Talk:Doom metal

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


Archive
Archives
June 2003 - January 2010

No Extreme Metal[edit]

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

I would say that it depends on the doom metal band and/or the doom metal subgenre. The origins of doom death, for instance, are quite close to death metal; while traditional doom is very far away from it. Inesbc2001 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Doom Metal is not a form of Heavy Metal anymore[edit]

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

"Doom/death" is not even doom metal nor it's 2nd wave. It's mostly slowed down death metal with very little to no connection to doom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.176.97 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Death Doom could be included in the article as a subgenre of doom metal.
Anathema, My Dying Bride and Paradise Lost were important bands in the development of this subgenre in the early 1990s.
Whether Death Doom/ Doom Death is or is not a subgenre of Doom Metal could be as well mentioned in the article.
All bands and styles are bridges that link musical genres, thus it is almost impossible to have a consensus on whether some bands or styles are part of a musical genre. But that doesn't mean that those bands or styles should go unmentioned. Inesbc2001 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
But Death/doom is already cited on this artcle. ABC paulista (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrupted[edit]

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

Regional[edit]

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

If you have reliable sources supporting the existance of this regional scene, feel free to add it. ABC paulista (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
While I can't find any sources of my own, the "Music of Maryland" page here on Wikipedia has a paragraph about the Maryland/DC doom scene under the Popular Music section of the page. Someone already posted the information, as well as a source, but the site that was linked as the source must have been taken down. I don't know if that would still be considered applicable or not, though.
There's also quite a prevalent doom metal scene in the Pacific Northwest, in part due to a heavier evolution of grunge/sludge/stoner acts of the 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.113.197 (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Traditional doom/epic doom[edit]

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

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

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

I kinda agree with you with the Traditional doom. Its section really lacks sources, but it's easy to find in the internet bands like Saint Vitus, Pentagram, Trouble, Pagan Altar, being labeled as traditonal doom bands. But, it suffers from the same problem of Old-School Death metal and Raw Black metal: Since they are the first, original forms of their own genres, their bands are often linked with the main genre, what make it harder to find reliable sources. Still, there is some sources out there.
Epic doom is harder to find sources because its status of subgenre is debatable. Some reviewers and authors treat Traditional doom and Epic doom as the same genre (similar with Hard Rock, which some people say that it's the same thing of Traditional heavy metal). Ironically, this section has more, and better sources.
Still, I'm more concerned about the characteristics section, which doesn't have any sources. It's a more important section, whith more OR and no verifiable info. Furthermore, there is a lack of sources on the Funeral doom section, and on the Stoner doom one too.
Besides, I found some interesting sources about the Maryland Doom metal scene, so I'm working on it now. ABC paulista (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed the sources you've added. Looking good so far; I'll see what I can find to add to it, but I expect there's not much readily available on the net. — Richard BB 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
In respect to "traditional doom", there are now two sources cited in that section. The first is an album review from a site of dubious authority that merely recommends the album to fans of "traditional English doom metal", while the other is dead. Neither source supports the idea that any journalists or reviewers recognize traditional doom as a separate style. Unless further sources are added that address this, I will remove the section and incorporate any usable info elsewhere in the article within the next few days.--MASHAUNIX 14:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The second source DO support the idea that traditional doom is a separate style, but it is dead. Even @Richard BB: recognized so, so its still valid as a source. But, it would be nice if we had a way to recover it. Nonetheless, I've added a new source, a book one.
Mashaunix, I do like your efforts, but I think that they are sometimes misdirected. If you see this article, there are far more important sections under even more precarious conditions, like the characteristics section and the Origins (1970s) subsection inside History section, that hardly cite any source. I think that those should be the focused to be worked. ABC paulista (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
That should indeed be the focus of constructive work, but how is that relevant to this case? There shouldn't be made-up genres listed around Wikipedia; I don't understand the obsession with fragmenting metal into swathes of obscure microgenres. Every genre has a "traditional" or "classic" form that characterizes the artists who first performed it before meanings shifted and subgenres appeared. It doesn't make sense to add "traditional X" as a subgenre to every music genre article just because a writer has described one band or other with that label. As for the ref you added, it would be nice to list a page number; how else is the info verifiable? And does the source discuss the characteristics of traditional doom as a distinct style? If not, it is not enough.--MASHAUNIX 17:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, we avoid putting up swathes of obscure microgenres by determining that at least one reliable source has to acknowledge that such subgenre do exist and is relevant to the metal genre as a whole. This way, we avoided that subgenres such as Hypothermia metal, Oriental Black metal, Slam death metal, Folk/doom and others. This policy still cause us some trouble because some subgenre labels are more used to give a subjective band trait than as a subgenre identifier, but in general it had more benefits than negative points.
The "traditional" stuff is necessary because the genre article is intended to discuss the genre as a whole, considering all its deviations, developments and subtypes, so if we don't take account the original style of such genre, this info would be lost inside the article. That is a serious problem about the Black metal article, where it does acknowledge that there were two "waves" of Black metal, but it doesn't delve too deep on the differences between them. In the past there was a Raw Black metal subsection inside the Stylistic divisions section, that cited the differences between the First Wave Venom-esque style and the Second Wave Norwegian-esque style, but it was removed for a lack of reliable sources (which is indeed hard to find because very few actually discussed this subject, the differences between "waves" in terms of sound). But as for now, the article can mislead the reader to think that the First Wave and Second Wave bands sound the same, which would be misleading to them. The same thing can be applied for Death metal, that in the past had subsections for both Old-School metal and Brutal death metal, but were removed by the same reason. Now, the article is very Melodeath-oriented, which can cause readers to think that bands like Necrophagia, Morbid Angel and Cannibal Corpse are part of the same Melodeath subgenre.
About this source in specific, unfortunately I don't have the specific pages of it (still, it is accessible via Google Books), but it does acknowledges traditional doom as a distinct subgenre (following the original Black Sabbath sound), citing bands like Count Raven, Saint Vitus and Electric Wizard, and gives some traits that are more proeminent on Trad Doom than in other subgenres (Keyboard used as a secondary instrument instead of being primarly for ambience and feeling, Electric Bass going with the melody line instead of anchoring the harmonic framework, etc).
Now, if you are going to chase down and remove the subgenres that don't have sources discussing their characteristics as a distinct style, I think that you'll need to make a whole clean-up on Wikipedia because almost 90% don't have such. Almost all subgenres sources simply acknowledge their existance, cite one or two bands and give us one or another vague trait without further discussion. Many articles might have to be removed. ABC paulista (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I understand your point, but the sources used for subgenres in this article are especially weak, and I think that giving "traditional doom" its own section and listing it as a subgenre in the infobox serves only to confuse the reader with redundant categories. Of course later doom metal sounds a bit different to earlier doom metal, but this is better addressed in the characteristics section. Looking at "epic doom", the sources for that are also very weak and a separate section unnecessary.--MASHAUNIX 14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with you. If Traditional Doom metal suffered the same fate as Raw Black metal, where it was abandoned in preference of a later and newer style, consequently becoming practically nonexistent nowadays, I would agree with you that the characteristics section would be a better placement for them. But that wasn't the case, since Traditional Doom survived and became notable enough for people recognizing it as a distinctive subgenre. As I said, the article has to cover the genre in general, as a whole, so adding a Traditional Doom section wouldn't be a redundant category since it has its own characteristics that aren't found in other subgenres, thus the characteristics section cannot cover it properly.
If you think that the sources used for subgenres in this article are especially weak, I invite you to look for other accepted subgenres here like Speed metal, Blackened death metal, Deathgrind, Dark metal, War metal, Death-doom, Latin metal and others. There are far worse cases here taht should be addresed first before this section. ABC paulista (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
With the exception of speed metal, I would support deleting all of these. The fusion genres are especially useless... why do we need to have an article for every combination of death metal with another extreme metal subgenre? I understand what you are saying about traditional doom, but the sources cited are simply too weak to justify the division.--MASHAUNIX 16:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply because there are reliable sources that support such. I don't know if you are aware, but it's very hard to find credible sources that discuss metal in a technical and stylistic way, so we cannot be too strict on the sourcing to avoid being too shallow on the subjects. About the sources, the Traditional Doom subsection has 3, what is more than, lets say, 90% of the metal genres cited in whole wikipedia, and the book Black Sabbath and Philosophy: Mastering Reality is certainly a top 20 best source for a metal subgenre we have here, at least. But, if you are really going to pick on this sourcing, I stonrgly recommend you making a full revolution on the whole Music Porject. I'm sure you'd be really "astonished" with some stuff that you'd find on the Electronic music project. ABC paulista (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

But if the sources are shallow, it is not good to try to squeeze out in-depth descriptions out of them. There is hardly any evidence that a published writer has thought of "traditional doom" or "deathgrind" as distinct and describable categories; the sources that mention these "genres" don't warrant separate articles a sections but merely a mention in the text of better established articles. I understand that this problem is common throughout music articles, and I am aware that the fragmentation of electronic music articles is even more absurd than that of rock and metal. However, that's not relevant here. I noticed a problem in relation to this specific article, and it needs to be addressed regardless of the state of others. I agree that this would be best be done as part of a wider effort of improvement, but it should be done either way.--MASHAUNIX 10:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I cannot agree. Black Sabbath and Philosophy: Mastering Reality is very specific on distincting traditional doom form the other subgenres, and like I said before it's one of the best sources we have in the heavy metal project. And even if you say taht it's not enough, it's like I've said earlier: You won't find much more stuff out there to back-up the info because there is too few reliable sources discussing metal genres, and this problem is especially worrisome for the most underground ones, like Doom metal.
I have to say, but with all this I just feel that you are being somewhat biased in this subject, because we have articles in a more daring situation, with you being aware with all this, but you are being very strict only in this case. First of all, why you don't try to find more sources to back them up before considering removing them? With all this in mind, I can only start agreeing with you when you start taking the same action on other music articles, at least on the ones from the Heavy metal project, otherwise I can just feel a bit of hipocrisy on this matter.
After all, we are talking about sourced info here. Even if you say that they are too shallow and stuff, at least the most reliable of them clearly has thought of "traditional doom" as a distinct subgenre, even citing characteristics and notable bands, which is very rare on these cases. And, there is a bit of consensus on both Music Project and Heavy metal Project that this kind of sourcing is enough to cite these kind of subgenres, so if you really want to make such changes on this (these) article(s), first you should address this matter to the project community on their main page to change the consensus before taking it here. For now, what we have here is reliable, verifiable and acceptable per Heavy metal music project standards, so it should not be removed per such until the consensus is changed. ABC paulista (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Beatles Song[edit]

The article wrote: The Beatles' 1969 song "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is sometimes considered to be the first ever work of doom rock/metal.[1][2]

References

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

Doesn't seem to. We can only verify the first reference if someone has the magazine, or a digital version of it. The second one is a reputable and verifiable source, and it looks like that that statement was refering to the whole song. I think that that info is worth mentioning. ABC paulista (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
As for the first reference, the burden of proof is on the contributor making the claim. As for the second reference, it is from a collection of songs claimed to be the heaviest before Black Sabbath, and they say the “heavy” part kicks in at the 4:37 mark, then builds and builds into something a twisted DJ would play as the pillars of the earth are tumbling down around him. Purple prose referring to a part of the song. Further they say (emphasis added): Also, this song may have inadvertently started doom metal. They do not say it is the first ever work of doom metal. The claim is clearly not supported as given. Weaseling words like the one in the article - considered by some - do not belong into the lead anyhow.
As for the list, it is made for entertainment, not for the purpose of researching Doom Metal. The purple prose and the wishi-washiness of the claim speaks for itself. The author can collect any kind of songs and describe them the way he feels like. For intance, they mistook a later version of Jacula piece (number seven on the list) for an earlier one, if that ever existed in the first place. They have been called on it. Still, the list is there without correction.
So, I suggest: move the claim from the lead to the body of the article, find better sources, and add a sentence or two. -- Zz (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


Ok, I understand and respect now why you reverted my initial edit. I distinctly remember the Classic Rock article explicitly calling it the first Doom metal song. If I dig out my copy and find the exact quote, is this enough to justify the inclusion of the sentence? Shikari 123 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Let us say you dig up the reference (with a verbatim quote, if possible), and we move the section from the lead to the main article. Is it fine with you? -- Zz (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Still, there's another source giving the same description to the song, backing up the first source. So it may have some validity at all. ABC paulista (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Printed media and magazine are considered the most valuable and reliable source here in Wikipedia, no matter what the subject. Wikipedia's goal is not to be true, but sourced and reliable, like every encyclopedia. And that's the case of this statement, that has more than a source.
And common sense has no value for wikipedia, especially in cases of sourced info. ABC paulista (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

And what about the Classic Rock Magazine? It has no value? ABC paulista (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Per the comment by Zz above, the burden of proof is on the contributor making the claim. The Classic Rock reference is incomplete; and does not allow the reader to verify the information. The source was still, however, factored into the reasoning above: - One source, of unknown quality, does not provide sufficient support for inclusion of this claim in the lead section of the article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 19:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Saying "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" is just a couple of notes in a minor scale and doesn't make it root of doom metal clearly states they don't know what they are talking about, let alone heard the song. Also, a band that "isn't even hard rock" is totally ignorant of the fact that they DO have plenty of hard rock songs. Could a mod that actually knows their stuff come in and add the Beatles part back in?2602:306:8B83:4860:58D:190C:D4F2:3950 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There simply aren't good quality sources to verify the inclusion of this information. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Beatles as first?[edit]

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Doom 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)