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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Links

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)[reply]

Merge this page with Heavy Metal or wipe it out...

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]