Talk:Roots (Sepultura album)/Archive 1

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

Sepultura influenced KoRn, not the other way around

Fixed the line about KoRn

I went and fixed the line that said this album influenced KoRn (which is wrong, KoRn influenced this album).

This is called vandalism, what you did. I'm going to remove the whole line. I'll also put the protection thing, if I find the way to do that... Iaberis 12:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the protection thing to avoid vandalism from anonymous jerks. DO NOT REMOVE THE PROTECTION without discussing here. This is not an arena for this band vs. that band. Iaberis 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is that vandalism? Max said that after listening to Korn's first album wanted to introduce that sound in his next album. It's a fact, it has nothing to with a band competition. Adgalo 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adgalo, as KoRn's 1st album heavily influenced the sound created on Roots. You can even read it in the booklet that comes with the 25th annivasary CD. I think it should be put back in as it is an explination on why Roots has such a different sound from previous Sepultura albums.--DevilsAlwaysCry 01:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the way he did that was vandalism. He underlined the whole paragraph! Iaberis 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's put an end to this matter...
The liner notes of Beneath the Remains state how important this album was to the guys from KoЯn. Though I can't reference this right now, I also read somewhere that the guys from KoЯn were constantly hearing Chaos A.D. during the recording sessions of their first album.
In the other hand, as DevilsAlwaysCry pointed out, the liner notes of the Roots (the Anniversary Reissue, 2005) prove the KoЯn influence.
So, the KoЯn-Sepultura influence goes both ways. But who came first? Sepultura...
Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

Alternative metal

No. Roots did influence numetal and sound somewhat like numetal, but it is definitely not alternative because of it. Roots definitely is a deathrash album, but you could list it as groove and thrash, just not alt. It isn't alt. Nuff said.

It's Sepultura! 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you've never heard a deathrash band in your life. Get real kid! --Pasajero 01:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Alternative metal" is defined as "an eclectic form of heavy metal music that gained popularity in the early 1990s alongside grunge. It is characterized by some heavy metal trappings (most notably heavy riffs), but usually with a pronounced experimental edge, including unconventional lyrics, odd time signatures, unusual technique, a resistance to conventional approaches to heavy music and an incorporation of a wide range of influences outside of the metal music scene." The incorporation of various different influences not only from genres of rock and metal, but from Brazilian tribal music would definitely qualify Roots as "alternative metal". (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

There's lots of old reviews that say Roots was a death metal album too. But not much death can be heard in the album. I would say it's a nu metal album with a slight death metal touch (vocal wise). Although much of Sepultura's "death" was gone after Arise. (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Groove metal

Groove metal should be added as a genre along side with Alternative metal. Roots Bloody Roots and Attitude both have groove metal listed as there genre on there pages. (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. Compare Roots with two albums also released in 1996 - KoЯn's Life Is Peachy (nu metal) and Pantera's The Great Southern Trendkill (groove metal). Which one sounds closer to Sepultura's sixth album? Also, you'd have to have reliable sources pointing out that Roots is, in fact, a groove metal album. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal

Stop changing the Genre to NU METAL. Roots is not NU METAL.

--PET 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, dude there are turntables in the song Lookaway... Iaberis 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
THIS IS A NU METAL ALBUM. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka (talkcontribs) 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, it's not. Period. --Duke B. Garland (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this album is nu metal. Why?
  • This album was produced by Ross Robinson, the guy who's been present on 9 ou of 10 major nu metal albums;
  • The acknowledged influence of KoЯn and the Deftones on Roots (see the liner notes of Roots's 2005 reissue).
  • Max Cavalera's new "screamed" vocal style, reminescent of Jonathan Davis's or Chino Moreno's vocal style.
  • Unlike thrash, the emphasis here is on groove, not speed.
  • There's also the abnormally tuned down guitars (tuned to A#, to be precise).
  • Like user Iaberis pointed out, "Lookaway" (track #8) features turntablism;
  • KoЯn's Jonathan Davis guests on "Lookaway;
  • Mike Patton also guests on "Lookaway". May I remind you all that Faith No More's music is a major influence on the nu metal style.
Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nu metal" is a meaningless and unclear phrase invented by music critics, not a genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC))
Ibaranoff24, whether we like it or not, nu metal is an identifiable genre. Heavily down-tuned guitars, turnabilism, hip-hop and groove-oriented beats, rapping vocals, a "calm-verse-explosive-chorus" song structure, self-centered lyrical themes... It's all there. Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
All of this can be just as easily centered to alternative metal or alternative rock. Several bands associated with this supposed genre do not have any of these elements, including System of a Down. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC))
No, not really. Alternative Rock, like the Punk, Post-punk and Hardcore scenes that preceded it, is the polar opposite to metal. You can't really put Nirvana's Nevermind in the same category as Limp Bizkit's Significant Other, although the 1st probably did influence the 2nd. It's a taxonomy abomination of sorts.
Obviously, not. Limp Bizkit is rapcore. Terrible rapcore, but still rapcore. There's another genre that can be used to define certain so-called "nu metal" bands. A lot of supposed "nu metal" bands are not metal at all. Do you really want to place something like Linkin Park with Black Sabbath? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
As for System of a Down, they've been forever taxed as nu metal, something they've publicly decried numerous times. Its a similar situation with Incubus, who have also been tagged as nu metal, although they musically share more with the wacko, californian funk-rock/metal of Primus, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Faith No More.
Therein lies my point. There's no clear definition of this supposed genre. Why, again, is it supposed to be an actual genre? Every band gets slapped with this term, and it doesn't mean anything. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
As for alternative metal, I sort of consider it a disposal genre - anything that doesn't fit anywhere else in terms of metal gets lumped within it. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
But "nu metal" is an actual genre? Seriously. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

Folk metal

Folk metal fits far more than alt metal (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


What is tis song about? Is there a translation anywhere? --Duke B. Garland 11:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Carlinhos Brown knows... he invented it. Even the guys from Sepultura are clueless to it's meaning! Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


There are many problems with the article's POV. It reads like an overwhelmingly positive review of the album, not an encyclopedia entry. The article should be neutral and not biased towards its author's opinion of the album. The article is filled with phrases like "instead of grunting the lyrics as usual" and "Even the popular press, that usually doesn't pay a lot of attention to metal records, halted the presses to appreciate the unusual rhythms mixture of Sepultura." Is this really what we should expect from an encyclopedia? If these are directly quoted from band members or music critics, these paragraphs should be rewritten to explain as such. I removed a few of the questionable phrases, but someone should really look over this article and rewrite it for neutrality. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree... It seems someone translated the text directly from the biography. A clean-up is needed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The compilation The Roots of Sepultura is just an alternative edition of the album Roots. We should merge the compilation's second disc into Roots track listing.--Cannibaloki 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Question

This article has had an edit tag concerning neutrality for a while, with someone specific pointing out one paragraph about the style of the album. I have removed the problematic text because I can find no sources to verify the quotes of the band members or the fan-style language about style and influence. I have copied the original text here:

The opening track of the record, "Roots Bloody Roots", was the "birth" of a new kind of metal, a song that had enormous influence on bands like the Deftones, Korn and Fear Factory. Slow, powerful and to the point, "Roots Bloody Roots" didn't have any of the normal excesses of the metal genre. There wasn't a single guitar solo. Andreas used extra microphones and dissonant chords to add a devastating effect to the music; Paulo's bass was simply monstrous, and Igor abstained from technical drumming in exchange for tribal percussion, efficient, however simple. Max, in turn, grunted which are without a doubt his best song lyrics ever, brilliant in its simplicity.

If anyone can tone down the style and find sources for the quotes, perhaps some version of this text can be restored to the article. Today I am also doing some fairly significant copy editing and should be able to remove the neutrality notice. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


A source stating that an album "incorporates elements of" a certain genre does not make it a part of that genre. There is nothing substantive stating that this is a death, groove or nu metal album. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

  • Again, as previously stated, the best-sourced genres is alternative metal. That and there was previously a consensus in place for this genre. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC))

Okay, considering that a certain editor is ignoring me because of his bias against my edits, let's put the sources up loud and bold where everyone can see.

Allmusic refers to the album as:

  • Progressive Metal
  • Alternative Metal
  • Speed Metal
  • Heavy Metal
  • Death Metal

Rolling Stone refers to Sepultura as a thrash metal band, but does not refer to a genre in regards to this album.

Yahoo! Music refers to the album as:

Hard Rock, Metal

Stylus magazine refers to the album as "tribal metal".

Bukszpan, Daniel; James Dio, Ronnie (2003). The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal. Barnes & Noble Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-7607-4218-9. 

States "In 1996, they released Roots, whose down-tuned death metal aggression was tempered by the incorporation of Brazilian musical and precussion instruments".

Thoroddsen, Arnar. Dimery, Robert, ed. 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Quintet Publishing Limited. ISBN 0-7893-1371-5.  Text "year2006 " ignored (help)

States that the album incorporates elements of Latin music and multiple genres of heavy metal, but does not state an overall dominating style.

Obviously, the consensus between reviewers is that all sources agree that it is a heavy metal album. So, that's the genre. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

  • Okay, let's try this again: heavy metal reflects the sources. There is a consensus for heavy metal. There is no consensus for random listings of genres that are not backed up by consensus of the people who wrote about this album in literary context. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Due to the sources and the consensus of User:LUCPOL and I, the conclusion is that the terms in the box should all stay. RG (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You and yourself are not a consensus. Stop reverting back to your preferred version and LOOK at the sources above. The terms you added are not substantiated by the sources. Scrub, rinse, repeat. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Me and LUCPOL are now the same person? Consensus says keep the box the way it was. RG (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the way it was was the way I had it. Stop reverting against the consensus and sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC))
Again, as stated repeatedly, you are acting against both consensus and sourced material. Stop it, or you will be banned. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
Dude quit acting against consensus and sources already. And we have an issue of CMJ citing the album as groove. Relax and stop acting against majority. RG (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You are the one acting against consensus. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC))

Given all the genres being bandied about are heavy metal genres, just put heavy metal music in the infobox, or remove the genre field if no consensus can be reached. This really shouldn't be an epic debate. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a point Wesley. Perhaps it's better to just create a "Style" section for the album and leave the infobox in this case blank(or put a link with "See below" in the box.) I think I'll get to work on that tomorrow it's too late now. RG (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a consensus - heavy metal. And now it's stronger. I have nothing against a style section. After all, it needs it anyway. Aren't you trying to get this to FA quality? (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC))