Talk:Metal music

Removed redirect page

I removed the redirect page because a lot of musical experts consider Heavy Metal part of Metal, and not vice-versa. So the article page is intended to describe the entire genre globally, and the important elements that make metal to be metal. The article is also useful as a summary where anyone can reach the page of the desired subgenre. Olpus

What band of metal doesn't consider itself Heavy Metal? Can you name a band that strongly rejects the notion that they are Heavy Metal? This is like making an article on "True Metal". This article should definitely be merged with the metal music article.--Sampi 02:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

All new metal bands doing other genre of Metal that are founded after 1990 consider themself part of a genre of Metal, and not all Heavy Metal, since now it is used to define the classical type of Metal played in last seventeens. To answer to your questions with another questions: what band that played Metal in the late '70 call them Metal? Ozzie Ousborne most known quote is "Rock and Roll". And if Heavy Metal isn't actually used to define a subgenere of Metal, but it is the same thing, in which subgenre you put bands like Iron Maiden, that are still active? Thrash Metal? Too much slow and music less ridundant. Black Metal? Played too much clear. Progressive Metal? I argue not. --Olpus

Origin of "doom" in doom metal

The version I've heard is that it rather comes from the title of the first Candlemass album, "Epicus Doomicus Metallicus". Is there even any definite agreement on this?

Hand of doom? Spearhead 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Doom Metal

The listing of subgenres should be moved to doom metal's own page, the part should also be rewritten to better form (ex. the use of capital MANY, the dubbing of drone as "odd" etc). Shandolad 09:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Subgenres?

All the listed "subgenres" are defined (on their own pages) as subgenres of heavy metal, if so, this is equating metal music to heavy metal music, perhaps a merge would suit then? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Ideally, the heavy metal article would correctly be restricted only to that particular sub-genre of metal and all of the pages would link here, but this one is lacking in content and that nifty box on the right of the page. 67.4.150.81 06:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Alex

I agree. The Heavy Metal article holds much higher standards, but is wrong in it's naming. One could perhaps use the box on this page as well.Shandolad 12:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the content of Heavy Metal article, with a rework to make him to embrace more all Metal genres and less Heavy Metal in particular, and with the addition of the definition of what is Metal, should written in the Metal Music aticle, and the Heavy Metal page changed to feature only information about Heavy Metal subgenre and bands. Olpus

Today I merged the "subgenres of metal" page to the metal msuic page, as it was basically a repeat of old stuff etc. I have started to rewrite some of the old writting, but with uni, I am only able to do a little at a time - nykylaihellray

Thrash Metal

"Thrash metal", "melo-death metal" and "goregrind metal" are redundant (as with, say, "New Wave rock", "bebop jazz" or "Baroque classical") and should generally be avoided unless necessary to clarify.SonoftheMorning 20:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I heard some ppl refer to bands like DRI as thrash and speed metal as like Exodus; eg [1] Spearhead 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That is, "thrash metal" as opposed to just "thrash", the speed metal vs. thrash/power debate is one which I'm not about to take sides in (although anus.com is not a particularly credible source). SonoftheMorning 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rush

Rush's important albums were concurrent with early Priest, and they're later than Tull and King Crimson (or other less relevant prog bands like The Moody Blues) to begin with. Motley Crue and sundry dark ambient bands are also on MA despite the notable disadvantages of not being metal, so it's more about the administrator(s)' caprices than any particular influence on the genre. They were certainly a major influence on prog metal, and they're mentioned as such in the evolution section.SonoftheMorning 07:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Metal Categories

I noticed that the various Metal Categories and sub-Categories are not organized very well....or at least they are not consistent. The Metal navigational template (which is quite good) is not used consistently. I would like to start up a discussion to propose a new consistent category setup for all Heavy metal subgenres, bands and band lists as well as clean up the existing articles.

Anyone feel like this is a good idea? - Chelman 22:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Subgenres

There IS already an article listing (heavy) metal genres and subgenres, so the list in this article is unnecesary.

What's also unnecesary is the Black Sabbath ass-kissing. "Oh, they're the ONE TRUE FIRST METAL band EVER and FATHERS TO ALL METAL BRETHREN" is what the article is saying to me.

I have to agree; in many instances "metal" is just a shorthand version of "heavy metal", and "heavy metal" is not intended to be a specific genre, especially since the term has been in use since the 70s. Also, rock scholars debate the true birth of metal as its own distincive style within rock music, since it isn't as cut and dried as it might appear. The genre's development occured over a long time, so it seems somewhat pretentious to make claims about "true" or "pure" metal since there really is no such thing and the genre has been evolving throughout its entire existence. Additionally, many would argue that Led Zeppelin are the "first" heavy metal band; to me Zep and Sabbath have equal claim due to their extrapolation of the blues into driving, heavy, riff-oriented rock music that was beyond what Cream or Hendrix and the like were doing. This article seems based largely on preconceptions held by the modern metal community rather than actual research, and I feel that should be rectified if this page is going to exist at all. However, it'd rather just have it merged with the heavy metal music page WesleyDodds 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have always felt Heavy Metal being a genre, or a very old fashioned (if something can get old fashioned in this short a time..) name for the whole genre. It feels wrong to label Black Metal a part of Heavy Metal, but in the end it might be best to merge it with Heavy Metal, for historical reasons and due to the fact that the heavy metal page holds a much higher standard. It is true that the origins for modern metal is found in heavy metal, I am bound to agree. Even if my metal heart tells me not to! Heh. Shandolad 18:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Death Metal, Black Metal, Tech metal

These sub-genres aren't described in a truthful way, in my own opinion. Black Metal for example, might, but isn't "regularly" accompanied by slow and sombre keyboard, Black Metal didn't evolve from Death Metal (most would argue they evolved at the same time, black metal being inspired by Celtic Frost, Venom etc in the early 1980's) and so on.

It is also, I would argue, not quite true that most current death metal bands dabble in "neo-classicism, Jazz-fusion, medieval music, or folk and symphonic endeavors.". It is certainly true that Opeth does, but I could not say that it is the most common form.

Thirdly, I do not think Tech Metal is a subgenre of Metal, more truthfully a form of "technical death metal". Bands such as Deeds of Flesh, Disgorge, Nile and origin all play in this genre. It might be that the article is referring to the band Meshuggah, which is very much one of a kind in current metal. The lack of proper exemplification in the article ("Tech Metal is characterised by a show of skill, changeable time signatures, and often dissonant or atonal guitar riffs") makes it hard to tell, but seems to refer mostly to technical death metal.

The Death and Black metal parts should be rewritten and expanded somewhat, tech metal should be moved to the Death Metal article. Shandolad 11:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, some bands in these sections are miscategorized; for example, Wintersun are melodic black metal, not melodic death metal. Cassandra Leo 22:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Links not conform

The links are commented in a way which does not conform with wikipedia standards, I believe it unfitting for wikipedia to grade ("One of the best up and coming" etc) the sites. They should be chosen on terms of size and so on. Also, many of the links aren't needed here. Shandolad 12:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging this page with Heavy Metal page?

I don´t know if everyone here agrees with me, but Metal is a contraction of Heavy Metal, and is used as a synonym. Metal is NOT a separated genre. Altough some would argue that Heavy Metal is a term depicting old style metal bands (see the contradiction, you would call old style metal band a heavy metal band, so metal is heavy metal), I think it is just prejudice against the older, longer, term for METAL which is HEAVY METAL. What could be argued is that not every Heavy Metal band or song is heavy. Many prog-metal bands have very mellow ballads, but they are still considered Heavy Metal bands. I think that this article should be merged into the Heavy Metal article (it contains interesting info lacking in the other). I think it would be misleading to have in an encyclopedia entry an article called Metal Music and another called Heavy Metal Music as if both terms were not synonyms. Loudenvier 18:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree, because 20 or 15 years ago the term Heavy Metal was a synonym of Metal, but now Heavy Metal is used to define that paricular genre of Metal Music played mainly in late seventeens, that is still played by some of that surviving bands (Toni Iommi, Blue Oyster Cult, Iron Maiden, etc) and by some revival bands. The definition Metal=Heavy Metal is outdated. Now Heavy Metal is by the most considered part of Metal, not Metal itself. --Olpus

I obviously agree, given my previous responses. "Metal" is to "heavy metal" what "rock" is to "rock n roll" WesleyDodds 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You brought to light the best analogy possible: Metal IS to heavy metal what rock is to rock´n´roll :-) Loudenvier 01:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

so if "metal" is to "heavy metal" what "rock" is to "rock n roll", that would mean that the two are not synonymous (given rock and rock and roll are different)? --MilkMiruku 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe! I did not thought Rock as anything but Rock´n´roll. Did not ever heard anyone stating they weren´t exactly the same thing. But in the case of Metal, there isn´t doubt: Metal = (Heavy) Metal. But quoting the Rock´n´roll article: " It later evolved into the various different sub-genres of what is now called simply 'rock'. As a result, "rock and roll" now has two distinct meanings: either traditional rock and roll in the 1950s style, or later rock and even pop music which may be very far from traditional rock and roll." one can still use the analogy to some extent, but excluding the fact that Heavy Metal has only one meaning and it is the same meaning as metal. Loudenvier 02:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the merge as well. Although "heavy metal" occasionally IS used to refer to a specific era of the music's development - Priest, Maiden, Sabbath, Zeppelin, et al. However, occurrence of this usage is notably rare, and it's not very well defined exactly which era this is, anyway, since Zeppelin and classic Sabbath were '70s bands, Maiden was an '80s band, and Priest were both. Cassandra Leo 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavy Metal today is most used to refer to that type of Metal music played in late '70 (that is still played now by some bands) than the other meaning. The words evolve, and now talking of Heavy Metal referring to Metal is outdated: all the contemporary Metal magazines, sites and books I read make that (subtle or not) difference. Also www.metal-archives.com (considered by a lot of metal fellowers 'the' source of metal bands) make this difference, see that with your eyes. --Olpus

Shouldn't the "History" section come before the extensive and problematic listing of subgenres? --Anonymous

Too make this clear in a nice simple fashion. Heavy Metal = Genre. Metal Music = Name given to mean all genres of Metal Music.

Simplest soloution. Merge the two. Leave a redirect from Heavy Metal Music, so that the lesser used term redirects to the modern, actual, commonly used term.

On a last note. Rock N Roll was the first Rock genre, which is how the styles got their name. Rock N Roll is a genre of rock music. Not all Rock music is Rock N Roll however, due to lacking key features of Rock N Roll. This same point applies to Heavy Metal and Metal genres.

Also see the Gothic Music article for a similar case. Leyasu 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Heavy Metal is a genre and Metal is the name given to mean all genres of Metal Music, because don't exist, at this time, a type of Metal music that is just 'Metal' without other adjectives. This article is intended to inform generally about Metal Music and its main features, so i think it should stay, with improvements. But I think that a merge is unnecessary, because the Heavy Metal page is the page where information about that type of Metal music (that started the genre) are disclosed. The Heavy Metal page need only a rework to be focused only on Heavy Metal subgenre, and the other informations about the other subgenres should be cutted and copied in this article. --Olpus

I agree per Olpus. Also, this page needs a complete rework anyway. So before that is done, who is going to rewrite nearly the whole thing, with descriptions of the genres that are actually correct, and bands of the genres that are actually correct. Leyasu 09:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is superfluous, as it not only describes the history of heavy metal which is already featured on the Heavy metal music page (but in less detail), but it also lists subgenres already listed elsewhere, with descriptive paragraphs that really serve no purpose when you can just visit the articles. If anything, Metal music should redirect to Heavy metal music. WesleyDodds 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The history on the heavy metal page, while more detailed, omits about 95% of the pertinent information, and the suggestion that it renders the relatively accurate and comprehensive history on this page entirely superfluous is mind-boggling. Additionally, the subgenre listings and characteristics serves to delineate and define the genre as a whole, and would be an invaluable resource to anyone looking for a quick summation, although it could certainly stand to be shortened somewhat. 67.4.146.16 09:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree. Does Rock Music redirect to Rock N Roll? No. This page needs a complete and utter rewrite, describing what Metal is, describing in summary paragraphs that are accurate, each genre that is legitamate, and providing the link to that article.

History of Heavy Metal should remain on the Heavy Metal page. Heavy Metal is its own genre with its own history. Other metal genres have different historys. Some reletive to each other, some not. And not all are 'heavy' either. Symphonic Metal is hardly heavy most of the time, nor is Nu Metal.

This is the way it needs to go. Heavy Metal Music = Page on the genre of Heavy Metal, with a disambiguation to Metal Music. Metal Music, should list the history of Metal as a whole, summary paragraphs on what each genre is, and description of the core features that make metal bands, regardless of genre, metal. That, solves, the problem, and adheres to what the world actually does, and what things actually are. Leyasu 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing with rock music and rock 'n roll is that a distinction has long been made between the two in public discourse and music literature. I'm not sure the same can be said of heavy metal and metal music at this point. Maybe if someone sources such usage an argument can be made (and they have to make a distinction; a source that says simply "metal" may be using it as a shorthand for "heavy metal" unless explicitly stated otherwise). In addition, the heavy metal music page already describes the music adequately, AND it's been a featured article. I don't think we should dismantle it just so it can be fit into a viewpoint that may not be entirely accurate or helpful. A more constructive approach would be to write a section about the debate between the naming conventions in the article.

Also, just because a genre has certain terms in it such as "heavy" doesn't mean that they should be used as literal definitions; naming music genres isn't like scientific classification. Hell, journalists come up with most genre names. You seem to be operating under the assumption that there's a regularity to naming genres such as if a suffix like "rock" or "metal" are used they are automatically referencing a larger categorization. It'd be nice if describing and categorizing music were nice and orderly, but it doesn't work that way in practice. WesleyDodds 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It works well depending on how much you know. Again, i stand by my assertion, and im sure most people do as well. Leyasu 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, virtually all serious fans of metal make the distinction nowadays. The confusion surrounding the genre classifications mostly comes from inexact terminology used by mainstream sources and metal publications that dumb it down for public consumption, as well as a few older metalheads who resist change.67.4.150.92 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge.

Leyasu is making an imprecise claim here: The majority of people voted to MERGE Metal into the HEAVY METAL article, not the other way around! I´ve collected lots of evidence supporting this. I think wikipedia should strive for a neutral point of view, trying to enforce the difference in the use of the term Metal and Heavy Metal is clearly non NPOV. The distinction between those terms has not been made clearly in music literature yet, and is a most recent thing, probably coming from young listeners who are more used to use Metal simply because the subgenres they like droped the Heavy part of the all encompasing term Heavy Metal, and to the fact that this kind of audience is hardly interested in history or in the background of the subgenres they like. The Metal page is superfluous, it should redirect to Heavy Metal. But since there is a little controversy on the subject, I did not made this yet. I am considering submiting the Metal page to the Articles for Deletion, where it would go through Wikipedia official policy for that matter and be given proper attention by the community. I would be happy with any outcome of this, being it the enformcement of Metal as the nu-term for Heavy Metal (see? nu-metal, nu-term, you do not like nu-metal, but you like to use a modernization of the term Heavy Metal I call nu-term - just kidding ;-) ), or vice-versa, I just do not want to stay with two articles stating the same things in duplicity, each claiming to be the general term for (heavy) metal music. Regards Loudenvier 12:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging and revision is taking place, to let the user Loudenvier no. How we are going about it is under conflict as me and WesleyDodds have very different views on how best to go about it, and are not very good at comprimising. He is a very proficient editor and i respect his views more than most, i just dont always agree with them, like now. As such, the question of 'how' to go about the merging is the issue. As such, ive found myself busy in life style. Still, the matter remains that it needs to be mentioned that the term most commonly used is Metal Music, and that a seperate article needs to be made for the Heavy Metal genre. If for instance you called one Heavy Metal Music and another Heavy Metal Genre, with a comment in the opening of one about how the genres in total are mostly known as Metal music, then that would probally work fine. Then we just have to figure out what to keep from the articles, what to rewrite, what needs adding, and then finally, put the pieces together like a jigsaw.

Of course, anyone with any other plans that do the same thing i a quicker, easier, and more efficient manner, would also be fine. Leyasu 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There are good arguments for both points of view. In the end this is a matter of point of view. How could wikipedia NPOV policy be followed in this case? I now disagree with a merge! I think it would be better to try to show this litle controversy by allowing both articles to exist. Metal music must strive to show that it started as a synonym of Heavy Metal as an all encompasing genre (although some will point that not all metal music is heavy - I would say that not all Heavy Metal music from Sabath was heavy too!), and that today there is a growing tendency to use Metal instead of Heavy Metal. The Heavy Metal article could stay as it is but with a litle rewrite to show that it is starting to mean an strictier genre of the beginings of Metal, but that too many people still considers Heavy Metal the term identifying the style. Anyone disagrees with this approach? Loudenvier 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The plan is two have two seperate articles. The plan is to also take the parts of the Heavy Metal Music page that reference all genres and merge them into this page. Then the plan is to write up on Heavy Metal Music more information that form of metal (Which is still played) - and more on the metal music page about metal in general, and the time line of metal genres as a whole - and all that stuff.

This article wont be done just like that, it will take effort and patience from us all. Remember, Rome wasnt built in a day, because i couldnt be bothered to get up for work. Leyasu 09:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

List of revisions that still need to be made

• The Heavy Metal category needs to be changed to a Metal music category, or a new, separate Metal music one created
• The links need to be cleaned up extensively (consistent, not duplicated)
• More pictures should to be added

Best to lay off the pictures until the article is written well.

• The "Heavy Metal" section needs to be rewritten

Rewritten but not damaged. It should focus on the Heavy Metal bands and the general information about Metal should featured here. But first of that, this article need to exceed the quality of the Heavy Metal page. --Olpus 03:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• The disclaimer for the "Metal Subgenres which are not accepted that widely" needs to be rewritten
• Melo-death (In Flames) is a distinct sub-genre from melodic death (Intestinal Baalism), the latter being a sub-sub-genre of Death Metal, and several sections of the article need to be revised accordingly

The only difference is the nationality of the bands. It is also used as a neoglistic term between fans of certain bands.

No, there are substantive musical differences as well. Melodic death metal is clearly derived from and a part of death metal, whereas melodeath is basically Iron Maiden with harsh vocals.

So its basically Thrash Metal with Hardcore Vocals. Why does that ring a bell as something called Metalcore.

??? Iron Maiden is not thrash and the vocals in melo-death aren't metalcore vocals.

• The funeral doom and stoner metal entries should be integrated into the doom metal section, a la brutal death and melo-death

67.4.150.92 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This mostly needs a complete rewrite, and as such, i will do it right now. Leyasu 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is not over, and no consensus has been reached. Wait until a consensus has been reached before doing something this drastic. WesleyDodds 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was reached with me and this annomynous user, and your the only person who has opposed so far. Leyasu 09:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're ignoring the other voices in the previous section either supporting a merge or suggesting deletion. WesleyDodds 09:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

IM one of the 'voices' supporting a merge. And i also said this page needs to be revised before the merger can be done. It makes things a whole lot easier doing things 1-2-3 instead of 1-23873-3. Leyasu 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to Leyasu: Ley do you need any help on the rewrite? I have organised some of the stuff yesterday with the true metal, and subgenre metal page merge. Is there anything you would like me to help you on, as I do not want to make any futher changes, unless they are lost during your rewrite. I know I did not make a good job yesterday, as it was rushed, and I was quckly trying to do the merge during a lunch break (thiss cause the large amount of doubles e.g. power metal being written about twice). Though if there is any help you require please do not hesitate to ask NykylaiHellray 1:19PM 10 Jan 2006

Posted the revision. Copyediting from another user should now be done. Leyasu 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to help to improve this article too, i will try my best and i will gather the best information. I want make this article to reach the quality of the best articles on Wikipedia. --Olpus 03:18, 12 January 2006

Right, first step then Olpus, would be to find a defination on what makes a band metal, regardless of which form of it they are. Just post the description below. Leyasu 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

I think that each sub-genre needs to list a couple of bands that define the sub-genre. So that a reader can better understand the Sub-genres distinction from another.AidanPryde 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That is why the genres have articles. Leyasu 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge or keep

Due to a lack of consensus in the Vote for Deletion on what exactly to do, the Metal Music page is being kept for now. However, the responses ranged from "Delete" to "Speedy Redirect" to "Merge" to "Rewrite" to "Keep", with "Redirect", "Merge", and "Keep" receiving the most votes. We pretty much all agree that the information contained in the article should be kept. But the issue is where it should be placed.

Personally I stand behind a merge, where the info is placed into the Heavy metal music page. As I have stated in the Vote for Deletion, the Heavy metal music page was created for and long served to fulfill the function that this page currently strives to achieve. The main bone of contention seems to the be the connotation of the phrase "Heavy metal". However, I feel that the standpoint of separating Heavy metal and metal is faulty, mainly because it involves revisionist history that retroactively declares "heavy metal" as a subgenre of a larger "metal" heading, when it fact, much like Punk rock, heavy metal was simply the default genre description that existed by itself until subgenres like Thrash metal, Power metal, and the like began to develop (additionally, while people saying "punk rock" might be referring to the initial late 70's wave, they can also use it to refer to the genre as a whole). Additonally, the term was long used (and is still used to describe metal as a whole) and "metal" is mainly used as an informal shortened version of "heavy metal". As it stands, the Heavy metal music page does not limit itself to a subgenre of metal, but describes the form as a whole, and to edit it to limit its focus would be in my mind wholly inappropriate. We are here on Wikipedia to describe topics as they are, not to create definitions.

The horse and carrige was created and long served as a means of transporation. After so long, it was outdated with automobiles and others forms of transportation. Around the world, people refer to Metal Music as metal. Again, hence terms Metalheads, Metal Bands, Metal Genres, Metal Databases. Otherwise it would be Heavy Metal Heads, Heavy Metal Bands, Heavy Metal Genres, Heavy metal Databases. Also, if all forms of metal where Heavy Metal, then Nu Metal, Symphonic Metal and Power Metal would be Light Metal, meaning you would be coining a term.

Similarly, is all Rock music Rock N Roll? Sure the term originated with the original genre, but the orginal genre is a form of Rock, not all rock is form of a Rock N Roll. If it was, again, we would of Gothic Rock N Roll, Punk Rock N Roll, Death Rock N Roll, Pop Rock N Roll, Psycadellic Rock N Roll, etc. See where this goes?

Yes, we are on here to descripe topics as they are. Which is in turn an oxymoron, when you make case not to edit an article to explain things as what they are. As they are, Heavy Metal used to mean all metal music. It stopped meaning that quite a while ago, when more new metal genres became pretty irrecongizable from Heavy Metal. Again, would you say Gothic Rock and Rock N Roll are the same? No, you wouldnt, youd say they are Rock Music. Its not taking way from the Heavy Metal article, to limit its focus. Its taking away from it, so its accurate. Heavy Metal means a genre, mostly meaning 80's band, but still having a few bands giving a go at reviving it and playing that style of metal such as Lullacry and Synergy. Also, if you remove whats in the Hevay Metal Music article into this one, that pertains to all genres, your doing the accurate thing, which as you said, Wikipedia is all about.

And really, if the whole creation of the Metal music page was on the based on the belief that "Heavy metal" now refers merely to a subgenre, then we could just changed the damn title of the page and saved a lot of grief.

And then what would happen to the article we would need on Heavy Metal as a genre? Youd essentially rename the article, then have to pull out all the genre parts, and rewrite again, all the stuff in this article. Its a bit more effot when you look at the big picture.

If we do a merge, I personally volunteer to write the temp page. However, this will require others to direct me to sources I can reference in regards to the various facets of the genre. This means books, magazines, articles, documentaries, websites, and the like. This is essential. As this subject is hotly debated, we need to reduce personal POV as much as possible, and the availability of reference material should help that. With reference material, we can cite someone else's POV as indicitive of a greater argument existing. As the Metal music page stands, it is not referenced, and I cannot be certain what can actually be established as fact and what is merely accepted as fact. With sources, if someone make an assertion based on a source that someone disagrees with, someone else can challenge that by looking up the same source and basing their counterargument on it.

Small problem that i usally face here is i deal in facts. Its also hard to cite the genral public and people there within. For the most part, it works something like this, bear with me explaining.

The metal community, rock community, and general music industry, regonise the metal community and metal bands, as, Metal, not Heavy Metal, due to the genres distinction from all its supposed subgenres.

The general public in most places that have no real inrest or knowledge in the genre or affiliated subjects, often say Heavy Metal for lack of better knowledge.

An example of that, in religions, places of worship in different relgions often have different names (Chapels, Syanogues, Churches, Temples, Etc), i dont know all of them, if any of them. So i use the term that i know best, and thats cathedral. Some religious people might take offence to that, but, i cannot use a term i dont know. This shows, the reason behind most people unassociated with the genre, using the term Heavy Metal, due to it being familiar to them.

Now, in the event both pages are kept to acknowledge separate topics, here's what I propose: The Heavy metal music page stays as it is, with the same focus and material, but the metal page acts as the list of all the genres and clarifies their relationships to one another. The History section would be removed, since it is already covered on the Heavy metal music page (as well as is properly cited). "Metal" would still exist as an umbrella term, but "heavy metal" would be the root of everything and contain the overall history.

Ok let me point this out. Humans come from Primates (Apes? Monkeys? Cimpanzee's?). Do we start calling all Humans by what species of Primate they came from? No, we dont.

The history section of Metal in general needs to cover all of Metals history, from its origins in Heavy Metal, to the present reign of Symphonic Metal and Metalcore bands. Metal is the form, (remember, this is coming from someone who studied musical genres for two years), and Heavy Metal is a genre, which is Metal, but is not the same as Symphonic Metal, which is not the same as Doom Metal. The adjectives in front of Metal reflect the way that form of Metal is. Hence, why its a Metal genre, not a Symphonic Heavy Metal/Gothic Heavy Metal/Nu Heavy Metal/Doom Heavy Metal/Etc etc.

My proposal isnt so far of Wesley's, and is by no means an attack against him, i think Wesley is a good editor by a long way, even if we do crash on our views of how to edit things. Proposal:

• 1) Take from the Heavy Metal article, the highly brief, and undetalied history of Metal that is there, then expand it and detail it with what it lacks, including the reign of current time, and the forms of metal that rose and fall and how they influenced metal as a whole.

• 2 )Leave in the Heavy Metal article, the refernces to it as a genre, and expand the article as needed to show that its a genre. As such its well written, so an editor with a good writing style would be excellent to expand the article and flesh it out with what it would be missing.

• 3) Fill in a description of what makes all forms of Metal, Metal. This is the charecteristics that all Metal bands have, regardless of form. As shown, not all metal genres have the traits of Heavy Metal, yet they are Metal Genres. This needs to be shown, that Metal derived its name and origins from one genre, which that genre subsequently became one of.

But my overwhelming choice is a merge. Now let's see what everyone else has to say about this. WesleyDodds 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, i cant edit these articles all the time, i have priorities called life and other articles. That means, most of the editing will probally fall to the perfectly competent Wesley, who deserves a commendment for his dedication to Wikipedia. As Wesley said, people both sides of the argument, so now its for others to give their POV. Please though, to make it easier for Wesley, if you can provide sources and such and explantions as i have done, it will make the editing a lot easier for him, and/or whoever else works on the article. Leyasu 04:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, and I can understand where you are coming from, but a lot of these tenets are based on faulty logic. First the comparison of music categorization with scientific categorization. When you name an organism, you name it under genus first and species second, ie. Homo sapien, and categorize it in a strict hierarchy very clearly divided into groups such as family, order, and so forth. There is a rigid approach to classifying organism in order so that everyone has a clear reference point. The same is not true for music. One example is the use of "core" at the end of a genre, ie. hardcore, metalcore, etc. I have heard from people (particularly my roommate, who's a metal radio DJ) that the suffix of "core" is to denote a punk influence. Well, that's actually not wholly true as sadcore does not subscribe at all to this naming convention, but it is a widely accepted genre label. Additionally, not all punk rock genres have the word "punk" in the name (Oi, New Wave), and not all heavy metal genres have the words "heavy" or even "metal" in the name. Naming of genres typically comes from either a music journalist or from the public who use terms regardless of their actual definition. As a English major in university I know the problems that can arise from denotation (dictionary definition) and connotation (the meaning attributed by other people) being confused. In many cases, there is no concern for using the name to evoke a clear understanding of the music form to a larger audience. Even the naming itself may not be consistent; the Gothic rock article is named Gothic rock mainly for convenience, when it's also refered to as goth, goth rock, gothic and so forth in the common vernacular and they all refer to the same thing (back when it first began in the late 1970's, NME actualy called it "postive punk") And in many instances, the music becomes detached from the label itself. But it's rather hard to change a name, and efforts to do so are quite difficult when the public has their own understanding.

So I wouldn't rely solely on naming for categorizing music genres. It certainly is helpful and can lead you generally in the right direction, but please be aware of these logical traps, because categorization of any art form (and language itself) is rather fluid.

Also, all rock music is rock 'n roll, since that is what all forms of rock music emerged from. It's faulty to call it a rock subgenre because really, there were no subgenres; it was a new form. The distinction of calling it rock music came in the 60's as greater experimentation, as well as people not wanting to say the phrase "rock 'n roll" in its entirety. A distinction between the two is mainly made (once again) out of convenience, for those who what to mainly talk about that period from the fifties. Otherwise, the terms are rather interchangeble, and rock 'n roll is still used, although nowhere near as common as say, 20 years ago.

On the subject of common beliefs in the metal community: these are perfectly fine if they somehow verified by a source. I can't add material someone in the metal scene has told me directly because that would count at original research, and even though it may be true, it would be hard for anyone else to verify it unless they talked to the same guy and did their own original research. The importance of sources like books, magazine articles, websites, and film is not just because there tends to be stricter guidelines for verifiying claims in the publication process (although this should never be automatically assumed; when was the last time you heard something inaccurate on the news?), but because of their mass availability, which gives a large number of people access to the same information. So if this common claim is held by the metal community, it really does help if this claim is presented in print or on camera. In addition, with a genre so big and popular as metal, it's faulty to rely on the dedicated metal fans for a final word on the subject. Most metal fans, as with all forms of popular music, are casual listeners who do not immerse themselves entirely in the scene. Those who are deeply involved and intensely knowledgable about the music, however, still can have their own biases. I know this especially from my studying of alternative and punk rock, where deep inner circles have a tendency to be reactionary and create their own values systems in regards to the scene. Sure, a lot of alternative bands from the 80's called what they were doing punk rock, but from an objective viewpoint, they were not.

Ultimately, what it all comes down to is sources. If someone has a sources that declares heavy metal solely as a subgenre of a larger group of metal music, then there's certainly a point. But the History minor in me asks further questions. Why does this person say that? What do they base their statement on? Does their conclusion have any logical fallacy? Is the person merely trying to express their view, or do they have an agenda? We must apply this thinking not only to the sources, but our own. That way we can effectively serve the topic at hand, and help make it understandable to a lot of people.

So sources, everyone!!! WesleyDodds 08:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Metal Archives, as authoritative a source as any, with tens of thousands of users at all levels of dedication, clearly makes that distinction. http://members.lycos.co.uk/hyperviolent/, based on a consensus of hundreds in the metal community, does as well. You can challenge their motives all you want to, but it's hard to imagine that someone would have a serious ulterior agenda to remove the "heavy" qualifier from the genre name.

And I question your assertion that most fans of metal are casual fans. Metal is underground enough that "casual fans" is essentially an oxymoron; to be called a "fan" one must ipso facto like more than the half a dozen metal bands readily available for public consumption, which requires immersing oneself to some degree in the metal community or the local scene. People who have spent years intensively studying the myriads of metal bands are the authorities, not teenagers who heard about Metallica and Shadow's Fall on MTV2.

But by far the best rationale for keeping the article basically as is, is the ambiguity itself: heavy metal, to a significant number, if not a good majority, of interested parties, means Iron Maiden and Black Sabbath. "Metal" alone, on the other hand, is unequivocal. It makes zero sense to confuse the issue unnecessarily, especially given that the current Heavy Metal article is (in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness) a complete train wreck that dedicates more wordage to bands that fall wholly outside the genre than 99% of those that fall within. 67.4.146.16 09:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i didnt answer this sooner Wesley, i was waiting on other comments. I second what the annomynous user said. Even though Metal-Archives genre organising does fall a few planets short of accuracy on 99.99% of what is listed on there. Leyasu 11:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Heavy Metal music

I'm trying to summarize arguements. Please see Talk:Heavy metal music to voice your opinion in the "proposed merger with metal music" sub heading. Thanks maxcap 16:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)