order to remove this claim. — Richard BB 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
To add onto this, no one is claiming that KISS invented corpse paint. The source states that the concept was influenced by them (which isn't contradicted in the source you provide). The link you provide also does not at any point claim that Dead invented corpse paint. In fact, I'd say that the interview indirectly backs the existing claim -- while it says that he's the first black metal musician to use it, it explicitly states that he wasn't the first person to use it overall. — Richard BB 16:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
What the hell are you reading? The exact line in Patterson, formatting original, exclamation marks added by me, is "The fact that so many bands have adopted an appearance similar to the demonically face-painted and blood-spitting Gene Simmons suggests (!!!) at least an underlying (!!!) influence, even if it's simply a trickle-down consequence (!!!) of eighties groups such as Mercyful Fate." Fore one that cannot used to source 'The use of corpse paint in the black metal imagery was mainly (!!!) influenced by the American 1970s rock band Kiss.' because, for for the umpteenth time, this isn't what the source says. Second, it's a passing thought by some random author -who underlines himself that this is his own conjecture- which is directly contradicted by the Mayhem (the originator of the concept) interview, which directly and literally tells you it was imitating a - as the name says - corpse. At no point does Hellhammer make any reference to KISS, or even Mercyful Fate. The quoted section further refers to corpse paint looking like Gene Simmons. While there are a few rare (!) exemptions which are at least somewhat similar to Gene Simmons, this is certainly not true for the original (80's era) corpse paint of Mayhem (original corpse paint of Dead, clearly showing an imitation of a corpse's blood trickle) nor for early adopters like Hellhammer or Sarcófago, who were not even using white make-up for most of the time and clearly imitate the same corpse blood trickles as Dead. At no point has any of you provided any source proving that any make-up prior to Dead is considered corpse paint, which you need to stop conflating with just any stage make-up; the origins of corpse paint as a part of black metal culture and the imitation of a corpse are clearly stated by Hellhammer in the interview. Of course all of these arguments are superfluous as the source by Patterson simply doesn't say what the section says. Consensus or not, Wikipedia is Not A Democracy, and a majority of 2:1 wanting to keep a line doesn't make it supported by a source. Further, nobody to this point has contested the section I added, with two sources, so I don't see why it keeps getting removed. The edit war is on your side in that regard. ps.: it explicitly states that he wasn't the first person to use it overall. (Quote Richard BB) isn't in the interview in any way shape or form, where are you taking that from?Korn (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the edit war isn't from us -- we're maintaining the status quo until the debate is resolved. Please see WP:3RR, which you're close to infringing on. Let's talk out the issue here and reach a consensus before we go any further, yeah? As Paulista said above, WP:BRD means we're now at the discussion phase, so let's just leave it at that -- I'd hate to have to go to WP:ANEW with this when we can just talk.

I take a lot of the points you're saying, particularly in regards to the Patterson book. I'd like to hear Paulista's response to this given he seems to have more familiarity with the source than I do (I don't own a copy of the book). However, in response to Dead not being the first to use it -- the interview states "He was one of the first to use make-up that soon became so popular among black metal musicians" (emphasis mine), while going on to say that he was the first to use it in black metal. Yes, there is a difference between corpse paint and monochrome make up -- but as I said above, no one is claiming KISS invented it, only influenced it. However, this draws me back to my original point that I'd prefer to see what Paulista says (I'm mostly intervening to prevent an edit war). One point in question is you saying nobody is contesting your sources, which isn't the point -- the point is that there is a dispute here which I'd like to see resolved lest we engage in edit warring. You've been bold in changing the source -- and thanks for that -- but Paulista has reverted it and moved onto the discussion stage, so let's achieve a consensus together. — Richard BB 09:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I'll yield to your insistent appeal to dialogue over fixing glaring source errors, but there's two points: 1. Removal of the claim that KISS is the main influence on corpse paint. While I maintain my personal opinion that KISS is not of any influence at all, at least this is actually claimed by the source. And if the source was quoted as written, with the article saying that a trickle down of influence from Kiss via King Diamond was possible, I wouldn't at all feel the need to remove it. What is however not in any way claimed by the source is that it is the main influence. I would even go as far as saying that the source as written is not even actually claiming that Kiss is an influence, just that it's possible ('suggests'). 2. The removal of my properly sourced copy-edit from the specific corpse paint article has strictly speaking nothing to do with point #1 and is completely unwarranted if the specific phrasing isn't properly contested. Now, if you insist on contesting it by claiming that the source only says that Dead wasn't the first to use corpse paint but only the first black metal musician to use corpse paint, then it's up to you to provide a source that corpse paint existed before black metal, as the burden of proof can't be shifted to prove a negative. We have a reliable primary source ascribing first usage of corpse paint -within black metal, strictly speaking, yes- to Dead. There is however no source for corpse paint being used before Dead, there is no source challenging Hellhammer's statement of origin. As you haven't positively made these statements, there is not even an editor making these claims. Burden of proof that Dead is not the inventor rests on these two positive statements, hitherto unprovided. I don't see why we should default to removing sourced information just because there's no source actively disproving every other imaginable claim; obviously that is not possible; and as long as that claim isn't made, it is not even asked for. This is the primary reason for my constant reversals. Korn (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks for agreeing to keep this on the talk page for now, I appreciate it. Secondly, I don't disagree with the majority of your points -- in particular the question of KISS being the main source, which I agree appears to be troublesome. In looking back over the past sources in your edit I can see the benefit in altering the details about corpse paint as you've suggested, as it seems you have access to the Patterson book (which I do not). My main hesitation is that User:ABC paulista seems to have a different interpretation of this same source, which is why I'm hoping he'll respond soon to the points you've made above (I think he should get a notification now that I've linked to his user page). Fortunately we're not in any rush to alter the page, whether it's right or wrong, as it's not libellous or time-sensitive, so hopefully he'll be able to reply in the next day or so. — Richard BB 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Korn, I agree with your point about rewriting the portion about Kiss to better match what the source state, but Dayal Patterson is an experienced writer who worked for many metal magazines, and his works about Black metal are considered as some of the most reputable works about the subgenre out there by many media outlets and specialized magazines, easily meeting the WP:RELIABILITY criteria, so he's not some random author. So, it can only be challenged if another equally verifiable source explicitally dismiss his statement.
However, I strongly disagree with your points about the interview. I do think that you're reading into it way too much and your interpretations over it are textbook examples of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. First, the statement that Dead was imitating a corpse doesn't exclude the possbility that the practice could have been inspired by similar practices with distinct objectives, so there are no conflicts here. Also, stating that Mayhem was the originator of the concept is contradicted by Hellhammer, who stated that He (Dead) had used corpse paint before MAYHEM in his previous band MORBID. Also, the fact that Hellhammer didn't cite other bands doesn't imply that there were no influences, since he was not even asked about corpse paint's origins and/or influences, apparently.
Finally, no one here stated that Kiss or other old bands used corpse paint, but you cannot affirm that Dead invented this practice or was the first one to do it based on the lack of sources stating otherwise, since the source you presented doesn't explicitally support your claim either. In fact, it even contradicts you a bit, since Hellhammer states that He (Dead) was one of the first to use make-up that soon became so popular among black metal musicians., not the first one like you claimed before.
And I go even further: Even if the contradictions that you claimed there are between the two sources, per WP:V the preference should be given for Patterson's book, since it is a WP:SECONDARY source and Hellhammer's, being an interview with and active player of this subject, would fall on WP:PRIMARY, which is of lesser WP:RS compared to the former. But as for now, you should practice more WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, at least for this matter.
Oh, and one more thing: Even if your phrase is reworked to porperly adress the subject, I don't think that putting it on Black metal#Roots subsection is desired, since that subsection was made to cite the ones that influenced Black metal's characteristics, and came before the genre was developed, which wasn't the case of Dead and/or Mayhem, that appeared when the genre was already well established. So I would put your content over Black metal#Second wave subsection, rather the former. ABC paulista (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
While I have argued various things in explaining certain points, I thereby seem to have, unintentionally and avoidably, caused confusion about what this is actually about, which is the reversal of the actual edits at hand, not my further views on their topics. The first edit being the removal of a sentence saying KISS was the main influence for corpsepaint. Since nobody seems to actually read the source thus, I've now even less of an idea why my removal was reverted. I'm still not convinced that 'suggests underlying trickle-down' merits a mention in this article, but it's a source, so I'm not gonna stop you from actually quoting it that KISS influence might be in some form a thing. (I'm of the opinion the mere mention that KISS has done something similar before suffices for that matter, though.) The second edit is a sentence saying that Dead (not Mayhem, which hence need not be argued against) was the first to use corpsepaint. If you want to qualify it with 'black metal musician' in order to stay with the wording of the source, be my guest. It's not like you even tried to add it and I reverted it. However, my edit wasn't qualified, it was removed. No argument has been brought forth as to why it should be removed rather than qualified. (I've no problem with moving it to 2nd wave.) Korn (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I've read the book, and thus I disagree with your point of view about the Kiss's paragraph. About your Dead's sentence, it was removed because, since it was part of the whole Kiss's situation, your edits including it violated the WP:BRD guidelines, with repeated changes on the article's text without waiting the discussion's conclusion and consensus reaching. ABC paulista (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
So just to be clear, you think that KISS is (not could be) the main (!) influence on corpse paint, and this is what the book says thus? Korn (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is irrelevant since I'm not a source, but Kiss was the only band that was explicitally cited on the book to be one of Dead's influence and is not part of the subgenre, coming before its creation. Necrobutcher does cite King Diamond and Alice Cooper, though, but only as bands that used paint in a similar manner of Kiss and corpse paint, not really claiming them to be influences. ABC paulista (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ambient black metal and atmospheric black metal

Agalloch and WITTR should be better mentioned in a new section for atmospheric black metal. Better examples for ambient black metal artists could be Darkspace, Paysage d'Hiver or the Filosofem album, which combine black metal with the monotony of (dark) ambient music. --217.239.8.69 (talk)

Can you point to WP:Reliable sources to support your suggestion? Music critics talking about ambient and atmospheric black metal and mentioning these bands? Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

NSBM artists are a small minority within the genre?

What do you mean by this there are many NSbm artists! I! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:554e:7801:9dde:b7f4:3b64:ae4b (talk • contribs)

But they're still a minority. — Czello 08:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

growling

growling in black metal is wiledy used [1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ O'Hagar, Sammy (November 8, 2012). "Von's Satanic Blood: Black Black Black Black No. 1". MetalSucks. Retrieved May 8, 2013.
  2. ^ Rivadavia, Eduardo. "( I.N.R.I. > Overview )". allmusic.com. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite web}}: External link in |work= (help)
  3. ^ Freeman, Channing (18 January 2013). "Album Review - Darkthrone: A Blaze in the Northern Sky". Sputnikmusic. Retrieved 22 January 2013.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Red and anarchist black metal into Black metal#Red and anarchist black metal

MERGE 'EM
Editors achieved unanimous consensus to merge. Editors note concerns with WP:OR and sourcing problems in the Red and anarchist black metal page; editors note that the merge should be done with particular attention to detail, so as to only merge material consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Content that is not adequately sourced or is based upon original research should not be incorporated into the merge target. An editor mentioned the potential for salting the Red and anarchist black metal page, though it it is not clear that there is a consensus to do so among editors as a whole. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The standalone article has severe sourcing issues. Apart from a few sources that mention "red and black metal" or "anarchist black metal" in passing, there is no in-depth coverage such that we can write a full treatment without resorting to primary sources (and that's what has happened in the article). Everything that can be reasonably sourced on this topic would easily fit within the existing RABM section of the Black metal article. czar 22:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging participants from the last discussion (2018): @Walter Görlitz, Sixty Minute Limit, and Sergecross73 czar 22:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Raw black metal"

@ABC paulista and Second Skin: We all agree that the examples are rubbish, right? Those bands do not belong to any subgenre of black metal, they are foundational "just black metal" bands. They belong to certain scenes and can be described to have a certain style using certain attributes such as "raw", occassionally, but they don't belong to the subgenre. So how about we remove the examples until we can find reliable sources for several sane examples of actual raw black metal bands. —Alalch E. 18:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't aggre with this notion, because as wikipedians we cannot decide for ourselves what's "rubbish" and what's not, and we can't decide on our own who or what belongs where. Per WP:V all info presented here must be dictated by reliable sources, and the Phoenix New Times passes WP:RS, so its info can only be challenged by equally reliable sources contradicting it. ABC paulista (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ABC paulista: We need to read what the sources say and understand them in proper context. The source doesn't verify the claim that any of those bands belong to the raw black metal subgenre. It is a very superficially written article where the writer applied "raw" as an attribute for the bands' aesthetic, i.e. for the purposes of describing the sound of these black metal bands as "raw", but none of those bands are in the subgenre of raw black metal, and the section is actually about the subgenre, not how foundational black metal bands have had a raw sound. —Alalch E. 19:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You could be right, but I don't see enough evidence within the article to state that the writer's intent to use the term "raw" in that case as an attribute rather than as a nominator. There was another instance of the usage of "raw", in conjuntion of the term power in there, but it was completely unrelated to the former because it was talking about a specific trait from a pecific band, while the former was talking about a group of bands, thus they can't be compared to each other.
About your recent tagging, there's no rule that state that "foundational" bands can't be lumped into a specific subgenre, nor there's is one that states that first-wave bands can't incorporate second-wave traits in their sound in order to be lumped into a subgenre. ABC paulista (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that the tag speaks for itself and that there is an obvious illogicality in describing some bands as bands spearheading the second wave of black metal, and then describing them as belonging to a subgenre that is derived from second wave black metal. None of the bands' articles (Bathory (band), Gorgoroth, Darkthrone, Satyricon (band), Burzum) describe them as "raw black metal" and it's a "sky is blue" statement to say that they are not what is actually meant by raw black metal as a subgenre. I'll try to write a more detailed reply, but eventually, we will probably hear on this page from other editors, and their help may be needed to resolve our content dispute. Sincerely—Alalch E. 20:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There's no logical conflict. A band's sound evolve over time, and they can change subgenres during this process, or be part of multiple ones, sometimes simultaneously. And it's not uncommon for genre-founder to be considered part of a specific subgenre within it, like Black Sabbath is now considered part of the Doom metal subgenre, or how Saint Vitus, one of Doom metal's originator, is part of the Tradiional doom subgenre, or how Death is considered as on the spearheaders of both Death metal genre and its technical subgenre, for example. Music is not an exact science, especially subgenres which are mere categorizations made-up by humans, and as such they can also change/evolve over time. ABC paulista (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that there isn't a logical conflict. It's theoretically possible that any of the first wave and second wave bands given as as examples of "raw black metal" may have changed their sound into "raw black metal" with their later releases etc., but this is an inference not supported by article prose and simply listing them as "raw black metal" examples doesn't to any degree imply that they changed their sound in such a way. Ultimately what you're saying here is that Gorgoroth, Bathory, Darkthrone, Satyricon, and Burzum began as first or second wave of black metal acts and then adopted "primitive qualities of the second wave of black metal, by giving priority to its lo-fi production values". That's just... nonsense. I mean you must know that it's nonsense and that the way forward is to find appropriate sources that enable us to create a non-rubbish list of actual raw black metal bands. —Alalch E. 20:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said how they came to be considered as part of the Raw subgenre, just gave examples that went against your logic. Black Sabbath is nowadays considered to have originated both Heavy metal and its Doom subgenre at the same time, so it could have happened the same way for these Black metal bands, I guess. In the end, what matters is that the source cited these bands as "raw black metal", it's not our job to judge what's rubbish and what's not without proper back-up, otherwise we would be falling into WP:POV territory. ABC paulista (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The source doesn't support this claim, as I said, it's a mistaken literal reading. —Alalch E. 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
That's your opinion on the matter, not a fact. I could see the source's statement as "ambiguous", with no strong evidence for either interpretations. It's not something that would merit its removal, a proper tagging should be enough. ABC paulista (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_metal/Archive_5&oldid=1189942060"