Talk:List of post-metal bands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was accepted on 29 November 2011 by reviewer Hallows AG (talk · contribs).

Bands[edit]

Can I add bands that they have no article in the Wikipedia? Bands without wikilink/wiki article. Winter Gaze (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Longer answer: Only if they have such significant coverage in reliable sources that they will inevitably have an article created about them. This certainly means that the entry must have citations to reliable sources demonstrating notability. Generally, it's better to write the article first.
OK. Winter Gaze (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs fixed[edit]

Now there is no bare URL in the article. Most of them were repetitive refs. Other are fixed. tag updated. Winter Gaze (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

No problem. tag updated. Winter Gaze (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hidden notice at top of article[edit]

What exactly is the function of the hidden notice that says "Please leave this line alone?" Does it actually serve a purpose?--¿3family6 contribs 02:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It probably did, but we're receiving it out of context and I found it somewhat humorous. I have removed it, though; thanks for the input. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

What we can do to improve lead section? What we should do? Some lists have good lead section; such as:

the others are just same as the current revision of list of post-metal bands, examples:

Any idea? I think if we edit the lead section to make it looks like the first group (above examples), It will be very helpful (good info and details). Winter Gaze (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably we should take about a paragraph or two of text from the post metal page and use that for the lead.--¿3family6 contribs 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. It's good. But the two leads shouldn't be 100% similar. Some info about post-metal and this list is enough. Winter Gaze (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Relibale source[edit]

Is metalmusicarchives.com reliable?[edit]

are MetalMusicArchives.com and ProgArchives.com reliable? Is there any list of reliable music websites, webzines, and magazines (in the Wikipedia)? A good documentation/list for editors? Winter Gaze (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those are good sources. ProgArchives is user-generated, and MetalMusicArchives also seems to be, so those are completely unacceptable. To get the best idea of what types of sources to look for, read WP:RS, but here are some links to online sources that meet reliability standards: Allmusic, Noisecreep, About.com, Spinner, Rolling Stone, Music Might/Rockdetector (to ere on the side of caution, only use sources attributed to Garry Sharpe-Young (username Taniwha), Revolver Magazine HM Magazine, The Guardian, The New York Times. There are literally hundreds, even thousands, of sources like this, but this should give you an idea for what to look for.--¿3family6 contribs 18:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Very helpful. Winter Gaze (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


http://decibelmagazine.com/ is also a good source. Inhumer (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the above is not even close to listing even a tiny fraction of reliable sources. But it should give a feel for what is reliable.--¿3family6 contribs 02:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bands that are not post-metal[edit]

I would make the argument that the following list of bands should be deleted from this list of notable, explicitly post-metal bands for the following reasons.

Alcest - While one could argue that hardly any metallic elements at are are used in Alcest's sound, I think that it is universally accepted that they are a shoegaze/post-rock act with prominent black metal influences: not "traditional" post-metal in the sense of the type popularized by Neurosis, Isis, and the like.

Amesoeurs - see Alcest

Les Discrets - see Alcest


Deftones - They are alternative metal. Yes, they may incorporate strong shoegaze influences into their music, but they lack, once again, the dynamic and structure so typical of post-metal acts.


Havoc Unit - I feel that some people tend to use post-metal as a catch-all phrase for complex, avant-garde metal that they cannot find a suitable genre tag for. Again, post-metal, while arguably a certain type of avant-garde, cannot be accurately applied to bands like this.

Kayo Dot - see Havoc Unit


Ulcerate - They're a death metal band that happens to incorporate touches of highly dissonant atmospheric sludge into their music. The fact that they have post-metal influence does not make them a post-metal band in the purest sense of the term.


Torche - They're stoner sludge. Many sludge bands do use atmospheric elements, but it really involves something more prevalent than vague similarity to make it post-metal. If we're calling Torche post-metal, we may as well label Electric Wizard or Sleep in the same fashion.


Vintersorg - They're progressive black metal. Like with nearly everything else I've listed, influence ≠ an accurate genre label.


Basically, I feel that this article should merely list notable bands which are inarguably post-metal at least somewhat in the vein of the "Cult of NeurIsis" style. Sure, plenty of bands (notably black metal acts) are influenced by the genre, but just because a random review you found on the web mentions a potential post-metal-esque atmosphere on one song of one album does NOT signify that said band can accurately be labeled as "post-metal."

I would also suggest that these acts be deleted from the list to pave the way for more "pure" post-metal bands, like Amenra, Old Man Gloom, Bossk, Irepress, or *shels, just to name a few.

- Ryan K, 1/28/12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.34.216 (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 
Hello. Thank you for your input. Some of the entries on the list had been bothering me, to be honest, and they are some of the same entries that you have discussed here. So, I have decided that I will eliminate all of them that currently do not have sources. They can be re-added as long as a reliable source can be supplied alongside. Also, bands not mentioned on here before can be added as well, as long as they have the accompaniment of a reliable source. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I am still trying to figure out how Soundgarden (a grunge/alt-metal band), Prong (a groove/industrial band) and Korn (a nu metal band) got into this list. I know that they're sourced but usage of the post-metal term in the corrseponding sources should be questioned, in my opinion. In these articles, post-metal term may be incorrectly labeling "experimental metal" style (or any innovative/avant-garde style of heavy metal) as post-metal, rather than labeling metalgaze. It just seems like every article that uses the term post-metal is mindlessly cited to classify the bands which actually have no affiliation with shoegazing/post-rock scene at all. - Myxomatosis75 (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the dates for most of those sources, they precede the development of a specific "post-metal" scene. So they aren't "incorrectly" labeling experimental/nu-metal bands as post-metal. Post-metal has just narrowed in its definition after these articles were published.--¿3family6 contribs 14:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


Korn prong and soundgarden are not post-metal, the only reason they are here is because the authors are not referreing to the actual genre of post-metal (the genre which combines post-rock with metal) but something else. This is most obvious in korn's case, since the reference is from 1998, long before the term post-metal was in wide usage by the media. I'm sure these days no one would even think of labeling a band like Korn post-metal. They need to be removed

If anything, they deserve to stay because they represent some of the earliest usages of the term. It just is difficult to elaborate in the article text without original research. Like I said above, these mentions aren't "incorrectly" labeling experimental/nu-metal bands as post-metal, post-metal has just narrowed in its definition after these articles were published. To make an analogy, Jimi Hendrix was one of the first musicians with a sound described as heavy metal. Even other bands like Black Sabbath and later bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden were much heavier with a more defined sound, and the term heavy metal is sometimes used more narrowly to describe those bands, this doesn't mean that Hendrix should no longer be considered heavy metal. I hope that makes sense.--¿3family6 contribs 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Tool, Deftones, Pantera and Prong are NOT post-metal bands at all! Stop putting references of articles of people who know nothing about metal genres. viriatus (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a major problem with wikipedia. Tool are not post-metal, they sound nothing like post metal, and yet just because some reviewer references post metal for tool wikipedia lists them as post metal. I love Tool, and also love post metal (neurosis / isis / cult of luna / pelican etc) so theres i have no real bias. Same goes for prong, although i'm even less sure who would categorise them as post-metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.86.191.19 (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of post-metal bands. 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) 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)