Talk:Groove metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
May 2006 - February 2009

Is this notable enough for an article?[edit]

If you look the words "groove metal" up on any search engine you wouldn't get much. I noticed people were using websites like and metal archives for history on the term during the discussion for the article's deletion, both non reliable sources. And the only reliable source even used in this article is Pantera's allmusic entry. The only other major sources I've really found on the genre are Blender refering to "Welcome to the Jungle" and I've read a book called The Rough Guide to Rock that dubs White Zombie "metal groove". Neither of which go indepth on any history. Terms in wider use like blues-metal, pop metal(well I tried to give this one a page, but it was unfortunatly deleted), and southern metal don't even have articles here. Can anyone find anything about this style's origin, history, anything? This article's notability is on thin ice. RG (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What about "post-thrash"? Portillo (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that these two terms are interchangeble. "Post-thrash" isn't really a notable style as well. RG (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Blender and Allmusic are enough. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC))
Neither of these sources give a history of the music or a description of how the music sounds. Does anyone have any other reliable sources that mention this style? RG (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic hardly even recognises thrash as a genre, sure they have an article on it, and use the term in reviews the odd time, but they never use it as the actual genre of the album they are reviewing. And why the hell does it say groove metal is a mix between hip-hop, dance, and hard rock and the citation of which leads to something about Korn? hardly a groove metal band. Also why was it necessary to cut this article down so much, it was hardly the biggest and best in the first place. Since when was groove metal not a genre, look at the bands, I mean some of them are extrememly influential, just look at exhorder, pantera and machine head in particular. Why does there have to be this elitism? look at all these emo core genres a new one seems to be made every day and there seems to be plenty of articles on them at least last time I checked. I may start editing this article.--Thrashattack84 (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Syxxpackid420 (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That reference isn't reliable. RG (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Groove Metal was given as a term to replace "Post-thrash". Groove metal is a genre. Get over it. This article isn't going to be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't groove metal just metal with a waltz or a swing added to it? That's basically 'cowboys from hell' and 'I'm broken'. Maybe it needs an opinion from someone who's more into music history than simply the metal or rock genre? Impfireball (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The amount of recognition this genre has, I'm surprised there aren't more sources explaining its existence. I mean, it's in pretty wide use... then again, that was shown by unreliable sources such as Metal Archives and There's going to be a lot of change around the metal-related parts of Wikipedia once this article's gone. (I'm not taking a side in anything here, just commenting.) --LordNecronus (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it really is surprisingly hard to find reliable sources on groove metal, even though its influence (let alone existence) is so obvious. Ryangardenour (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rate Your Music[edit]

Can anyone give me a reason why Rate Your Music would be considered a reliable source? RG (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right its not so I've removed it Syxxpackid420 (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


This page as well as nu metal have been reverted. Learn to edit. You dont DELETE everything. You pick thorough the parts and if they are ABSOLUTELY FALSE or completely unverifiable, then remove it. (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Current problems[edit]

The article currently appears to have several problems. At the beginning, it states that it was used to desribe one band, what does not seem to make a whole genre. The sources that the article cites contradict each other. Pantera does not seem to have any connection with hip-hop and dance music and does not appear to be the same genre as Korn, whose style is described in the source. This also might mislead the reader and cause a confusion with nu metal. The statement about Machine Head shows no evidence of any connecton to groove metal, so it should be clarified or removed.

The sources do not seem to provide basic information about the genre for the infobox. This needs to be corrected. The article in general does not seem to be an encyclopedic summary of its topic, but rather a collection of statements that look like a debate. I would like to ask the editors, who wanted to keep the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groove metal (3rd nomination), to provide new reliable sources about the topic and sort the problems out.--  LYKANTROP  11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, just so "we" know, do "we" have a deadline to address these purported issues? – B.hoteptalk• 12:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You tell me--  LYKANTROP  12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking whether you are giving "us" (notice I keep using these terms because you seem to think it's down to the people who participated in the AfD to rectify things) a deadline. What I'm trying to say is, this article seems to be your raison d'etre at the moment and you only seem to check back to see how the AfD is doing, seeing if you can hurry along its deletion; and now, with the AfD barely cold from its close, you are here to plaster as many tags on it as possible. Of course, you (as with any other editor) are quite entitled to point out shortcomings in an article (maybe that would have been better than a third AfD in the first place?), but please don't be under the illusion that if things aren't sorted to your satisfaction within the hour or next time you log in that you have a case for further action. – B.hoteptalk• 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, you don't need to waste your time with describing my behaviour by personal degrading statements like "this article seems to be your raison d'etre". I'm not such an egoist to be offended by this. You just makes youself seem sorry im my eyes because you have the need to tell me such things. Moreover when you're an administator.
To answer your question; yea, i do expect the promoters from the AfD to sort it out. I think that "SNOWBALL-keeping" a misleading stub is neither responsible nor encyclopdic and does not contribute to the readers' knowledge. To point out shortcomings would not be better than an AfD. An AfD can start more activity of the editors.
In the AfD, you said "Two sources is fine for a stub article and there is no actual time limit to completing the article." That might be right, but what it actually means is, that according to you there is no way how to implement the neologism policy. According to that statemt, every neologism has its place on Wikipedia because 2 sources are fine for a stub. But that must be kind of false. Yes, there is no actual time limit to completing the article, but there is also no actual time limit to re-creating an article. That means that everyone can always write the whole article about groove metal when he has the sources, so no actual harm could be done to the article or to Wikipedia by removing it. And also because, in this case, what does a reader miss if he does not read this stub? He won't get confused, that's all.
I do not seem to be in the position of giving any deadlines. There are no deadlines. Everything is revertible on Wikipedia. And you know that. At this moment, the article gives zero information to a reader, rather misleads and confuses a reader. So it seems to be a perfect redirect to heavy metal music. If no editor does anything with it to make it at least seem like a genre, than what else can we do than redirect?--  LYKANTROP  14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the personal attack in pointing out that, from your contributions from June 4 to present you have only created the AfD, commented on the AfD, tagged this article and added a wishlist on this talk page and little else. Since when is the truth a personal attack? – B.hoteptalk• 14:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
haha :) I wonder what do You expect/want me to answer. Sorry, but i am not interested and don't even belive in truth, so i don't care what you interpret as truth. Again, please try to keep things factual. What relevant is this for groove metal? I am also not mocking You that the truth is that Wikipedia is your raison d'etre obviously far more than mine; so let's leave this ok?
We established in the 3rd AfD (by consensus) that it was not a neologism as you said? I don't remember we established that. I remember that you've said "We disagree". I remeber it was kept because i was the only one to delete it. But i don't remember that anyone added "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept" to the article, which is a criterion for non-neolgisms. So where is the 100% proof that it is not one?--  LYKANTROP  14:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You started an AfD based on this being a neologism. There were people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism. The article was kept, which would seem to suggest that your deletion rationale (it being a neologism) was a bit dodgy. Aside from anything else, the neologism template says "in such a manner as to promote it" – where is your 100% proof that anyone is trying to do this? I'm not going to remove it again, I have no intention of getting into an edit war over it. Quite frankly, I have better things to do than get into a protracted argument over it. – B.hoteptalk• 08:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
i am glad to hear that. but note that the template also says "This article may document a neologism (...)", so no 100% proof is necessary. it's enough that i argue it is one and no one has disproved me yet. and "in such a manner as to promote it" stands for the existence of the article in it's current form itself. it must not be a certain editor's intent.
concerning the "people at the AfD who categorically stated it wasn't a neologism": the point is that the people, who stated that, had only the bare categorical statement that it's not one, but had no justification for it according to the policy. i argued it's a neologism, because it violates a certain policy that i cited in my latest comment. but the opposers just said "no it's not", but didn't say why and didn't disprove my justification. they just twaddled around about other articles, made-up rules and other unrelated non-relevant things.
the only thing i am asking for are the sources. "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". unless the sources are provided, it always can be a neologism.
i don't get why this should ever get protracted. it's plain and simple. no sources about it = neologism; sources about it = no neologism. provide the sources and i'll shut up.--  LYKANTROP  09:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand this. A word isn't a neologism because there are no sources about it - these two concepts are totally unrelated. The guideline exists to govern Wikipedia handling of neologisms. If the word in question is not a neologism then the guideline doesn't apply. It is not the case that "if there are no sources then it must be a neologism" - that is a wildly inaccurate misconception on your part. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
But where does it come from? Which policy states what you say? Isn't that just your thoughts? Where is then the policy/criteria that determine neologisms? Post me the link to it so that we can determine. WP:NEO says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". It does not say "To support an article about a particular neologism" but any "term or concept". This seems not to only handle neologisms, but also determine them. The sentence explicitly handles any "particular term or concept".--  LYKANTROP  12:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not the responsibility of one editor to provide verification that something is not the case. It is the responsibility of the other to provide verification that it is the case. You have never provided anything anywhere to back up your theory that "groove metal" is a neologism. Until you do, shoehorning your argument to fit an unrelated guideline is redundant. WP:NEO does not determine neologisms - you are synthesising that guideline to suggest that it does. What determines a neologism is simply the definition of the word "neologism". You seem to think that the guideline implies that every word and term in existence is a neologism until it's proved otherwise, which is just cobblers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, here we are. Now you finally expressed what you talk about. So, to clear things out, please read carefully. There are policies and guidelines on Wikipedia that determine what should and what should not be included in Wikipedia. There are several inclusion criteria on Wikipedia. If an editor wants a term or concept to be included on Wikipedia, he/she must prove (via reliable sources) that it meets the criteria of inclusion. The problem of "groove metal" goes from WP:5P up to WP:NEO, let me explain.
Wikipedia:Notability guideline states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." WP:NOT, a Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria, contains also the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, which contains the The dictionary definition trap section, which contains WP:NEO policy. That criteria is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and (!!!) EVERY single topic, term or concept, if challenged, must prove the evidence that it meet ANY challenged criteria. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:BURDEN). So those, who restore the challenged topic, are supposed to verify it. That's you, not me. What you call "your theory" is my challenge.
The party that is challengening the content of Wikipedia does not need provide a source of the challenge. How can a source for any challenge ever be provided? Just for instance, if A says that one band does not meet any of the notability guidelines, then B must prove that the band meets some of them. Not vice versa. Of course that A must not provide a source that says that the band doesn't meet the criteria and is not notable. The are no such sources for any topic concerning any policy. Or, for instance, if A creates an article about "easter bunny metal", of course that B must not find a source that says "easter bunny metal is a neologism".
So ANY article on Wikipedia can be challenged on ANY criteria including the neologism criteria; and if it is challenged, then in must prove that it meets it. Otherwise it does not meet that inclusion criteria. But an article, that is not a neologism (for instance heavy metal music, thrash metal) has not a problem to prove that it meets the criteria, because it has a buch of sources about the term.
So to answer your concerns precisely: WP:NEO does determine neologisms, because it is Wikipedia's definition of the word "neologism" policy. Every single term on Wikipedia must meet it and it's up to the "keepers" of groove metal to prove that my challenge is wrong.
Does it make sence for you now?--  LYKANTROP  17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
No, frankly, it doesn't. I don't agree with the way you interpret the guidelines, and I don't agree with your point of view. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Tell me where is the problem?--  LYKANTROP  17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Where do I start? The dictionary definition point is irrelevant because "groove metal" is not of a construct likely to be covered by a dictionary anyway - it's not a word. Because it's not a word, it's not a neologism, so that whole part of your argument is redundant. You can raise questions about the sourcing, the reliability of that sourcing, or notability within music etc. But it does not fail WP:NOT on the grounds that you say it does. To use your "easter bunny metal" analogy, yes, the proposer must provide sources for notability to satisfy the inclusion criteria. But if a challenger wants to challenge it using WP:NEO, it has to actually be a neologism. You don't have to provide a source for the challenge, but the challenge must actually correspond to a property held by that article. Otherwise it's a non sequitur - it makes no sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
"Because it's not a word, it's not a neologism"? You seem to change your explanations why it's not a neologism in every reply. WP:NEO talks about "term or concept", not a word. So it must not be a single word.
"The challenge must actually correspond to a property held by that article." - well, what do you mean? Prior to any challenge, we don't know whether the article helds the property. The challenge is made to find out whether the article holds the property. If A (random editor) thinks that a band called "Easter Bunny" is not notable than he challenges the article and be B (the author of the article) must prove that it is notable. - And that's how they find out (after the challenge) whether it's notable. What you said is that A can only challenge the article if it already is notable. But that's something they only found out afterwards. I am not supposed to challenge something that is a neologism, because we don't know whether it is one. I am challenging you to prove it's not one. And that's how we all find out whether it is or not.--  LYKANTROP  22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I haven't changed my explanation - it is merely that there are several reasons why it is not a neologism. WP:NEO is not a definition of the word "neologism", nor does it pretend to be. To your other point, a challenge regarding notability is absolutely not the same thing as a challenge about a neologism, and it's disingenuous to suggest that I've implied that. I've said it before but I do not need to prove that groove metal is not a neologism. You need to prove that it is or might be, and that WP:NEO applies in this case. You've suggested it, and absolutely nobody agrees with you - that's basically the end of it. If it were agreed that this guideline applies or has some relevance, then the contents of the guideline could be explored and implemented. An entity does not exist until somebody proves it exists. It is not the case that entities are believed to exist until somebody proves that they don't. Again, we are repeating ourselves with no prospect of resolution. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea, i think we just made clear where the disagreement is, and that's a one good thing. The situation appears to be that I am challenging "groove metal" on the grounds of WP:NEO policy (because every single article can be challenged by every editor on the grounds of every policy any time) and you object to the challenge, stating that I can not challenge that article, because I need a prove my challenge. So later we may find a third party neutral comment to find a solution.
Just to give you a notice, there is an answer to you argument. As you said "An entity does not exist until somebody proves it exists." Yes. Exactly. On the grounds of WP:NEO, I claim that "groove metal" encyclopedically does not exist, until you proove it does by citing "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". Groove metal is the entity whose encyclopedic existence must be proved and a "neologism" would be it's attribute if it's existence in reliable sources will not be proved. A neologism is not any entity I am talking about. The entity is "groove metal". "Neologism" is a possible attribute that will be found out through the challenge.
And again, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."(WP:BURDEN) You seem to everlook this telling me to give you evidence of my challenge.
Concerning the definition: WP:NEO does not link to any other "definition of the word "neologism"", so there is no other definition of that word that is a Wikipedia policy. Every Wikipedia policy stands on its own and does not use any external defenitions. On the top of that the policy states explicitily "To support an article about a particular term or concept" not about a particular neologism. WP:NEO applies in every case in which an editor freely decides to challenge any random article, because every Wiki. policy might be challenged on every article any time. Any "external definitions" are not relevant for Wikipedia. You didn't disprove this on the grounds of any Wikipedia policy, you just said "i disagree" with no policy backup.
If you can't disprove that, we won't run in circles (as you suggested) and we will wait until B.hotep delivers what he told; because he is the one who understood the problem of this article; knows how to help the article and hopefully does it.--  LYKANTROP  08:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting very weary of this, particularly when you keep implying that I don't understand the problem and that I don't know how to help the article. I am not obliged to fix this article, ok? Your comment: "On the grounds of WP:NEO, I claim that "groove metal" encyclopedically does not exist, until you proove it does by citing "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept". Groove metal is the entity whose encyclopedic existence must be proved and a "neologism" would be it's attribute if it's existence in reliable sources will not be proved." is an incorrectly aimed challenge. What you are talking about is a simple challenge on the grounds of notability. That is perfectly fine, and acceptable, and I have no problem with that challenge. My issue is that you keep confusing it with WP:NEO which has nothing to do with any of this. I am not overlooking any burden of proof, other than my attempt to get you to say why you think it's a neologism. You give me an answer each time which does nothing but show that you don't know what a neologism is. When I say "I disagree", I am not disagreeing with wikipedia policy or your challenge for further sources, I am disagreeing with your manipulation and interpretation of WP:NEO. It is impossible for me to "disprove" your interpretation of WP:NEO with any policy backup because the guideline is just not appropriate in this case. In any case, it's a dead-end argument. I am not obstructing any movement on this article with regard to challenges of notability - this is admittedly borderline, though I believe the subject is notable. Your request for further sources is fine, but the neologism aspect is such a pointless, irrelevant argument, and the continued pushing of it is becoming quite tedious. Rather than you and me just exchanging our differences, let's wait to see if Bubba hotep can find anything and take it from there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Absolutely no sense at all. Bordering on TL;DR, I did attempt to read it, but it was so convoluted, I couldn't put it into any logical order. Your attempts at wiki-lawyering are, well, quite amusing to be honest. The hard facts of this are that today alone, four people have disagreed that this is a neologism (either here on this talk page or by removing the neologism template) – that is called a consensus. Consensus being against you at present, I really would recommend not pushing it any further today. – B.hoteptalk• 17:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, we might go to DL, but we should make it a bit clearer here before we do so.--  LYKANTROP  17:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── DL? Not sure what you mean. Anyway, I could come up with a few sources to backup the fact that it is a notable sub-genre argument, but it won't do anything to change your mind, and I'm not inclined towards jumping through hoops because it will take time, and that is one thing you seem to be short on, trying to rush things through all the time. – B.hoteptalk• 17:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DL was a typo. Nevermind. Glad to hear you're coming with sources. That's the stuff we need. I knew that the AfD would help the article. We've got enough time. Everything is reversible on Wikipedia. And don't worry (since i seem to annoy you), i won't be able to be around that often in the near future. But I'm curious about the stuff you'll bring.--  LYKANTROP  22:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stop ruining these articles and turning them into stubs. Portillo (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I' sorry to say that, but the review of Burn My Eyes does not use the term "groove metal", so i'll reword it as it was before it was removed allright?--  LYKANTROP  12:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Available sources[edit]

Here is a list of available sources on groove metal. Feel free to pick the flesh from the bones and implement them as you see fit. If you want to see them on a seperate page, see here. Please do not remove any, if you have any comments, please put them at the end.B.hoteptalk• 12:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


  • "For the uninitiated, the Spiritual Beggars are a three-piece psychedelic groove-metal trio from Sweden." [1]
  • "... the groundbreaking Texas quartet's career did not begin with the blueprint-defining extreme groove-metal of 1990's Cowboys from Hell..." [2]
  • "... there was no greater metal band during the early to mid-'90s than Pantera, who inspired a legion of rabid fans and whose oft-termed "groove metal" style bucked all prevailing trends of the day..." [3]
  • "... only barely staves off gimmicky groove metal breakdowns..." [4]
  • "The Boston-based groove-metal band Roadsaw released their debut album Nationwide in 1997." [5]
  • "Byzantine synthesize the last 20 years of metal into an incredibly colorful, vibrant whole: '80s thrash rolls into '90s groove metal..." [6]
  • "... elements of doom metal, Southern rock, grindcore, Melvins-like sludge, Pantera-type groove-metal..." [7]
  • "...they shifted from the thick-necked, straight-edge hardcore of their early catalog to a version of the "groove metal" practiced by Pantera, Trivium, and other modern metal bands." [8]
  • "They also owe something to death metal and the "groove metal" sound of acts like Pantera and Lamb of God, but they've got a crispness and an impressive..." [9]
  • "... for 1995's aforementioned Positive Pressure it was thrash and Pantera-style groove metal (commercial peak circa 1993)..." [10]
  • "... semi-industrial groove metal riffing..." [11]
  • "Though fans kneel at the alter of this groove metal, the band sure doesn't hide influences that came before it..." [12]
  • "Sweden's Face Down attempted to ride Pantera and Machine Head's groove-metal gravy train..." [13]
  • "Formed in a small town in Ontario, Canada during the early '90s, the groove-metal band Ritual debuted in 1994..."[14]

Alternative Press[edit]

  • "Equal parts groove-metal, metalcore, thrash and even glam..." [15]

Drowned In Sound[edit]

  • "... limply pushing itself onwards through 11 tracks of turgid groove-metal..." [16]

Entertainment Weekly[edit]

  • "Drummer Chris Adler has said their fifth album will "surprise a lot of people," scaring fans who thought the groove-metal band's last record already succumbed to (gasp!) accessibility." [17]


  • "High On Fire have become one of the decade's foremost doom-laden groove metal acts." [18]
  • "OO% is a side project intended to occupy time while guitarist Jimmy Bower fulfils commitments with groove metal outfits Down and Corrosion Of Conformity." [19]

Metal Hammer[edit]

  • On Faust Again's The Trial, "... it swiftly becomes apparent that Gojira are not alone in their disregard for convention and mastery of the surging, reptilian groove." [20]
  • On Killwhitneydead's A Trilogy of Terror, "... the infectiouslate 90s noisecore mayhem-meets-Pantera groove... is left alone." [21]


  • "Unleashing there devastatingly brutal, hardcore-influenced groove metal, Mastodon sank their teeth in to the crowd..." [22]


  • "Why should they follow former members of At the Gates when they now seem concerned with replacing the velocity and philosophy of their former band with idiotic groove metal..." [23]


  • On band Bastards, "By spinning brutish 90s metalcore, and good old fashioned grindcore 'round the same discordant axis and tempering their machine gun blasts of jarring aggression with sickening grooves..." [24]
  • On band Cough, "Their [album] firmly wears influences on sleeve as a perfect amalgamation of EyeHateGod/Iron Monkey's misanthropic groove..." [25]
  • On Eyehategod's Take as Needed for Pain, "... pummelled by rolling sludge groove after motherfuckin' sludge groove..." [26]
  • On Eyehategod's Dopesick, "Schizophrenic ragers like 'Dogs Holy Life' and the Sabbath-core groove of 'Dixie Whiskey'..." [27]
  • On Acid Bath's When the Kite String Pops, "Dax Riggs unique vocals, and morbid lyrics combine with the usual riff 'n' feedback ingredients... as well as... death metal, black metal... and straight up doom." [26]
  • On Iron Monkey's Our Problem, "The self-titled might have spat a little more bile, but the Southern rawk groove..." [26]
  • On Down's Nola, "It's a great place to start for any budding groove aficionado". [28]
  • On Despised Icon's Day of Mourning, "... breakdowns which morph the unexpected into the comfortable grooves and slams..." [29]
  • On Magrudergrind's self-titled, "... but Magrudergrind toss in a whole bunch of neighbouring influences (hardcore, powerviolence, punk, thrash), bookend it with pop-culture samples and wicked groove parts". [30]
  • On No Consequence's In the Shadow of Gods, "... smartly executed bursts of everything from brutal grind to razor-sharp thrash, their sound is a bravely limitless amalgam of every credible sub-genre... song[s] like 'The Arrival of Predators', with its lurching, spastic grooves..." [31]
  • On Heaving Earth's live performance, "It's a little messy and mostly unremarkable, but a pinch of Napalm-inspired grind, groove, and earnest conviction sees them through". [32]


  • "... that Pantera at their best were one of the finest metal acts ever... or perhaps obscurer Louisiana groove-metal merchants Exhorder." [33]


  1. ^ Thom Jurek. "Mantra III review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  2. ^ Eduardo Rivadavia. "Projects in the Jungle review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  3. ^ Jason Birchmeier. "Pantera > Biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  4. ^ Eduardo Rivadavia. "Conquer review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  5. ^ John Bush. "Roadsaw biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  6. ^ Cosmo Lee. "Oblivion Beckons review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  7. ^ William York. "Pussysoul review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  8. ^ Phil Freeman. "Deathless' review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  9. ^ Phil Freeman. "Terror Incognita review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  10. ^ Eduardo Rivadavia. "Better Mad Than Dead review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  11. ^ Eduardo Rivadavia. "Years in the Darkness review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  12. ^ Charles Spano. "FMEP review". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  13. ^ Eduardo Rivadavia. "Face Down biography". Allmusic. 
  14. ^ John Bush. "Ritual biography". Allmusic. Retrieved 13 June 2010. 
  15. ^ Jonah Bayer. "Shadows Fall: Shadows Are Security". Alternative Press. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  16. ^ Ben Patashnik. "Bloodsimple - Red Harvest". Drowned in Sound. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  17. ^ Mike Bruno. "Lamb of God Wrath review". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  18. ^ Keith Carman. "High on Fire Snakes for the Divine review". Exclaim!. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  19. ^ Keith Carman. "Outlaw Order are Not Eyehategod". Exclaim!. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  20. ^ Lawson, Dom (September 2009). "Reviews". Metal Hammer: 87. 
  21. ^ Gordon, Connie (September 2009). "Reviews". Metal Hammer: 88. 
  22. ^ Spin staff. "Mastodon, Against Me! Stop, Smell Roses". Spin (magazine). Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  23. ^ Clay Jarvis. "The Haunted One Kill Wonder review". Stylus Magazine. Retrieved 14 June 2010. 
  24. ^ Kelly, Kim (September 2009). "Choice cuts". Terrorizer (188): 21. 
  25. ^ Minton, James (September 2009). "Choice cuts". Terrorizer (188): 23. 
  26. ^ a b c Minton, James (September 2009). "Filth Parade". Terrorizer (188): 56–57. 
  27. ^ Kelly, Kim (September 2009). "Filth Parade". Terrorizer (188): 56. 
  28. ^ Selby, Jenn (September 2009). "Filth Parade". Terrorizer (188): 57. 
  29. ^ Meacham, Anna (September 2009). "Filth Parade". Terrorizer (188): 73. 
  30. ^ Hoare, James (September 2009). "Selected and Dissected". Terrorizer (188): 76. 
  31. ^ Ellis, Graham (September 2009). "Selected and Dissected". Terrorizer (188): 77. 
  32. ^ Minton, James (September 2009). "Stagefright: Obscene Extreme 2009". Terrorizer (188): 87. 
  33. ^ Simmonds, Jeremy (2008). The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and Ham Sandwiches. Chicago Review Press. p. 535. ISBN 9781556527548. 


  • Place comments on above sources here.
  • You've outdone yourself Bubs. A dedicated article builder could take those and turn this stub into a Featured Article (Where's Pat when you need 'em?) Wiki libs (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done. Portillo (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not even a single one of those sources talks about "groove metal." You could find at least a dozen acts being called "boogie metal", but hardly anything about it. Also, might I add that having the simple word groove is an album review does not mean that that source is calling a band "groove metal." We could find multiple sources calling bands like Sabbath and Zeppelin having groove. This term really is a neologism. RG (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • How about you put back the template that says "please expand this article (see the talk page)" instead of blindly reverting. Some of the info added might have been good. Please stop being so unhelpful and please stop edit warring. And the consensus was: it is not a neologism. – B.hoteptalk• 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Please stop being so unhelpful" That was flat out rude. You are readding unsourced information to the article and filling it full of original research. If you want to expand the article than find something that gives it a legit history, mentions bands that pioneered it, etc. You can find this simple information for about any other metal sub (thrash metal, hair metal, doom metal, etc.) RG (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm being rude? Am I wrong though? Have you removed a template that could very well help the article? Have you re-added a template that has been pointed out many times to be wrong? In what terms could anyone call that helpful? – B.hoteptalk• 14:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is such right now that with the reliable sources provided above it can be expanded... not wholesale reverted back to nothingness. Leave the personal pov at the door. Wiki libs (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bubba, you and Libs are removing references that would pass WP:RS and turning this article into fancruft. Original research is not allowed. Libs, there is a reason this was reverted, it's false info. The only source that actually talks about it calls it a mix of hard rock, dance music, and hip hop. If you want to expand the article then keep the sourced info and add more the sources. Right now you people are commiting vandalism with this OR. RG (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Describing these attempts to expand the article as "vandalism" is a blatant breach of WP:AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
These people are breaking WP:OR and WP:NPOV, Breton. If you or anyone else were to expand the article using legit sources then that is perfectly fine, but that isn't the case here. People are just reverting anything they don't want to see. RG (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Whatever they're doing, it really isn't vandalism. Adding info without sources may be questionable under the guidelines you mention, but it isn't vandalism, and calling it that is inflammatory. "Reverting anything they don't want to see" - looks like what you're doing too. Not all unsourced info needs to be removed instantly, particularly if it's not contentious in any way, as we all know that info wasn't. There needs to be a bit of give and take here. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The plain fact of this matter is that this was a good, at least somewhat accurate article before it was essentially deleted. The user RG is clearly wasting everyone's time here and being a detriment to Wikipedia. I honestly don't care about stepping on anyone's toes, I have nothing to lose. Especially it went from a somewhat detailed article to a a two-line blurb about hip-hop and Korn. There was a wealth of information on this page before RG decided that Groove Metal is not a genre, just a "neologism" which is illogical considering ANY genre distinction could be technically considered a neologism. (and why RG considers this one source so important and accurate I can't understand either, Korn is in no way groove metal). There is a considerable amount of information on this genre. It is noticeably distinct from other metal genres. Even a non-listener of Metal could compare Exodus (groove) to Anthrax (thrash) or Pantera (groove) to Slayer (thrash) and easily tell the difference between the two genres. Why is one person's immature and incorrect stance on Wikipedia's rules preventing something that would make the encyclopedia as a whole better? This is not an attack on anyone. This is from an objective outsider's standpoint and it is clear to me that RG is impeding the progress of Wikipedia. I frequent the music articles on Wikipedia and rarely edit articles, once in a while if I see a bad typo or something but I just HAD to speak up about this, it seemed so unfair reading the Talk page grow and grow while the article itself remained inaccurate and uninformative. Other users even posted multiple sources about bands considered to be in the grenre and they were immediately shot down. Even if the sources above don't qualify PERFECTLY by some strange, obscure rule, groove metal IS a distinct genre of music and it makes sense to have a good article backed up with multiple sources instead of the 10kb waste of server space that the current one is. I'm going to have to do some research and post some sources now just to further prove this point.
  • ""Please stop being so unhelpful" That was flat out rude." No, it wasn't. It was factual. Name a way in which you actually helped anything. Punkrockdude (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Question to RG: You seem dead set against this article now, it wasn't always like that. Even recently you added bands to list of groove metal bands [1]. If you don't believe it exists, why would you do that? Now, do you want to work with me/us and let's forget all this silliness? I'll even forgive you for calling me a vandal and an inserter of false information. ;) – B.hoteptalk• 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You said on my talk page: "Also, we don't need to list the bands in the article, we already have a page (which I was the primary editor on) called List of groove metal bands." while I was asking this question, you must have read my mind. The reason we have a (very small) list of bands on this article is to give it some context... and to prevent people from saying "yeah, but you've only got 2 examples on there, so it can't exist". But mainly for the context. – B.hoteptalk• 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Groove metal and nu metal were both doing fine until some people decided that it was better to turn them and keep them as stubs. Even when reliable sources are included. Portillo (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. What we have to do (and what I will be trying to do in the next few days) is to reconstruct the article from scratch essentially. I will be checking the history to see if any other valid edits have been removed and source them if necessary as well as implementing newer stuff. As long as everyone is willing to remain collaborative, I don't think it will be too long before it's a workable article again. – B.hoteptalk• 08:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment B.hotep has done a solid work of collecting sources. The article can be expanded. But I would like to point out that RG's comment from 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC) has a point. You really should try to elaborate on sources that actually talk about groove metal iself; most of what I see are reviews, not an evidence of an actual genre. Just to give a nice example of how a short but accurate and solid article that has reliable sources about it can look like: Deathgrind. If you can reach this, you've done your job. But watch out WP:SYN when using the sources that only use the term.--  LYKANTROP  09:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely convinced there is such a source – similar to the deathgrind one you mention – I'm pretty sure that [Deathgrind] reference isn't online anywhere so it's down to people that have got the resources available to find it. As you know, heavy metal genres (and even genres in general) are contentious areas – I mean where else would someone expect, or demand, more than nine sources on a stub article? – and often end in frayed nerves on both sides of the fence. Believe me, I came here fully on the fence, but now I've made a start, hopefully we can put this behind us and it's how we go forward that is the only important thing now. – B.hoteptalk• 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yea, many sources (and the best ones) are not online, but someone must actually add them to this article (if there are such sources about groove metal). At this point the stub doesn't really show an evidence of an actual genre. The first thing I would do is removal of The Washington Post source, because the writer mistook groove metal for nu metal. What he says is blatantly misleading information, that no other source would approve.
And still, find and provide a source that defines groove metal. Reviews are nice but not enough.--  LYKANTROP  14:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Article rebuild is looking fantastic Bubba H. Keep up the good work. Will continue to AGF that no more bad faith RVs will tamper with positive progress. Wiki libs (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The part involving Korn needs to be cut out completely IMO, the article describes groove metal as a marriage of dance and hip-hop, whereas it's really just like a less melodic, more riff-oriented combination of thrash metal and hardcore punk. The band Korn doesn't really involve any of these elements to the degree that would classify them as groove. By the way, the Washington Post isn't exactly the greatest authority on heavy metal out there. Aren't we supposed to be using legitimate sources? (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm. Read WP:RS. The Washington Post is never going to fail that guideline. If you wish to take that discussion to the WP:RS noticeboard and can get a consensus that The Washington Post is not a reliable source that is up to you. But until then the ref is fine here. Wiki libs (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yea, but the information from that source is misleading because the author simply mistook two genres. Is that what you want? Keep misleading information in articles to confuse readers? And then talk about bad faith to me. wow.--  LYKANTROP  11:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with this article? The old one was perfect, it has been messed up by someone who seriously does not like groove metal, groove metal is NOT metalcore as in bands like trivium, nor is it nu-metal (korn), there is of course a hardcore influence as groove metal as it comes directly from thrash, and bands like pro-pain's early work and superjoint ritual combining an even stronger hardcore influence with groove metal, and what's with this part claiming artists do not wan't be under the genre? just because annihilator didn't wan't to be part of it initially(at the time may I add, because ironically they did have groove albums later) bands like exhorder and pantera openly stated they were groove metal, two of the most respected bands and originators. Also look at the bands, Exhorder, Pantera, Machine Head, Pro-pain, Fear Factory, Meshuggah, White Zombie, Prong, Nailbomb, Some of the best albums by Exodus(Atrocity Exhibit A + B), Overkill(W.F.O. and Killing Kind) and Sepultura (chaos A.D.), it is a respected genre, leave it that way.Thrashattack84 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

All articles should be supported by reliable sources. An administrator has provided a long list of sources which meet WP:RS and is currently in the process of building the article based on those references. Yes the article fell under attack by editors who were running on pov fuel. And a lot a valid content was jettisoned through some bad-faith blanking. But it can be left to a trusted administrator now to flesh the article back up again. I personally hate the term. But it is referenced... and the refs can't be argued against. Wiki libs (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Bubba, I have no feelings of dislike or approval for this term, I just believe that it really isn't notable enough for an article and that non of the descriptions of this label are consistent. The Washington Post, as Lykantrop said, essentially gives you a description of nu metal, while Ian Christe claims the music is more influenced by death metal acts. Others sources like one of the Exclaim sources and one of the Allmusic refs use it to describe stoner rock groups. Then you have Blender, using it on a straight forward metal act like Guns N' Roses. None of the sources agreed on a simple, definition here and even fewer actually give you a description. Like I said previously, can anyone find a reliable source all about this term, what it means, when it was popular, how it declined, etc.? No one here has really been able to find a source like that. I worked on the list of groove metal bands because the list needed help and I was willing to provide that help. RG (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
These lacks are explicitly described in neologism policy, which of course, to some degree, overlaps the notablility policy --  LYKANTROP  10:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post is not a legitimate source of genre distinction, especially not in technicalities such as between thrash metal and groove metal. This is easily verifiable by the discrepancies between descriptions of bands in articles throughout the years. Punkrockdude (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see its been discussed at leangth but this article really needs improvement... The description confusses groove metal with nu metal... the part about annihilator detracting from it seems to be attack on it... Even the metalcore page doesnt have statements like that on it where bands often labeled metalcore like Trivium and Five Finger Death Punch slam it themselves. Can sources descriping the sound of early groove albums like pantera's vulgar display of power, sepultura's chaos A.D and Exhorder's The Law, and in fact refering to them as groove metal, not be used to provide a more accurate description and consiquently better article? (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"straight forward metal act like Guns N' Roses" - Guns'n'Roses isn't any kind of metal at all, it's rock or hard rock depending on the song and album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


Can someone add some characteristics about that? There's an empty section there, by the way. (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Korn? Really?[edit]

We've found one short article that's not well written or researched about groove metal and use that to base essentially ALL of our knowledge bank of groove metal on? Since when has groove metal been a fusion of hip-hop? Funk and dance, I can understand but there are no hip-hop elements in groove metal. This is turning very slowly in to a clone of the nu metal section. Groove metal of old certainly wasn't hip-hop based or anything along the lines of Korn. Groove metal of the 2000's certainly isn't influenced by hip-hop (cite: Machine Head, Warrel Dane, Gojira, Lamb of God, Mastodon, Meshuggah and every other band on there APART FROM Korn). I would like to just remove the whole reference of Korn being groove metal and just start again with another article because there's too little to base an article of any depth on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordah16 (talkcontribs) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) go listen to dead bodies everywhere and divine then tell me korn aren't groove metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Well i have an mp3 of a Jonathan davis interview laying around somewhere, Where he specifically mentions Pantera and Vulgar Display of Power as major influences to him around the recording of Korn's first album, so i can see why Korn may have initially been lumped in with groove metal bands like Pantera (pre nu-metal becoming big) — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talkcontribs) 12:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual Beggars?[edit]

Hahaha. Anybody says anything Spiritual Beggars is not a groove metal band at all, so it must be removed from the Groups section. -- Aranyos (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post on Korn[edit]

The source currently used in the article from the Washington Post which cites Korn as an example of groove metal should not be used. While you should obviously use reliable sources, this does not mean we have to use every single reliable source available. And this particular source is not the most important to use. Considering it does not match up with the facts presented every other source, it's pretty clear that is actually talking about nu metal. For these reasons, I believe that all reference to this article be removed from the article. Munci (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC) This issue has been raised before unfortunately the source is reliable even though it is accurate.Wikipedia works on verifibility,not truth Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The general issue may have but still this does not mean we have to use every single reliable source available. The page WP:RS outlines what can be used as a source, not what has to be used as a source. Munci (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Burden of evidence[edit]

Hello everyone! I have read the references section here and concluded that most of sources are refering this "groove metal" as a term and adjective not a genre. These reviewers are simply merging "groove" with "metal" for their own sake; in most of the text passages the writers use the word "groove" without "metal". I think it was necessary someone with a different opinion give some input regarding the legitimacy of this article.--Malconfort (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC) Have you actually looked at the sources. Groove is not being used as an adjective here, besides if it was groovy or groove-laden would be the adjective. I still don't know where the post-thrash term comes from though. Sounds like original research Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Groove Metal??????!!!!!![edit]

(inappropriate content removed)

The term has reliable sources. --Confession0791 talk 04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I love how everyone takes the name of this genre so badly. It just means that it's metal with a lot of emphasis on a groove styled rhythm. Calm down.Ximmerman (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Still here?[edit]

This article is still here and I've been gone a year. My job is done. Vindicated. Thank you. – B.hoteptalk• 23:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I don't really care. – B.hoteptalk• 23:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nu metal should be added to devirative genres[edit]

It was really influenced by groove metal. both articles about Nu metal and Groove metal having reliable sources say it. -- (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Nu metal is a devirative genre of alternative metal, groove metal is just a minor influence, and only to the more aggressive nu metal bands (slipknot etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Life of Agony = Groove metal?[edit]

they're first album sounds pretty groove metalish to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talkcontribs) 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"laid the foundations of metalcore"[edit]

source says "laid the foundation" . Metalcore was started mid 80s and at least 3 notable groups were doing it by late 80s. in the text of the article it says (2000's) as to clarify when the foundations would be. The foundations were already established. I edited a sentence or two that instead of "reversion" by my new pal, should have been worked out until the grammar was perfect. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What is "already on the talk page"? I see no explanation as to why you do not like my edit to the sentence's grammar.--MASHAUNIX 12:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What did you just reply to. This is the section corresponding to the edit that made the grammar clear in the first place. There is no need to hide the fact that Metalcore was started from the 1980s. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
In my latest edit (which you reverted), I did not change any meaning, or hide anything. I fixed the flawed structure and grammar of the sentence. Is there anything else you don't like about it, or can I restore my fixed version?--MASHAUNIX 13:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
"began" and "originated". Those are the words. The parenthesis is also the next thing. To use or not. 13:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC) CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Mashaunix's proposed "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s and the further development in the 2000s of metalcore (which originated in the 1980s)" is more grammatical and much clearer than the original "laid the foundations for nu metal (90s) and further development in the 2000's, of metalcore which began in the 1980s". What's the difference between saying that something "began" or "originated" in a particular decade? --McGeddon (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What is the difference. this "laid the foundations for nu metal (90s) and further development in the 2000's, of metalcore which began in the 1980s" is Not the Original. This is both laid the foundations for nu metal (90s) and metalcore (2000's). thats what it was. Which is impossible. Working from what the other editor said was sourced it became (90s) and further development in the 2000's, of metalcore which began in the 1980s. Which is still clear with the commas. the difference between began and originated, there is a definite difference. Those words were mentioned because it was just about all that was left to discuss. It could also be "started" in the 1980s. The difference between began and originated is began is "launch in to" and "initiate", Originated is "have a specified origin". The Origin is stated as " in the 1980s". Have you worked on this page before. How did you know about the discussion. Just Curious. I also think if began and originated you feel "whats the difference" what is the issue with using began or started. I doubt we will go a time or two more before coming to an agreement. I think this is going well. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm just trying to work out your objection. (This article was on my watchlist, although I've no idea why.) So would you be happy with a wording of "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s and the further development in the 2000s of metalcore (which started in the 1980s)"? --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. The only issue I have is what is the difference to you, between "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s and the further development in the 2000s, of metalcore which started in the 1980s" and "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s, and the further development in the 2000s of metalcore which started in the 1980s" and these two "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s and the further development in the 2000s of metalcore, which started in the 1980s" and "laid the foundations for nu metal in the 1990s and the further development in the 2000s of metalcore (which started in the 1980s)". I think a comma or a parenthesis is one of the last things to work out. The Bold print is to show where the commas are. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make the edit.
I assume the comma in "and the further development in the 2000s, of metalcore" is just a typo and wasn't meant to be there, as neither of the sentence fragments on either side makes any sense by itself, and "development in the 2000s of metalcore" seems to be correct. --McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
"the sentence fragments on either side makes any sense by itself" . Its not "by itself" the comma causes a pause in reading. The comma isn't a mistake, the one you posted is two commas and if I did that then its a mistake. Whats the difference to you between utilizing a comma in the right spot or using parenthesis. I really don't see, totally, why there is a need for the parenthesis. I do but also feel why isn't it just a sentence/statement without parenthesis When you don't answer the question knowledge isn't shared and if you know something I don't in this instance I can't evaluate and know what you know about it. it would be good and helpful if you answer why. I think a comma or a parenthesis is one of the last things to work out. Which was ignored is stated above. Otherwise, Its pretty good now.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Jazz, Hardcore punk, Crossover thrash[edit]

@Mashaunix: Wants these removed, I think it should be discussed so, I'm starting this thread to gain consensus, interested editors please chime in. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

These were added today by an IP, and are not backed by any sources. Gain a consensus for adding them if you want. As for metalcore and post-hardcore as derivatives, that's also not backed by anything (in their own articles neither) and doesn't make sense since both genres originated in the 1980s before groove metal was around. Can I remove the unsourced info now?--MASHAUNIX 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Your edit summary should have mentioned this. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It was in history just before my edit, and even if the info wasn't added by an IP today, it's still unsourced and my edit justified. It's nothing to worry about though.--MASHAUNIX 17:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Groove is a vague term[edit]

And isn't it just metal with a waltz or a swing added to it? Listening to 'cowboys from hell' and 'I'm broken', that's pretty much what it sounds like. Or maybe this needs an opinion from someone who's more broadly versed in music history outside of just metal and rock? Artists that create new sounds can get their inspiration from anywhere, and if it sounds 'fresh', then it only really means it's outside of the scope of the audience that are into that 'scene'. At least, that's my opinion. No need to delete the article, just go into a little more detail explaining this. 'Groove' is clearly not a technical term. It's more like an unofficial category termed by the artist or fans, when it's more technically waltz or swing, in reality (in a heavy metal style, of course). Impfireball (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well. In here Finland we call bands like Pantera, Machine Head and Lamb Of God by the term "Asenne Metalli" which translates as "Attitude Metal", but of course you never hear or see anyone using the label "Attitude Metal", because the term "Groove" kinda emphasis the term "Attitude". Just my piece of knowledge from being a finnish Metalhead.
Ain't that interesting?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Groove 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) 11:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)