Talk:Cradle of Filth/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening Statement - Genre Discussions

This page is primarily dedicated to past Genre Discussions on the Cradle of Filth page. All of these discussions are inactive, any new posts should be directed to the Cradle of Filth Talk Page. - The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name)

Genre Discussions


Here's what I think about Cradle of Filth's wikipedia page:
Genre:Extreme metal
black metal (early)

Because I believe that every album till Midian was symphonic black metal...

There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed, and Dani Filth's subsequent response. But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or 'vampyric' black etc. Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist. How else would any other form of metal started out if it hadn't've stuck itself out and carved out a new name? Sounds more just like a good-old fashioned "Cradle-rant" to me than a topic for discussion. -Shipton 03:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed "

And yet the opening states that they ARE a Black Metal band, regardless of opinion.

"But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or '
vampyric' black etc."

Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre. And if it's websites we're talking about, try the following:

"Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist."

By that logic, why not go to other band articles and label them whatever genre you feel like? If Cradle of Filth are Black Metal, why aren't New Kids On the Block Ultrafast, Candlelit, Groin-Destroying Sludge Grind?

To be fair, their style is/was pretty unique, but not sufficiently to pioneer a genre.

And subjectivity aside, here's a quote in reference to the Black Metal article.

"Black metal is a term. It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands, nor is it the job of Wikipedia to explain that black metal is a lifestyle, religious choice or anything else. The job of this article should be to explain what the term black metal can be used to refer to. If there is a possible dispute over the meaning, the differing ideas should be explained clearly, with different opinions attributed to different persons who hold them. This is part of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Tuf-Kat 08:19, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)"

In a similar fashion, stating that a band is Black Metal when going on to state that there is a debate about it is effectively taking sides.

Aye, and the black metal category also states that "black metal" is wholly ambiguous. What you're ignoring in your own statement is " It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands". calls them "black symphonic," formerly "melodic black," as does MTV, and if you want I can compile a larger list. Furthermore, your statement "Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre," is not only irrelevant (since the quality nor intelligence of people who call them black metal is equally irrelevant, the fact is that the bulk of people call them that), it's only furthering the principle that this whole arugment is not only POV but just a "I-hate-Cradle-of-Filth" rant. I should end on the note I didn't write the first line and am not responsible for any contradictions that other people may cause when they add things. It will eventually get smoothed out, that's the whole purpose of wikipedia. Then again, melodic black or black symphonic (depending on the album) is about as close as you'll come to describing them. The key word here: black. On the whole, though, that's a rather minor element. The point of the band is to make music, not try to usurp a genre. If all you're going to do is debate their authenticity, then please supply your opinion in full detail as well as a solution rather than just "they're not black metal."

Because tastes differ, and figuring one kind of rock from another isn't like comparing, say, rock and rap, where the contrast is more pronounced, I revised the opening paragraph to represent a more NPOV explanation of their genre. ZPG0705 14:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd consider taking into account what the Metal Archives says. After all, it is THE largest metal community on the internet, and the people there do know what they're talking about. The bands page is here It says they're Extreme Gothic Metal.Ladysway1985

TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)Ok. You really need to chill out. Let anyone call them whatever they want to. You think it really matters what genre in music they are? No. They make music. That's enough. End of story.

Metal-archives is typically rather inaccurate Spearhead 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme Gothic Metal? Anyone care to try and exlain what that is, because before now, I've never even heard that term. Much Love, Helena Rayne TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The band clearly came from a black metal background. They have more and more incorporated gothic influences in their music. The fact that they have become more popular than so-called "true" black metal does not change their history. So imo, classifying them under black metal is correct. Also note that there are many other bands that would have been removed if from the List of black metal bands if CoF would, like Dimmu Burgir, Hecate Enthroned, Agathodaimon, Ancient, Old Man's Child, Samael. And no, the term extreme gothic metal does not make sense.... Spearhead 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I don't understand what the argument is here? They're obviously not black metal, though they were strongly influenced by it. They themselves said at one point that they weren't. Everyone seems to agree that everything since their first album has been gothic metal, not black., the most comprehensive metal database around labels them as gothic. Even if their first album was black metal, how does that make them a black metal band with gothic influence? Everything since has been gothic. I would say it's more than fair to label them as gothic metal with black metal influence. Gothic metal isn't a derogatory term or anything. There are some fantastic gothic metal bands... Why do all the C.O.F. fans *need* to have the band labelled black metal?

CoF are not a gothic band - that is just plain bullshit. Tristania is gothic metal, so is the sins of thy beloved, trail of tears - they're not anywhere near CoF. BTW I am not a fan of CoF, I just like their first couple of albums Spearhead 21:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Metal Archives and Metal Storm both disagree with you there. CoF has, since about 95-96 been a gothic metal band. No question, in my mind and both of those sites listed above (Both of which are considered to be excellent metal sources) support what I'm saying. Maybe you can put up a reason why they're not a gothic metal band, instead of just screaming 'bullshit'? Also, liking their first couple of albums would still make you a fan. A fan is someone who likes the band. It doesn't have to be extreme. Ilyon 22:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Many other sources qualify them as black metal. Just look at the google results [1] Also BNR, Allmusic (often praised on WP), []. Like I said before, they have clearly incorporated gothic influences. Nevertheless they are also part of black metal history, but that is something darkthrone (et al.) fans just like to wipe out. Besides metal storm lists them as
1991-1993   Death metal
1994-1996       Symphonic Black metal
1997-   Extreme Gothic metal
so you contradict yourself here. Spearhead 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I read the page. How is that a contradiction? You want to label them as a Black Metal band with gothic influence. I say they're a gothic metal band with Black Metal influence. 2 years at most as a Black Metal band and 8 years as a Gothic metal band. I wonder which one is more accurate? I'd say gothic metal with black metal influence. It's really simple math.

Read the Gothic Metal article. Also realise that Metsl Archives labels many bands wrongly, and also labels bands as what they want the band to be playing, not what they are playing. Leyasu 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Cradle of Filth" is a... symphonic black metal" band is an opinion, not a fact, regardless of how many people believe it to be true. It therefore has no place on a Wikipedia listing. If we must have this exhaustive and anal listing of what type of music the band is believed to have been making at different points in its career, maybe it should be moved to a specific "genre" subheading - or left off altogether and kept in "discussion" where it belongs. Cardinal Wurzel 18:33, 12th January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that statement many people may think them Black Metal or Symphonic Black Metal lots of people have different opinions, like mine I would call them symphonic death metal but again that is an opinion but at least we got one fact right; that they are a metal band. unsigned comment by (talk · contribs)
On that basis, we had have to remove all genres from all band pages on all articles. Something says, its not going to happen, despite your pov on the bands genre. Something also says, by the way you talk, is that your exhibiting neoglism. The article shall remain unchanged. Leyasu 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're (note correct spelling) against neologism then you should be in favour of limiting the use of all these daft genre names. It would be much better to just say "Cradle of Filth have at one time or another been described as blah, blah and blah. Dani Filth says blah". By the way, are you the boss of this page? Do all changes to this page have to go through you? I thought I read somewhere that Wikipedia's philosophy was a bit different... Cardinal Wurzel 21:16, 12th January 2006 (UTC)

No, im not the owner or boss of this page. However, i enforce Wikipedia's rules on pretty much all articles. Yes im dictorial in the way i speak, but thats the way i speak.
Secondly, yes, it could be done as that, much like the Nightwish article. But then, it would still say that they are a Symphonic Black Metal band, with influence from Gothic Metal. So it doesnt really serve much point at the moment, does it now? Leyasu 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dictatorial". No, it wouldn't really say that - I don't think you've got the hang of Wiki's NPOV rules. "They are a Symphonic Black Metal band, with influence from Gothic Metal" is still your point of view. The trick is to not definitively say that they "are" anything at all. The only thing they definitively "are" is a metal band. I still think that "Filth have been described as blah blah blah... no consensus... Dani says Cradle of Filth are Cradle of Filth" is much the better way to go. Also, if we're listing Peace Through Superior Firepower along with the albums and EPs shouldn't we include PanDaemonAeon and Heavy, Left-Handed and Candid as well? The DVDs probably belong in "Other Releases", where they already are. Cardinal Wurzel 22:52, 12th January 2006 (UTC)

Their discography isnt something i know about, so if they are missing albums or what not, add them. As for what they are, its hardly my point of view when its fact, and when i can back that up with studying musical genres for years, and working in the scenes. I suggest you read the Black Metal article, the Symphonic Black Metal section on the Symphonic Metal article, and the Gothic Metal article, which will all show you, that they indeed are, Symphonic Black Metal. Leyasu 06:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it isn't fact, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Look at this discussion page alone and see how many people disagree with you; people who are just as much the "expert" as you believe yourself to be. Your assumption seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the scene, which is extremely arrogant. Surely the fundamental point is, if the band's own frontman doesn't think he's making symphonic black metal, or doesn't care to have his band labelled that way, there will never be a consensus as to what genre Filth belong to. This page should acknoweldge that and be careful not to come down on one side of the argument or another. I suggest you carefully read Wikipedia's NPOV rules, along with its policy on vandalism. :p Cardinal Wurzel 09:06, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

Ive been editing articles for a while. I completely revised the Gothic Metal, Gothic Music, and Symphonic Metal articles, as well as being in the process of redoing Nu Metal and Metal Music.
Also, you overlook that Dani Filth has claimed to be all of the following, 'Satanic Metal', 'Vampyric Metal', 'Doom Metal', 'Gothic Metal', 'Black Metal', 'Gothic Rock', 'Speed Metal', 'Brutal Death Metal' and 'Horror Metal'. Most of these, are terms he came up with himself.
Again, its hardly POV when A) The black metal article states that Cradle of Filth are Symphonic Black Metal. B) The Gothic Metal article states the same. C) The Symphonic Metal article states the same. D) Black Metal fans typically discredit Cradle of Filth due to their commerical reknown. E) A bands genre is defined by the sum of their parts, not what you wish they were.
Again, i suggest you read the Symphonic Metal, Gothic Metal, Black Metal and Metal Music articles. Also read about Wikipedia policys on Consensus. Consensus runs in favour of listing a bands genre where appropriate, which in this case, it is. Leyasu 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're assuming I haven't read all that stuff. And again, you're missing my point. I'm not trying to assign them to a genre that "I wish they were". I'm saying that we shouldn't be classifying them at all. If anything we should just be reporting the various arguments as to how they should be classified, but concluding that there is no definitive answer to that question. What you say about consensus is a fair point, but I'm not convinced, judging by the discussion page comments here and on other pages from everybody who isn't you, that there actually IS one. And wait a minute - I've just absorbed something you said earlier... What do you mean by "their discography isn't something I know about"? Am I actually having this discussion with someone who DOESN'T EVEN LISTEN TO CoF'S RECORDS?? If anybody else is following this, feel free to jump in. Cardinal Wurzel 11:36, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the band, and i dont follow every single album, ep and compliation the band chooses to bring out. I am also not a fan of Nightwish, and i had a hand in helping devolp that article as well, which is now a featured article thanks to all the editors who both worked on, and critiqued the article in referal for FA.
Ai also suggest you look at other band articles and see how articles on bands are constructed on Wikipedia, before you judge rashly on how the page should be improved. Leyasu 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing rash about my judgement, and once again, stop assuming what I have and haven't read. I'm not a newbie, despite not having created an account before now. I'm sorry you're so affronted by constructive criticism. I'll get off your toes, shall I? Cardinal Wurzel 15:54, 13th January 2006 (UTC)

Your not getting on my toes. What im trying to do, which im typically very bad at, is explain to you how what your saying is flawed, and as such is not correct in this place. Yes, what you said does hold some water. However, they meet exactly what Symphonic Black Metal is. Plain and simple. There is no arguing about that, unless your bothered about what bands discredit the black metal scene of give it commercial appeal, at which point it becomes Neoglism, and not about their music.
Genres is weighed upon the bands construction of music, album by album, not what certain fans wish they were or were not playing, or their commerical aspects. Leyasu 16:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: CRADLE OF FILTH STARTED OUT AS DEATH METAL, THEN THEY STARTED PLAYING SYMPHONIC BLACK METAL, NOW THEY PLAY GOTH METAL. Check any metal database, metalstorm for example: Or check on Metal Archives.

Oh for fuck's sake. Cardinal Wurzel 22:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
They dont play Goth Metal AKA Gothic-Doom nor Gothic Metal, as they lack its key attributes. They play Symphonic Black Metal. I suggest reading both the Symphonic Black Metal and Gothic Metal articles. Also if u want to cite websites claiming the band are Gothic Metal, i have a whole trio more saying they are Symphonic Black Metal. Ley Shade 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What's even scarier, is the coralation with Gothic Rock and Death Rock. I don't see how they have anything to do with either one of those genre's. Just because they were on Valor's so-called "Christian Death" release, doesn't make them Death Rock. JanderVK

Okay, I’ve left it alone for a couple of months, but let’s go one more round to see if I can change your mind. Leyasu, the problem here is still your inability or refusal to see that the symphonic black metal thing is your opinion and not a fact. It’s a perfectly valid opinion, and more valid than many, but it’s still an opinion regardless of how many sources you can provide that agree with you. You are equally as guilty of “serial POV pushing” as many of the people you revert. Your argument runs like this: “It is a fact that I can find a lot of sources that agree with my opinion; therefore my opinion is a fact.” That does not follow. Next time you’re looking up neologism you might want to have a look at non sequitur while you’re there. Please understand that I am not necessarily even disagreeing with you as to the band’s genre. I am not trying to say “They’re not that, they’re this”. As before, I’m trying to make this page consistent and factually accurate. The main article’s introduction is careful to say “general consensus SEEMS to have settled…” (implying that the debate could start up again at any time) and we now have a subsection detailing the genre controversy. It is therefore inconsistent that the text box should definitively label the group, and preferable that “genre” in the text box should simply direct readers to the genre subsection which explains the various debates and opinions. Insisting on taking a position that a lot of people disagree with gets people's backs up and causes a lot of what you call “vandalism” in the first place. The most frequent changes to this page (apart from idiots saying “cradle fucking rock” and the like, which you’re really good at spotting and getting rid of) are people taking issue with the genre we’ve settled on. I’d be really interested to see if we provoked less controversy by not specifying a genre, and simply admitting that nobody can agree. This is a long argument about a pretty trivial matter, and in all honesty, I can’t be bothered to have it go on and on and on. If changing the genre in the textbox is going to keep you awake at night in a cold sweat because it doesn’t match your opinion then I guess we’d better leave it your way and thaht'll be the end of it. I would hate you to have a nervous breakdown or anything. I just want to make this page as good as it can be. Cardinal Wurzel 19:38, 21st March 2006 (UTC)

Easy answer. Simply put (Debated) after the Symphonic Black Metal in the infobox. Ley Shade 20:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is sickening. They lack ANY attributes of what makes black metal, black metal. The closest thing they've ever done to being a black metal band was having screeching vocals. They fit gothic metal perfectly, with the exception of not having a female lead vocalist like many bands do and that damn sure doesn't change their genre. Harvested Sorrow 16:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It sure does when they also lack the lyrical and instrumental style as well. Ley Shade 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me what should have happened with this discussion—and I accept that there is a legitimate dispute here, in that COF combine black metal trappings and vocalisation with slower music (that's just my opinion)—is that it should have devolved onto secondary sources per Wikipedia policy. In fact, you discussion hasn't circumvented the need to find reputable sources outside of Wikipedia for the genre-assignment of this band. I have therefore tagged this article as unreferenced. mgekelly 12:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to the controversy surrounding ANYTHING we put as the genre, I think we should just put 'extreme metal' and be done with it. Sure, it's vague, but since Dani Filth's image is on the front of the book "Extreme Metal II", it's also pretty accurate. If we have issue with that...why not just 'metal'? We don't have to subgenre-ise everything to death, after all. There's plenty of reputable sources who all say different things about their genre, and it's pretty hard to determine who or what is 'most reputable'. There'll always be someone who disagrees, but I think we can settle on them not being pure black metal, especially if you take recent albums into account. It's not an insult, anyway; not being black metal doesn't mean they're a bad band, it just means they're not black metal. If 'not black metal' meant 'bad', we'd have an awful lot of bad bands around. Moose 21:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The forthcoming "Gospel of Filth" that Dani's involved with has got the subtitle "A Black Metal Bible", and Dani's on the cover of that too "see here". , so good argument but not quite good enough I'm afraid. "Just metal" is pretty much where we've finally got it. The page has been pretty stable for a while now, although it's still getting the odd "They're gothic! They're black! They're extreme!" from anons. Keeping it neutral seems to be working so far... Cardinal Wurzel 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
We dont put Cross-Refs on infoboxes. Keeping it as simply Debated is the better way in this case, keeping it neutral as best we can per WP:NPOV. 20:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up Extreme Metal II on Amazon and I'm damned if I can see Dani on the front cover. I see a black and white pic of someone I don't know, and I see Slipknot - where's Dani? Are you sure you've got the right book? Is he on the back? Cardinal Wurzel 15:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm positive, since I have the book right here in front of me. There's two versions of the cover - the Slipknot one and the Cradle one, which can be found here. Moose 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right! :-) Cardinal Wurzel 19:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an easier way to resolve this whole dispute is to break down their career by album and attempt to label the genre of the individual albums. This to me would make sense as each album depicts a different step in their evolution. This approach has worked well in attempting to categorize the different stages of artists such as Marilyn Manson, Cher, and Madonna. It is futile to try and encapsulate an entire entity that is in constant flux under one very narrow heading, it can be done under a large heading like metal, but not a narrow one as black metal or what have you. Therefore I propose it be done on this wiki page by individual album with a disclaimer that these labels are fan generated. I see nothing wrong in saying that the labeling will be all fan generated as every other label being placed on Cradle of Filth out there is for the most part not one that the band themselves has endorsed. I think the Genre Categorization by Album would be a good way to solve this. Plus, it would show how the band has evolved and is changing.

Archenhaust 20:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like quite a good plan for the individual album pages, but not for the main page. As well as the genre in the infoboxes you could also add a sentence or two to the descriptions, detailing how the sound has evolved from the previous album. Help yourself! Oh, and by the way... Cher and Madonna??!! :-) Cardinal Wurzel 13:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they are by far black metal. I havent heard every last album, but I have heard almost all of them. They fall into the category. They have screeching voacals, hard and fast guitar playing that repeat a single note for a while, doube bass blast beats, tuned guitars, satanic and paegan and other dark religious lyrics, their lyrics mention darkness, forests, and other natural surroundings of scandenavia (where black metal origionated), some apoctolyptic lyrics, thick guitar, fast aggressive drums, they use lots of keyboard, rasped voice in vocals, cold dark and gloomy atmosphere, song structures that are devoid of verse and chorus segments, and contain extended and repetitive instrumental passages, VERY neo-medevial costumes (come on they wear full leather and mesh with spikes and corpse paint), and Dani Filth is his stage name to top it all off, his real name was Daniel Davey until he officially changed it to Dani Filth a while ago. I dont know how you wouldnt catagorize them as black metal. I mean come on, they did a cover of the song BLACK METAL by Venom! And members of the band have stated on numerous occasious how they are part of a BLACK METAL band, and they too say COF is black metal.

Ok, now you are either lying, or mistaken. First off, the members of Cradle have stated on a few occasions that they ARE NOT Black Metal. They described themselves as Extreme Gothic Metal, NOT Black Metal, they specificly say they sound nothing like BM bands. And as for Black Metal by Venom? I havn't heard that song or any by Venom, but that is meant to be THRASH Metal, not Black, despite the title. The Haunted Angel 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Right ok. Then try this one. Charles Hedger, the guitarist/bassist for COF stated this in his biography. "My fate was sealed when I was about 13 and my older brother Marc gave me a tape of a local band that some of his friends were in. The album was called Principle of Evil Made Flesh. I think you know the band. On the other side of the tape was the Emperor/Enslaved split EP. Instantly I knew I'd found the dark atmosphere in these albums that I'd been looking for in music. I began seeking out more black metal and working parts out on the keyboard." Oh, I found some more proof. They put up their OFFICIAL myspace recently, which has information on the band from the band memebers themselves on it. Check the music genre. It says Black Metal.

First of all, Principle IS Black Metal, but they are not black metal anymore, and are not a BM band. Secondly, MR. Anon, they have no official MySpace as far as I am aware, and I am willing to put money on the fact that if I asked for this MySpace address, you either would make up some liar excuse that you forgot it, or you would just give me some website that is NOT official. And please stop being a coward and get a username, or sign it with four '~' symbols. The Haunted Angel 20:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How does that make me a coward? Im not a hardcore Wiki reader so I didnt make an account but there I made one happy? Oh, and if you would like their myspace here ya go. . And yes this is their official myspace. Heres your proof. . Theres their official sight if you for some reason dont know it, read down from the studio updates, 3 articles down, udner the Thornography studio updates. Happy now? GraffitiWriter 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)GraffitiWriter

It appears that I am wrong, and for that, I apologize. However, that doesn't alter the fact that Cradle are not Black Metal. It's true, some members have said that they are Black Metal, but they have also said that they are other things aswell, such as Gothic and Extreme. So why don't we put those down aswell? I want you to answer that question, and while you do, consider this: Just because they may say they are Black, or Gothic, or Extreme, or hell, pop metal, doesn't mean they are. S Club 7 can say they are metal, doesn't make it true, and even though Cradle members have admitted that they ARN'T black metal, just because one or two might say they are mixed in with other stuff (which is on that MySpace), it doesn't make it so, all it is is opinion. The Haunted Angel 20:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. GraffitiWriter 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


The new album has been out for quite a while and it's hard to argue it's either "true black metal" or a return to form (I'm talking Dusk... and her Embrace period).

Allow me to add that the purpose isn't to make the argument as to which is correct, but instead to provide an NPOV dissertation of the topic. If you feel the description of it as "true black metal" or as a "return to form" is either incorrect or POV, rewrite to provide a full presentation of all the facts, opinions included. Just keep 'em neutral.

New Genre Dispute

After reading the long and pointless original Genre Dispute, I think it would be best to start a new one. I reviewed Wiki Policy and checked several sources to see what we can determine about this issue. It seems to me that the best thing to do is to create a "Source Poll" when you find a source that is not a personal or uncommon website, post it, and after 2 weeks, I will tally the genres and see if everyone can agree to that. Lets keep this civil and simple. I really want to reach an end to this dispute. Oh... and once we come to a conclusion, this article is going up for Semi-Protection. --Andy Blak 23:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Knock yourself out - I don't think it'll do any good but its worth a try. I don't think I've ever actually stated my own position, which is that "black metal" would be perfectly good enough. I think ALL the websites I used as sources for the main article go with that. But I doubt even if we reach a consensus that the page will be left alone. And, as a reminder for anyone who's never bothered to look it up, here's the section from the Wiki NPOV policy that I've tried to make the page adhere to in the last few months:
The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. Cardinal Wurzel 08:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As usual Cardinal, I think you're right. So let me rephrase my method. Lets get this goddamn thing protected and leave it at black metal. How would that work? oh and your answer to the article below is fucking hilarious! --Andy Blak 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

But leaving it at black metal would still be "asserting the most popular view is the correct one". I think black. You think black. But Cardboard Moose thinks Extreme, Leyasu always insisited on symphonic black and Harvested Sorrow thinks gothic. Not to mention all the anons that have had thir say. And that's just on this page! A couple of hundred people on the Last FM site voted that they're death metal, and while most metal sites that list them go with some sort of black, if you follow the threads on most black metal message boards (eg at or even Cradle's own on their official site) a lot of black metal fans will have nothing to do with them, and the Observer interview with Mayhem that I put in the references (which is really good by the way, check it out) describes the black metal scene in such a way as to make it sound like somewhere Cradle clearly don't belong. I can't see any way round leaving it as just metal: It really is too contentious. That way we can't be accused of trying to fit the page with our own opinions. But on the plus side I think the page is starting to be good enough to go up for featured article status - what do you think? I need to go over it for grammar though, and sort out where we need to say "it" and "they", "is" and "are". It's a tough one. Band as single entity or group of people? Cardinal Wurzel 08:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we not just say: Symphonic/Gothic/Extreme Metal? Loads of other bands do that. Or they are ____ Metal with Elements of ____? Captaincookie

Tried it - doesn't work. Gets vandalised every day. Cardinal Wurzel 09:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There Is no genre dispute cradle is a true symphonic black metal band

if you open your eyes cradle of filth has toured with bands like emperor and dimmu borgir and never has been seen that any community shuns them if they are not black metal covenant,dimmu borgi,old man's child and many other norwegian bands ore not black metal and cradle of filth is related to many norwegian black metal bands. metal archive web site knows them as black metal and extreme gothic metal all music knows them as key artist of blackmetal real rhapsody too all music website knows the as black metal band. what the hell is brutal death metal and stuff like that. they are a true black metal band. - unsigned comment by (talk · contribs)

That settles that then. Thanks for clearing it up. And here's us having a massive debate for a year, and people writing "gothic" and "extreme" all over the page every day. Who knew it was that simple? Just imagine: someone who doesn't even sign in solving all the page's problems just like that! I'm so relieved. Cardinal Wurzel 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

i didn't understand that you( Cardinal )were japing me or you have agreed with me i read all the page but i didn't understand your idea about cradle's genre any way, please note that what is cradle's genre in your idea, thanx - unsigned comment by (talk · contribs)

Sorry, that was mean of me, since it seems English isn't your first language. But it's silly to just say "there is no genre dispute". Clearly there is - just read this page! Have a look at my most recent reply to Andy (above) - that's a good way to understand my idea. I've never argued for my own opinion - I've always argued for neutrality. Have a good weekend! Cardinal Wurzel 08:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

it's better to write valid source's information like real rhapsody,all music,metal archive,... cradle of filth is a black metal band. so don't harm wikipedia's validity by writing your personal opinion. genre dispute is only in wikipedia - unsigned comment by (talk · contribs)

The page is completely sourced, under a section called "references", most of which go with black, but some say extreme, extreme gothic, death... The dispute is certainly not just on this page. Here's what I wrote to Andy yesterday that you don't seem able to find: "A couple of hundred people on the Last FM site voted that they're death metal, and while most metal sites that list them go with some sort of black, if you follow the threads on most black metal message boards (eg at or even Cradle's own on their official site) a lot of black metal fans will have nothing to do with them, and the Observer interview with Mayhem that I put in the references (which is really good by the way, check it out) describes the black metal scene in such a way as to make it sound like somewhere Cradle clearly don't belong." Plus, you're new here, so you probably don't know how often the main page gets changed to "gothic" and "extreme". There are a lot of people out there who disagree with you, and their opinions are equally as valid as yours. Our job is to keep opinions OFF Wikipedia and simply report facts. It is NOT a fact that Cradle are a black metal band. It IS a fact that very many people do not accept cradle as a black metal band. I'm sorry you still don't understand. And once again, I am NOT ARGUING FOR MY OWN OPINION. I AM ARGUING FOR A NEUTRAL STANCE. If you actually READ THE WHOLE PAGE instead of just the first line, you'll see we're dealing with it as fairly as possible. What I suggest you do is go on some black metal messageboards and ask the people there what they think of Cradle. I promise you, it'll be a shitstorm - have fun! Cardinal Wurzel 09:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
cardinal the last comment was made by me. yes i am new here but didnt make the first two comments. i was just saying its better to leave it as debated so that everyone can see the debate. why are you snapping at me for something someone else said? - unsigned comment by Strappingthesource (talk · contribs)

I'm so sorry - You didn't sign your message so I thought it was the same guy again, talking to me! Oh good, does that mean he's gone?! Cardinal Wurzel 19:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

mayhem are a band not a valid source for information about black metal. i don't want to talk with you anymore take care

Who was that masked man? Cardinal Wurzel 23:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hahahahaha, rofl, just like AOL... right as you get something good you hear "Goodbye!" --Andy Blak 23:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Genre dispute: An unsolvable problem?

Now, I consider myself the leading expert on all kinds of metal genres but I don't think CoF are an extreme gothic metal band, a black metal band or a symphonic black metal or any kind of crap like that.

Simply put, I see them as a metal band who adopt an image of goth/evil/horror in order to draw attention to their image, not unlike Slipknot.

I see this as typical of bands who don't actually care about the music but more obsessed with how they look in the public's eyes.

I see them as manufactured and designed to sell to the impressionable early teens of the Kerrang/MTV generation of "metal" heads and "goths"...those who listen to Cradle in order to 'fit in' to the rebellious mainstream goth fad.

If you had to classify this band in a un-biased way then it'd have to be "metal" and just leave it as that, since they don't conform to any other genre by definition. --Jeff24 21:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not heavy metal which is the actual name for the genre? Also, other than the use of "metal" instead of Heavy metal, which is a small thing I admit, I totally agree with you. Wildnox 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
When I think of heavy metal I think of Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica and other truly classic NWOBHM bands. That's why I opted for the non-specific metal classicfication. Makes sense right? --Jeff24 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see you point, that's actually been my point of debate for using other genres in other articles. It's just that the article metal has nothing to do with music, and everything to do with the element. Maybe list the genre as [[heavy metal|metal]] so that is shows up as metal but still refers to an article about a genre instead of a type of element?Wildnox 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes I see now...well while that looks right it links to the wrong we're going round in circles! --Jeff24 21:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, the thing is heavy metal, as wikipedia lists it, is more of a blanket genre, which is very broad, including a wide variety of subgenres. I'm not sure if there is a good solution to this problem, but [[heavy metal|metal]] is about the best idea I have. Wildnox 21:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I suppose there is no other alternative right now. But go ahead. It'll have to do :) (p.s. I likes the way you thinks! Why not add me to myspace? --Jeff24 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't use my myspace all that much but why not, just send a request to my page Wildnox 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Extreme Gothic Metal"

This term is a non notable, neologism created by one website, and it is not widely used.

On, a search for..

"Cradle of Filth" "Extreme Gothic Metal" returns only 1,350 results.

"Burzum" "Boyband" returns more results with 2,690 results.

Thus it should be removed from the "genre" section. - Deathrocker 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Er... 1,350 sounds rather a lot to me. Plus the section explicitly says "the term is not widely accepted". It's just one example of many. It works in the context of the section. Your Google statistics are ever so interesting though. Cardinal Wurzel 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not many results at all

"Cradle of Filth" "hip hop" returns 581,000 results... "extreme gothic metal" is basically a nothing term. - Deathrocker 13:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the point. Cardinal Wurzel 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, just rearranged it slightly. I think the point is clearer now. Cardinal Wurzel 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It's probably the best way of describing the band's style, but it isn't a valid genre or subgenre, and isn't that widely used. Where was it in the article anyway? The genre controversy section, or did someone actually put it in the band's template? Ours18 00:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be in the genre debate section. Though this article is vandalised often and a close eye has to be kept on it. Most notably people blanking sections or changing the members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

HEAVY METAL? hahahahaha

WTF! CoF is heavy metal? You mussst be having a laugh! It's "symphonic black metal" for fucks sake! Extreme Gothic metal wouldn't be too wrong either. You lot do spout a lot of shit sometimes. - Azeurus-

Try reading the talk above, there is heavy dispute on what exactly they are, so maybe you shouldn't be spouting POV shit. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaving "debated" as the genre

"Debated" is not a genre. We should at least add something along the lines of "hard rock" or "heavy metal", for the benefit of the completely ignorant. We could then add something like, "(specific subgenre is debated)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. "Debated" is not to be considered a genre. As for the "heavy metal" or "hard rock" line, I believe that Cradle does not fit along any of these lines. I leave it put to the main editers of this page to decide the genre, but I believe that "heavy metal" does not truly apply to Cradle of Filth.
Catherine Slaughter
XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hence, debated. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 16:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Really though, I think we should type something like "metal, subgenre discussed" or something, 'cuz noone can say they're not metal. Also, I don't like the first line "Cradle of Filth are a Heavy Metal band from Suffolk" (or whatever it was, can't remember), I just don't think they're Heavy Metal, more just Metal.. Lichey 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no.......... Cardinal Wurzel 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
... Erm... dude? You feeling ok? ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we leave debated but mention the most common genres they're said to be- Black Metal, Death Metal, Gothic Metal, Heavy Metal? 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be paradoxical. Leaving it as debated if the best choice. --Dexter prog 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, then just leave the genres they're said to be and cut "dabated"Xr 1 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll leave "debated", and we'll spell it right. Cardinal Wurzel 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that CoF appear to not fit into any genre, has anyone considered creating a new genre to fit them (and to fit any future band with their sound)? How about "Operatic Black Metal"? CoF albums commonly have the epic nature of an opera (they tell a story), contain choral segments and 'arias' (a segment in Cruelty and the Beast is even called an aria), use repeating musical phrasing and recurrent musical themes throughout an album, all of which are common in classical operas. But what's more to the point is that CoF actually 'feels' like metallised opera. Listen to a Puccini opera or two and tell me that CoF doesn't sound like metallised opera. I think CoF is "metallised opera" in the same way that Korpiklaani is "metallised Finnish folk music". The word "black" may be debatable, but the words "operatic" and "metal" are key. Perhaps "Operatic Metal"? Sphenisciformeophile 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible, you do make a valid point, but to me it looks as if that just has "POV" written all over it. Besides, who are we to make a new genre? ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't just make up a genre - you have to source everything you write. See Wikipedia:No original research. Cardinal Wurzel 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. I take it that before the noun "metal" can be used with the adjective "operatic" at Wiki it must have already been done elsewhere outside of Wiki? I won't argue with that. I don't necessarily see it as "creating a new genre" though; a musical genre is simply a noun with an adjective or two for further distinction, the flexible nature of music (or any art) means they're generally flexible. It's worth mentioning that CoF aren't the only band where the word "opera" is used with "metal", check out Ayreon where genres "Progressive metal", "Progressive Rock", "Rock Opera", "Symphonic metal" are all used (that means "Progressive symphonic metal/rock opera"). ;) Anyway, I'll post in the CoF forum at some stage with "Metal opera" or something and see what they think. :) Sphenisciformeophile 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it will sound better as "Black Opera", like the Black Ambient thing

Why not have metal as the genre and say subgenre debated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archenhaust (talkcontribs)

Ok, People.

It's not that hard to figure out their genre. In the genre section just put the following-

Debated: Black metal (early)
Extreme Gothic metal (present)

Genre discussions archive. Top right. Cardinal Wurzel 20:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not that easy to figure out their genre, I'm afraid -- it is debated and remain so for as long as the band exists, even Dani has expressed his indecision (and uncaring) for the band genre. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, personally I would say to just leave it as debated, and link to the section; let people know about it, and let them draw their own conclusions if they can't be pigeon-holed. --Dayn 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, Dayn called it. ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Current Genre and clasification

Cradle of Filth's genre has gone from respectable black metal to emo garbage thanks to (A.A.S....American Anchor Syndrome) with a hint of MTV fame. A.A.S starts when a foreign band gains enough fame and noriety in america that MTV takes notice and gets them on the air. emedietly americas youth has a new fad soon the band, to appease thier new following they begin joint work on a album with a weak main stream artist. when it finally is released it sucks and they're original fans stop listening to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Provokerofcoherentthought (talkcontribs) 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC). I think the genre should be put as gothic metal and black metal. Its ok listing it with two genres.

Emo? Right, I'll ignore that! And no, the genre won't be changed to anything just yet, and possibly ever. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 21:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"respectable black metal"? oh ye of little wit... Isilioth 09:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Genre and clasification

thus anchoring the band to a flimsy fan base. -demos1»4: black metal -the priciple of evil made flesh: norwegien stylized black metal

to be continued —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Provokerofcoherentthought (talkcontribs) 03:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Above, the band's own indecisiveness was cited as a primary reason to not have a definite genre listed. Per their biography [2], I believe Extreme Metal is an appropriate classification. If nobody disputes this, I'll go ahead and make the appropriate change. ZachPG 17:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That page also says Dark metal. And round we go again... Please guys, read the genre debate archive at top right. There's nothing you can say that hasn't been gone over 20 times before. The page as it is describes in detail the genre situation if you read further than the first line or the infobox. Cardinal Wurzel 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I read through that and tried to think of something original that might solve this but I'm at a loss. How does something like this actually get resolved? (unsigned by ZachPG)

You step back from making definitive statements and just report the argument. Cardinal Wurzel 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Got it. Thanks for fixing my last post, forgot to sign it. ZachPG 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd comparison

"Their format differs from most Norwegian black metal..." Well one would expect that, really, considering they're a British band. So why this out of the blue comparison? Why not say their format differs from American black metal? Or Chinese? Now the beginning just acts as a weird transition to a list of Norwegian metal bands, which this article supposedly isn't about.

Acording to fans of black metal, from all over the world, the Norway is "the only place were good black metal band born", cradle of filth is constantly labeled as black metal, the big majority of black metal bands are Norwegian, and you can't say that cradle of filth sounds like dimmu borgir, or zyclon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC).


i'm sorry but Cradle of Filth is a Black Metal band not a Heavy Metal band

Black Metal is Heavy Metal. And no, they cannot be defined as pure Black Metal in comparison to what is Black Metal these days. 10, 15 years ago, perhaps, today, no. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 13:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Cradle of Filth are NOT black metal. They ARE heavy metal. Isilioth
Cradle of filth were a Black metal/Gothic metal band with symphonic undertones. but ever since Midian they have been Extreme Symphonic Gothic metal, and there is no way that can be disputed right there. - Steven M.
I'm afraid it can. Your first statement I don't completely agree with, but your second, from Midian onwards, I do agree with. However, it is still a very wide dispute - not just between us, but between every fan of Cradle as well as critic. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
If then, the name of the gener would be dark metal, isn't it? it's a fusion of gothic metal, black metal, and symphonic metal, then it would be dark metal, acording to what I saw in this page. - Diego H.


OK kids. Read this. Cradle of Filth ARE NOT BLACK METAL. Anyone who says/thinks they are, clearly knows extremely little about black metal. Your reasoning for calling them black metal? Why you probably think theyre BM: -Dani screams. They dress liek soo goth and evil.- whatever. This does not change the fact that they are not black metal. If I had to classify them, I would call them heavy metal with gothic influence. Just because dani screams does not make it black metal. God, hardcore bands scream. Emo bands scream. Instead of calling them black metal, why not just get a badge/flag/tattoo saying you know nothing about black metal? Also, to all you morons who think you can argue this, Dimmu Borgir have not been black metal since 1996 or so. They are also just heavy metal with unclean vocals. Isilioth

I know they don't play black metal, but I think a bigger reason why some people believe so isn't the screamed vocals, but rather their occasional use of "evil" and "satanic" imagery. Plus those infamous t-shirts don't really help. Trying to convince the general populace that what CoF plays is NOT black metal is unfortunately something of a Sisyphean task. (Sorry if that last sentence sounds elitist, it's unintentional) --x-Flare-x{Talk) 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CoF WAS a Symphonic Black Metal Band

In the beginning they were a symphonic black metal band.since damnation and a day album their music changed.They started to make "softer music" and then 13 year old kiddos started to like them and tried to show off.Of course they are not a black metal band but they WERE a SYMPHONIC black metal band... thirsty_vamp

10 Years ago, the band would have been called Black Metal. Dani explains this in an interveiw - how there were some bands who were totally unlike today's BM, yet were still called it. One band had wierd ambience crap going on, another just had drums and bass; no guitar. Even Thornograohy would have been called BM then. By today's standards however, their music isn't BM (at least not the music within the past 10 years), and their genre forever remains debated. ≈ The Haunted Angel //The Forest Whispers My Name// 09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In their early days, they were never "raw, traditional black metal". That is just ridiculous. They were a gothic/black band. To call them "traditional" black metal is, frankly, wrong. You probably guess I dislike the band. I don't care if people want to label them as being black metal in their early years (I wouldn't call them that myself though), but to state that they were "raw, traditional" bm in an encyclopedia is just absurd. While I think it should (in the intro) say a gothic/black hybrid, it should at least only say black metal. There is absolutely no reason or need to say "raw, traditional". Isilioth 10:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why everyone is so persistant on calling them black metal. There is CLEARLY a Black Metal INFLUENCE, but that does not make them Black Metal at all. I like them, but I prefer to call them Blackened Gothic Metal. I think that it's the only genre that would really suit them.--AEUG 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

They are something like Symphonic Black Metal/Gothic Metal, well I think that.Xr 1 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if this is still going on but I see a lot of band discussions arguing over a certain bands genre. This is partly due to bands progressing and changing music style. Why don't you just state what kind of music they WERE and then maybe what kind they are NOW? Like Exploited. Just a though. Simple and clean. (-Kid. 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Uh, we do. Just not in the first line or the infobox, which are apparently the only parts anybody ever reads. Cardinal Wurzel 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Extreme Symphonic Gothic Blackened Operatic Folk-Enthused Death Metal Maurauth 11:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the one! :D Cardinal Wurzel 12:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think no matter who you are Cradle's genre is gonna be different, but honestly I think its hard to give an extreme genre classification (ex death metal, black metal...) to a band who is really creative and ever changing. I'm one who'd rather stick to the basics of names (ex rock, metal, classical) and just classify them as metal. Because no matter what, you really can't go wrong with that name. 16:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Johnny

Ha, that one sounds best. Metal. (-Kid. 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

um... i dont want to touch something and expect angry repercussions... for genre, the links should be checked before they are accepted. having one song that has influence or sounds like another genre does not make the band automatically that genre.

thus if you read the links given for: brutal death metal, melodic death metal and speed metal, the reviewers states that one song is a mix or kinda sounds like one of these genre. a band does not automatically become that genre if they release one or a few songs like that, they must consistently release music that is of that genre.

as for death metal, some bands on certain review sites lump black metal and death metal as one. allmusic is one of them, it is just easier since this type of music is not their focus. so what makes CoF more black than death, they have more legitimate subgenres that are black metal.

gothic, black, symphonic black and melodic black metal's themes will be about quite often about satan, vampires and horror metal. usually a band does not specific one certain theme to make one genre. a more general theme is chosen i.e. dark imagery = dark metal or an amalgamation of different ones that are similar. furthermore, if satanic metal is looked at, all the bands listed are in fact black metal of some form. the movie is talking about satanism in the black metal scene. vampyric metal is a list of albums someone at thinks is vampyric, nothing worthy of notability. as for horror metal, it is not considered an accepted genre in this context. it is just what one person thinks it fits for horror movies, this does not automatically mean it is a genre.

this leaves symphonic black, melodic black and gothic metal... which i agree with since it is up to some debate. i just see no point for the other genres since they do not represent cradle of filth.

now it makes me sound like i like them...

Panasonicyouth99 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • sigh* But you're misreading the paragraph. It's doesn't say that Cradle ARE those things - the point is that they are all and none of those things, and that's it all down to point of view and personal opinion. It says "at one time or another Cradle have been labelled this, this, this, this and this". It doesn't matter if only one person said it about only one song. The point is that it's been said somewhere. The point is that the WHOLE DEBATE IS FUCKING STUPID. We're not trying to pin them down to particular genres, we're trying to point out that 50 different people will think 50 different things, and that it's unsolveable. Cardinal Wurzel 12:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
with that logic, i could say that they are techno... and it would be in the article... 02:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No you couldn't, since they have no aspects of techno music in their sound. Also as wiki is based on consensus, there is no consensus for the other genres, but there would be a consensus AGAINST techno. Maurauth (talktome)(wha?) 07:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
they have made dance remixes of their songs... does that not at least qualify for some sort of electronic music. i was just using this as an example but the links that are given are not reliable sources or one song from one album is deemed one genre, thus the band is this one genre. 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Which dance remixes?! ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 20:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about things like Pervert's Church, Twisting Further Nails, Deleted Scenes of a Snuff Princess... We already mention those dance remixes in the genre section, which leads me to think that Mr Anonymous HASN'T ACTUALLY READ IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, which is why he still isn't getting it... Cardinal Wurzel 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohh hahahahaha. I'd hardly call those Dance, more like Coldwave, (Industrial Metal). ≈ Maurauth (09F9) 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
i give up... no point in arguing. it is too transfixed in one's mind... thanks for assuming im a he. 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right that there's no point in arguing which specific subgenre they should be labelled as. There will never be agreement. That's why we decided long ago that Wikipedia's place is to describe the argument, not take a side in it. --Stormie 02:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly whats the point of giving them the name black or death or symphonic metal? As long as they ARE metal and STAY metal, we should be happy. Just call them Metal and everyone will be happy. 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Johnny

"Metal Genre"

Hey, would it be okay if I could change their genre from "Metal" to "Extreme Metal"? I just don't want anybody thinking that CoF plays the same genre as Black Sabbath.

Black Sabbath was considered 'extreme' (whatever that means) in its day no doubt, CoF, CoC Slayer etc..all come into the genre of metal and its infinite to describe the various types of metal from Black Metal, Hair Metal, Shock-Rock, Nu-Metal, Rap Metal, funkMetal ad infinitum...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the bit right there at the top, as well as the genre part of the article to explain why you can't exactly. Although most of the genre's that we have debated that they are come under Extreme Metal, I think it'd still be POV to not count in their "Gothic metal" arguments... heavy metal is as small a genre we can get to fit everything in. True, they don't play the same as Sabbath, but they are both members of the same "parent" genre. ≈ The Haunted Angel 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please...everyone knows Cradle of Filth is a Black metal band! claiming otherwise is just playing pure ignorant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:cradle thy filth (talkcontribs).

But the Wikipedia article does not display what "everyone knows", it displays facts that can be verified to be facts by reliable sources, and it does not display particular persons' opinions on the band's genre. Sebi [talk] 05:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No CoF it's not death metal band.Their style can't be classified that easy.There has been a huge debate about their genre and leaving metal was the best choice.(but I still consider them as symphonic black/gothic metal =]) Xr 1 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a solution to the genre problem that hasn't been presented yet, I believe. Let’s try to classify each album by genre instead of the band as a whole. This might not completely end the argument but at least should make some headway toward a better classification than "Heavy Metal". Rats in the walls 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the specific album pages, you'll see the first few albums and demos have been given specific genres, but are still debated for the most part - after Vempire, it gets a bit difficult to give them a genre. ≈ The Haunted Angel 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Early death metal period?

Should some reference to the band's early/demo stages as a death metal band be mentioned? Obviously it's a genre they're not associated with at all currently, but the way the article reads now would lead one to believe they started as a black metal band; there's really no note of the musical changes which took place before the first few demos and first album. Despite all the arguments over their later genre affiliations, I don't think anyone could argue that the 3 demos prior to "Total Fucking Darkness" are anything but death metal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:45:40, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

I agree- the first demos were death metal with some thrash and may be little early black metal elements. I think it should be written in the genre section: Death metal (first demos) Black Metal,Melodic Black Metal (early) Extreme Metal (disputed subgenres) - now Xr 1 10:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now given them a death metal mention under the genre section. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jam Donut

Oh, alright, so I didn't see the jam donut part, so sue me. Okay, to business now. I wanna suggest dark metal as a possible "genre." I dont believe dark metal is a real genre, rather an umbrella term referring to band that have elements of gothic metal and symphonic or melodic black metal, which I believe CoF does. Navnløs 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the "extreme metal" tag was settled on because it is an umbrella term for various different types of metal from the heaviest end of the spectrum, most of which are within the amalgamation of styles CoF play. "Dark metal", I must confess to not being terribly familiar with, but our article does make it sound more like a description of a particular style, rather than a term covering multiple styles, which opens up the whole subjective can of worms that this article has seen people fighting over for years.
However, someone has added to the Genre section "Recently on the band's myspace page, they refer to themselves as Dark Metal" - if you can root up a link to where they said this, that would be helpful. --Stormie 22:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't your post specifically I removed, it was the entire conversation, as it was completely moot as the original poster hadn't properly read the opening statement. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not the duty of Wikipedians to produce "possible genres", saying so would be your opinion, regardless of how close Cradle sound to Wikipedia's definition of dark metal. If you can find a reliable source saying they are however, go ahead and add the dark metal part with the reference. Until then though, saying that we think it sounds like that is a POV we shouldn't use - we should instead present the arguments that other people have made. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright well refers to CoF as black metal and gothic metal here. Dark metal is supposed to be bands that have these two genres. May I also point out, you say we need to present arguments of others and I happen to see a lot of sites that say CoF is rock/pop or death metal, both of which are wrong (though CoF early releases are dm), so sometimes these sites are not always right, however, if we the people can come up with a consensus, I'd say that's just as good as citing some site. Plus I should note that many sites say "symphonic black metal" which this article once said as well, but obviously a consensus changed that. Navnløs 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The genres that you have presented have already been mentioned - and we can't mix rock detectors black and gothic genres to get dark metal - this isn't like metal genre mathematics. We the people can't come up with a consensus though, because we are here to present other stated facts, not make our own. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, the consensus is that there is no consensus. The infobox only says "Extreme metal" because (a) it is an umbrella term, and (b) the original genre listed there, "disputed", was objected to as not fitting Wikipedia's manual of style. The opening section just says "heavy metal" and offers a brief explanation of the genre labelling conflict; which is fully described in the "Genre" section. I really don't see how this situation can be improved - certainly not by saying "hey I think Dark Metal is a better label than Extreme Metal!".
However, the "About Cradle of Filth" section on their MySpace page does say "Just as the gravel-lined, turd-stained streets of urban England gave heavy metal to the world back in the late '60s, so that small country with the big voice continues to be the place where the world's finest dark metal band rest their weary, alcohol-ravaged heads after another sonic killing spree" (emphasis mine). --Stormie 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That part I didn't notice - but the real question is whether we can count the band's own MySpace as a reliable source? ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I certainly wouldn't use it as a source for anything other than re-adding the line into the "Genre" section. By the way, I note that we have the We'd rather be known as solely Cradle of Filth, I think, than be hampered by stupid genre barriers quote in there referenced to Roadrunner's artist page ([3]) - that page now contains a copy of the "About Cradle of Filth" section from the MySpace, including the "world's finest dark metal band" line. --Stormie 02:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Dark metal it is then. Perhaps not neccesarily in the genre section of the music infobox, but at least in the disputed genre section of the article. MySpace is not a good source but roadrunner records certainly is. Navnløs 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on this, the rest of you? I say fine, put it in the list with the rest, but not seperately. Navnløs disagrees.

I'm sure you were only trying to help by putting dark metal in the list of genres that CoF has been called, however, I put it in it's own sentence because it was notable that the band and roadrunner records now call the band dark metal. I also happen to agree that that genre describes them quite well, as they are a mix of symphonic black metal and gothic metal, which is what dark metal is. Navnløs 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Plus, there has also been a discussion about this. Navnløs 19:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following the discussion. The point you're still missing is that it's no more notable than any other genre idea. It fits in the list with the rest of them - it doesn't belong on its own. But take it to the others if you disagree. Cardinal Wurzel 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read it, they said I could specifically use the sentence if I had the reference which someone found. Also it is more notable, because those other genres are what fans are calling them. The band, however, and their record company are now calling CoF dark metal. It's more notable because it's straight from the horses mouth so to speak, and not what fans are saying. Navnløs 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I already left some info on your page, Cardinal. If User:The Haunted Angel, ever gets back he can also say that he gave e permission before to leave the sentence in if I had a reference, which I do now. Navnløs 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying take it out - I'm just saying move it. Cardinal Wurzel 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-arranged it slighty to fit in with the other genres. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Navnlos: You can't be "given permission" to do something by another user. We need to decide, collectively as a community, where it should go, rather than reverting again. ScarianTalk 20:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And if you'll check my talk page, you'll see I didn't "give him permission", he instead interpreted something I said differently. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Navnløs on this one - if the band are describing themselves as "dark metal" on their official Myspace page, and that description is being reprinted by their record label in their bio, we should mention that in a sentence of its own in the "Genre" section, not lump it in with all the silly genres like "horror metal" that have been used in one review or another. --Stormie 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok first, Scarian you don't know what you are saying, I thought I was given permission by a few users at the time to put it in a sentence, which brings me to The Haunted Angel- yes,I suppose I misinterpreted what yuou said, and Stormie, couldn't agree with you any more. Navnløs 23:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also to Stormie: I appreciate your point of view on the CoF article. I don't understand what they don't get! Like you said, it was printed in their official bio by their record company and they have stated it themselves. I think this makes it a little more notable than a bunch of wrong/ fake labels that some idiot fans and critics came up with, and therefore should not be in the same list. I mean, come on, I'm not asking for a lot, just one sentence, will that compromise the whole article? Navnløs 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think it's more important that the band and the record company are calling CoF dark metal than what the fans/ critics call them. I mean slipknot fans think slipknot is death metal, PLEASE! It's of note that they have had all those labels, but it is even more notable what they call themselves and what their own record company is calling them. Navnløs 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The band don't run their own MySpace page - they have nothing to do with it. It's run by fans who have some sort of official sanction. Cardinal Wurzel 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm OK I didn't know that. --Stormie 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fresh piping hot jam donut - a proposal

OK, as I said above, I do think that the mention of a genre by the band and their record label is more significant than the average random genre labelling.

Here's my proposal for a rearranged "Genre" section.

Cradle of Filth's first three demos bore a death metal feel, with occasional symphonic elements[1]. However, when they released their fourth demo, Total Fucking Darkness, their genre became more akin to black metal. Their "true" black metal status however, has been in debate since near the time they became popular[2], with some dismissing them for a perceived lack of credibility, along with bands such as Dimmu Borgir whose success followed in Cradle's wake.[3] Dani, in a 1998 interview for BBC Radio 5 for example, said "I use the term heavy metal, rather than black metal, because I think that's a bit of a fad now. Call it what you like: death metal, black metal, any kind of metal...",[4] while Gavin Baddeley's 2006 Terrorizer interview states that "few folk, the band included, call Cradle black metal these days."[5]
Their format differs from most black metal, and they have thus, at one time or another, been labeled symphonic black metal;[6] extreme gothic metal;[7] melodic black metal;[8] satanic metal;[9] vampyric metal;[10] speed metal;[11] death metal;[12] brutal death metal;[13] melodic death metal[14] and horror metal,[15] some of which are regarded by critics and fans alike as entirely apocryphal categories. Appearing on the BBC music quiz Never Mind the Buzzcocks on April 9 2001, Dani jokingly claimed Cradle's sound as "heavy funk".
However, the band's evolving sound has allowed them to continue resisting definitive categorisation. They are audibly influenced by Iron Maiden, have collaborated on projects like Christian Death's Born Again Anti-Christian album (on the track "Peek-A-Boo"), and have even dabbled outside of metal music with dance remixes ("Twisting Further Nails", "Pervert's Church" etc), although these have fallen by the wayside in recent years. In a 2006 interview with Terrorizer magazine, current guitarist Paul Allender said "We were never a black metal band. The only thing that catered to that was the make-up. Even when The Principle of Evil Made Flesh came out — you look at Emperor and Burzum and all that stuff — we didn't sound anything like that. The way that I see it is that we were, and still are now, an extreme metal band."[16]
As at November 2007, the band describe themselves as "the world's finest dark metal band" in the bio on their official MySpace page.[17], but ultimately, as Dani Filth stated in an October 2006 interview, "We'd rather be known as solely 'Cradle of Filth', I think, rather than be hampered by stupid genre barriers."[18]

Any comments or objections? --Stormie 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. As I said above, the band have nothing to do with their MySpace, so they're not "describing themselves" as anything. You'd need to determine who actually wrote that blurb. Plus, the very top of their MySpace describes them as "Metal / Black Metal / Gothic", well before any mention of "dark". So "dark" is a) in a biog that nobody from the band wrote, and b) only one genre of at least four mentioned on their official page. Why just pick one of the four? Cardinal Wurzel 00:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting note, is that it seems that the internet's supply of information on "dark metal" comes from this website. Go ahead and type "dark metal" into Google - you get a few results from Wikipedia and Wikipedia in different languages (I've noticed you only get other languages when there are few results anyway), everything else seems to be about black and death metal - I can't see any true sites about dark metal other than our article. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
First, on myspace you can't put the label "dark metal," Cardinal. Second I agree it should have a sentence of its own when the bands own recording label is calling them as such. Third the reason you can't find shit about it, is because it's not a real genre thus far, but more a label for bands that mix elements of black and gothic metal. Navnløs 18:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Riiiiiiiight... I see... So the first thing you see on the MySpace can be discounted as being due to the limitations of MySpace, whilst something buried half way down the page that's "not a real genre thus far" is gospel truth and deserving of a special mention on an unbiased encyclopaedia page where original research is prohibited. Yes, you're making perfect sense now. Cardinal Wurzel 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is: "Don't fix it if it's not broken" - it's taken years to decide on a genre for CoF, what has suddenly made us want to change it again? The genre should stay as it is and any other terms are just WP:POV. ScarianTalk 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Scarian da man. Cardinal Wurzel 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree; leave it be. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, first, Cardinal: yes, the first can be discounted, the second is not gospel if it only appeared on the myspace page, no, but it is worth mentioning as it is on their recording company's offical bio of the band. Second, Scarian: I appreciate what you are saying, and like I said once before, I'm not neccesarily asking for the genre to be changed in the music infobox, ok? I am asking that the whole dark metal thing, what with it appearing on roadrunner records site of the official bio of CoF, deserves at least a sentence. I mean, I don't get it, do you people realize that that sentence was there for quite a while originally, and then someone pointed it out to me that it had no citation, and I took it upon myself to find one (which I failed in anyways), and now that it does have a citation, you get rid of the sentence. It at least deserves a sentence, thats all I'm won't compromise the article or cause anyone's psyche to be destroyed, and I actually have a somewhat good reason behind making it into a sentence, and I'm working pretty hard here and ALL I want is one small sentence. Navnløs 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove my comments just because you don't like what I say Haunted Angel, or I will report you. If you want to add something to the conversation feel free. Navnløs 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove your comment - I think there was an edit conflict; you and I posted at the same time. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My final say on the matter is this. The blurb we're talking about is only on the Australian Roadrunner website. It isn't on the UK or US ones. So, far from meaning that it represents the opinion of the record company, all it means is that some marketing / web dude in Australia who wanted some content for the site, nicked it and slapped it up there. Really Navnløs, everybody understands your argument, but we just don't agree, and your reasoning is a bit off because your facts aren't quite straight. You're basing your argument on a lot of wonky assumptions. We don't mean to be unfriendly, and your idea is now represented on the page - just not quite in the way you want, which would compromise the paragraph in question by arbitrarily giving particular significance to something that's no more or less valid than anything else mentioned. Anybody reading this would think that we've just completely disallowed what you were saying. We really haven't - it's there. Now go find us a decent free image. Over and out. -- Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I apologize to the Haunted Angel for accusing him of deleting my comment, when apparently it was an accident. Secondly, I no longer care about the other crap. Over a couple days, I thought to myself "why the fuck do I even care, I don't even like the band." Someone else put the sentence in there and I just kinda took up their battle for some reason. I mean, CoF has some decent stuff, but they suck compared to a lot of other black metal bands and metal bands in general, in my opinion. The only thing they ever had going for them was Dani's unusually high voice. Third, what free image you talking about, Cardinal? Navnløs (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted - don't worry about it. Although saying CoF suck is blasphemy of the highest kind. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I believe Cardinal reffers to a free picture of the band for the article. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)