Talk:Death metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Music genres     (Rated B-Class) Music Portal Death metal is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. WikiProject Heavy Metal      (Rated B-Class) Heavy metal Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Music Death metal is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Archives
/Archive 1

Contents 1 Complexity 2 Schuldiner helped push the boundaries of uncompromising speed and technical virtuosity 3 Vandaliam? 4 Possesed 5 Genre influence 6 Morbid Angel 7 Carcass? 8 If you agree a source listing OTEP as death metal is a bad source... 9 Subgenres 10 Deathcore? 11 Error 12 Sam Dunn and DM influences 13 Comprehensive rewrite needed 14 Your Favourite Band 15 Slam Death 16 technical and progressive death metal 17 Early black metal infl. 18 Keep early Tiamat out from this! 19 Infobox 20 Including number of death metal bands in page via MA data 21 death or black 22 Huge problem 23 single-purpose account Jackmantas 24 Number of death metal bands 25 Why is Job For A Cowboy so famous? 26 Death By Metal

[edit] Complexity

what complexity?79.173.229.147 (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Death-metal bands such as Suffocation, Cynic, Atheist, Dying Fetus and even latter-day Cannibal Corpse have technical, complex riffs. Some of these bands even crossed into genres like jazz fusion. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schuldiner helped push the boundaries of uncompromising speed and technical virtuosity

...How so? Morbid angel by 1989 was creating some of the first virtuoso music in this genre while Death was still fairly simple by this point. Same goes for Atheist.

His solos, mostly. Death's music was fast since Scream Bloody Gore, but Schuldiner infused melodic elements in his solos with his death metal rather than the more atonal approach of his contemorarires.

[edit] Vandaliam?

"Death metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is well known to be a very bad genre of music, with unnecessary screaming." Vandalism?

Yeah. I reverted it. Prepare to be Mezmerized! 23:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, death metal gained more media attention as popular record labels like Earache Records and Roadrunner Records began to sign death metal bands at a rapid rate."

another case of vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.55.249 (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, and if it is, its definitely not obvious. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possesed

It really seems like this article tries to play down the importance of Possessed, calling them a Thrash Metal band and claiming Death established half of the things that Possessed already did two or three years earlier. Possessed's Seven Churches and their Death Metal demo were the first pure Death Metal works and this article tries vehemently to deny that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.147.162 (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I went to the Possessed page and saw the footnotes to the references supporting the premise that Possessed were the 'godfathers of metal'. Well, the same writer from Allmusic.com who referred to P as godfathers, Ed Rivadavia, states that Chuck Schuldiner is widely recognized as the father of death metal. Does it get much plainer? When we think of Possessed, we old schoolers obviously respect Jeff Becerra's gutteral voice and their musical brutality and speed (wildly copied by others in the thrash genre). However, Death brought an element of doom (minor key melodies, etc.) into what they were doing that stood the test of time, at least as far as 'creating a genre' called death metal goes. When running around praising Seven Churches let's just all remember that in 1984 Death forerunner Mantas did the demo Death by Metal followed up by Death's first demo Reign of Terror. If there is any genesis to this genre, overall, the majority of writers (Borivoj Krgin, Jeff Kitts, Don Kaye, etc.), who at the time were all metal tapetraders, point to Florida and not California... A Sniper 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way you put it Possessed was death metal at one of its earliest incarnations as was Mantas. To argue who came first is irrelevant.Navnløs 22:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Navnløs, I would tend to agree with you - and of course this is all ancient history. It is simply that this user (68.149.147.162) seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder about the notoriety of Death, with this comment and an edit to the Death page, and so I jumped on the high horse. But I also think it doesn't make one bit of difference over 22 years later. A Sniper 16:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you are saying and agree.Navnløs 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre influence

I listed Black metal as a stylistic influence in the music infobox. This is because there is no doubt that early black metal bands like Venom (band) and Bathory (band) had an influence upon death metal almost as much as thrash. Also, if you listen to early Possessed, widely considered to be the first death metal band ever, it sounds to me almost like black metal and I know others who agree. Navnløs 23:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's safe to say that no one is gonna argue this comment with me? I'm surprised, I expected a bunch of people to jump on me telling me that death metal was in no way influenced by black metal. I'm pleased everyone seems to agree, though.Navnløs 22:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and could not possibly understand anyone who thinks that what became death metal was merely an offshoot of thrash. As much as Chuck was into Slayer (at first), he still mentioned Venom and even the doom elements (and minor melodies) of Sabbath. By the late 80s he liked Cathedral and I recall us going to see a Belgian doom band called St. Vitus. Yes, certainly black metal (and doom) was influential on death metal and not just thrash. Cheers for the change, A Sniper 17:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I don't really disagree either. It's a thing we can only say looking back at the 80s. By the time death metal emerged there was no such thing as black metal. Yes, there was Venom, there was Bathory and other early black metal but there was no real devision into genres. In retrospect we can attribute genres to early extreme metal bands, but by then it was all one and the same.

Deathmetal.org [1] states:

During the years 1983-1985, a style emerged that was between death metal, black metal and thrash, and from this all of the succeeding genres were to derive their musical inspiration. Bathory, Sodom, Hellhammer/Celtic Frost formed the basis of this style, augmented in the Americas by Possessed, Slayer and Sepultura.

I even remember reading an 80s interview where Quorton said Bathory was death metal. He said so because he thought death metal was a cooler term than black metal.

For example, listen to Morbid Visions by Seputura. Is it black? is it death? Is Hellhammer death? black? doom? thrash? Is Possessed thrash? death?

Maybe we should change it to early-black metal, or first wave of black metal to avoid misconception (or just leave it this way) Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I see the points everyone is making and understand. It might be more correct to make it "early black metal" or "First Wave Black" or something, but I think that other than adding confusion we don't need to be quite that specific and should perhaps just leave it the way it is. No? Yes? Navnløs 18:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If we can get a solid source about BM's influence, it may be noteworthy. I keep having to revert the edits by Logical Defense simply because he slips his BM influence phrase right in the middle of a cited statement, which is very misleading.--Wick3dd (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually we already had this conversation and everyone agreed. It's a fact. There is no doubt at all that early black metal influenced early death metal bands GREATLY which means that black metal influenced death metal. It's not that much of a stretch. Just listen to early Possessed or early Death. As to w/e Logical Defense is doing, I have no idea what that's about, but I have always found Logical Defense to be a great contributor to many many metal related articles. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Navnløs, and also for your contribs as well. The sentiment's mutual. :) Logical Defense (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh his statement is true. I am not doubting BM's influence. He just needs to get the sourcing right so it is not misleading. --Wick3dd (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What about early doom metal and Black sabbath? Most death metal note black sabbath as an influence and slow passages, detuned guitars and a doomy feeling are important characteristic of death metal.

I disagree with user Navnløs. If there was a black metal influence to death metal, it could be solely credited to Venom.

Bands that are normally considered "back metal" today weren't black metal in the early to mid-1980s. Bathory and Hellhammer were labelled death metal back then. Tom Warrior himself, on page 78 of his Are Morbid? book states that Hellhammer "would later be credited as being among the founders of death metal". I'm also fortunate enough to have a 1995 interview with Quorthon stating that Bathory called themselves "death metal" because they wanted didn't want to be associated with Venom.

Also, Terrorizer (which seems to be the major refrence point to extreme metal-invested editors around here) calls Venom "thrash", which further confuses matters...

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morbid Angel

I think you have a valid point about MA, Kameejl. My objection was that the band were mentioned too many times as being at the genesis of the movement, and that would be incorrect. I felt there should be a line of sorts between Slayer, Possessed and Mantas/Death on the one hand, and the latter 80s bands such as MA. I remember Terry Butler, Chuck & I being invited by Dave Vincent to come see MA in 1989 and they were just getting off the ground. Alternately, Obituary were already getting popular in Florida by that time and Roadrunner was having success with them. In fact, other Florida acts were all being launched at the same time, and MA was but one of that second wave. In any event, I've not touched your edit. best, A Sniper 14:16, 06 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I removed your addition again, not because it's bad, but because it doesn't fit the intro. If you can find a nice place in the body, please put it there (I think it's valuable information). I see you're an early DM fan. Maybe you could help me out. I have written a part of the history of death metal (see User:Kameejl/Death metal) but I'm stuck. I'm planning to put it in the article some day but there is to much that has to be told. Maybe you could give me some help or sources. I would be very grateful! Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carcass?

I see much talk of Slayer and Death here, but not much of Carcass. Surely such a key influence should be mentioned? --Wick3dd 07:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They created goregrind. Big difference. But then again, they did help create melodic death metal w/ their album Heartwork, so you might be justified. But I wouldnt put them on. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 01:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was referring to. Many people list them as a key factor in melodic death metal. --Wick3dd (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] If you agree a source listing OTEP as death metal is a bad source...

Please speak out here [2]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh? OTEP is nu-metal. They just have screaming vocals. A common misconception. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subgenres

I got rid of the subgenres without articles. If you disagree, revert it and leave a reason here. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All you got rid of is brutal death metal, and it has already been determined it is a "real" genre. You should know what I'm talking about. I mean after all, the metalcore article has NO sources, but it is true that it is a real genre. So what if brutal death metal doesn't have its own article? It's a real genre. Also, the black metal page lists some subgenres that do not have their own pages, I believe. No big deal. Navnløs (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All right.

"Also, the black metal page lists some subgenres that do not have their own pages, I believe." No, I checked. All of their listed subgenres have articles.

"You should know what I'm talking about." I do. No big deal, though. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright no need to get uncivil. The black metal article does have one section that is a "subgenre" of sorts. The modern black metal section talks about the black metal of today, which is a subgenre sort of. You don't have to think of it like that, even I can see the flaws in my argument, but brutal death metal still belongs in this article. Navnløs (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Alright no need to get uncivil." Sorry if I came across as uncivil. I didnt mean to come across as such.

"...brutal death metal still belongs in this article." All right. I understand. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathcore?

Do most of you think this is a real genre? I ask because I nominated the deathcore article, and if we end up keeping it, I think we would have to add it on this page. I encourage all of you to go to the deathcore page and view the arguments, maybe submit your own. I would appreciate more help on this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick3dd (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error

I've read all these death metal subgenres, I did found one error in Brutal Death Metal: Cannibal Corpse. Can I ask who put CC in B Death Metal? They have nothing to do with BDM, they are one of the best known and leaders on Death Metal. If someone does not agree, tell it here, but before that, compare CC to Krisiun for example and listen other BDM bands and compare to CC, you'll know what i mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.217.246 (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that there before. I definitely agree with you. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Dunn and DM influences

Logical Defense, please stop adding onto a cited source. If you doubt the source, look him up on Wikipedia. He is legit and, arguably, has done a ton more research than anyone editing this article.--Wick3dd (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what do mean with the phrasing "adding onto a cited source"? I added "onto" a "source" how? I added my own verifiable source, yes, but certainly didn't conflict with any legitimate sources beforehand.

Second of all, you can't use Wikipedia as a source FOR a Wikipedia article. Time you looked into Wikipedia:Original_Research. Also, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

Third, despite whatever conflicting opinions you and I share, the bottom line is I'm the one providing a traceable, regarded source with citation, and you are not. On a helpful note, you can even view the clips on YouTube under two separate accounts, if you'd like (not mine), at [3], or [4], and also feel free to check out the other parts in which black metal is also discussed in particular. You may also be interested in checking out this documentary on Gorgoroth, viewable here [5], in which black metal's origins are also layed out as preceeding even the declaration of a genre called death metal. However, in regards to the source I am citing, the timeline of events as researched in the film, and confirmed by contributing artists, is clear as day.

If this "Bill Zebub" film is something legit (and by the way, I have yet to be able to find any external source, video clip, or otherwise transcipt of the "quote" you speak of, even though that should be your job, as the claimer) then add it with the proper Wikipedia formatting. The source needs to be reliable; again, see WP:RS. Also check out Wikipedia:Citing_Sources and WP:V for help on the formatting issue, as just making a claim in an edit summary of what you maybe heard here or there isn't considered valid.

Also, understand that I'm not necessarily against or for whichever claim. This isn't a personal issue; whether black metal came before death metal, or vice versa, makes little difference. I'm simply guarding whichever side has the most reliable and well-regarded proof. Logical Defense (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I did not add that source. I just keep this article sane, I don't contribute new info. Second off, I did not say to use Wikipedia as a source. I said to check out his article if you want to see whether he is legit. Third, my problem is not your argument. What you did was slip it in the Sam Dunn quote, even though his quote does not support what you said. Get a source, and add it in a separate sentence. Just say something like "However, other people say x". Thanks.--Wick3dd (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you just said in your response makes little sense. If you are trying to keep this article "sane", then don't defend unverifiable citation. If you wanted me to check out the Wikipedia article to see "whether he is legit", then technically you are saying I should use it as a source. And finally, the Sam Dunn quote does in fact support what I said; which is death metal came after black metal. Period. I don't understand where you're confused about this, telling me to "get a source"; it's there. I added it. End of story. Again, take a look for yourself before making assumptions.

As for your input that something should say "However, other people say x" (in this context, "other people say death metal came before black metal"), that would be fine if such an opposing viewpoint was A) true, and B) could be supported with a verifiable source. Like I said before, I'm open for this, but you need to have legit backup to even bother saying this. Afterall, as Navnløs tried explaining to you above, this is a dead issue anyway; it's a fact that black metal emerged before death metal. Clear now? Logical Defense (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I was wrong there actually. I hadn't paid much attention to your statement. Here is what you need to do, add your source right after the BM statement and put the Sam Dunn one before it on the thrash statement. I think that should work fine.--Wick3dd (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already there after the sentence. No need in placing the same citation twice in one sentence, as the cite describes the entire context. Again, you're making it clear you hadn't watched the source right here online in itself before drawing these conclusions. Please refrain from doing this in the future when possible as it will save everybody a lot of time. Thanks. Logical Defense (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, you are missing my point. I will show you right here.

Building off the speed and complexity of thrash metal(insert Dunn here), and the raw extremities defined in early black metal ^{[citation needed]}, death metal came to true prominence by the mid 1980s.[1]

From what I gathered, the Sam Dunn quote was dealing with thrash. You need to put your source right after the BM statement, then move the Sam Dunn one to the end of thrash metal, because that is what the source is for.--Wick3dd (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sigh" you say? Are you serious? What don't you understand about the quote? It mentions BOTH thrash and black.

"From what I gathered, the Sam Dunn quote was dealing with thrash"... have you STILL not actually LOOKED at the source? In fact, this is the quote, word for word. I'll write it out for you since you still don't care to just click the video links provided: "Building on thrash and black metal, death metal's ingredients are guttural vocals, machine gun guitars, and horrific album art. [...]."

Thrash and black are both mentioned, therefore making it just fine for the citation to be placed at the end of the sentence: Building off the speed and complexity of thrash metal, and the raw extremities defined in early black metal [...]. The film also explores both of those genres prior to the segment on death metal, putting the text written in this article even more in proper context.

Again, you make it obvious that you haven't even watched the film before making these claims, because had you, you wouldn't have any issue here with the citation. So please, hold your "sigh" and actually watch it before deciding what you think it does or does not mention. Logical Defense (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I completely realized what you were saying the other day. Somehow I got you mixed up with some other users (the Bill Zebub one for one). I feel like a complete moron right now. I hope you will forgive me, as I have had a week with finals, helping my friend with legal problems, and dealing with an alleged alcohol violation. I have not had the time I wanted to look into everything. I apologize for being militant about something I had failed to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wick3dd (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. Don't worry about it. Apology accepted. Logical Defense (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive rewrite needed

Someone in the archive looked as if they were going to attempt a comprehensive rewrite of this article, something that is sorely needed. The biggest problems lie in the section following 'late history', and in particular the endless subgenre-isation (is that a word? You know what I mean). Whilst it may be interesting to focus to some extent on regional differences (and perhaps that could use a subsection itself) the list of fusion genres is fatally flawed due to lack of sources and original research. As an example, I've been listening to death metal for over 15 years, and whilst it is possible I've completely missed the concept of 'slam death metal', it seems unlikely as I'm well aware of the bands listed under this banner. Do we have a reliable source for this? There is a similar problem over on the grindcore page, and there were problems over at black metal for a while (oddly enough 'war metal' and 'mincecore' don't qualify as real genres, more advertising tools). I don't want to just jump in and delete, say, the slam death metal section, but unless it gets properly sourced (i.e. not from a band's Myspace or your mate's review site), I'm afraid that's what needs to happen to it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I will look into it once finals are over. I would agree that this page needs much work.--Wick3dd (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The second part of DM's history needs to be rewritten and the subgenre sections need work. I tried to look up sources for the subgenre part but I couldn't find any reliable sources. I'm afraid the subgenre sections won't be that easy to rewrite. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it might be tricky. Recently Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance magazines wrote four-issue long death metal specials, with specific sections on at least progressive death metal and death/grind. Black/death is legitimate, but only in the same way the doom/death or thrash/death, so I'd be tempted to group all of these together under fusion genres with links to separate pages. As for technical, brutal and 'slam' death metal, I remain to be convinced of their usefulness as actual genres. They're descriptive certainly, but that's not quite the same. At least part of the problem is that many bands fit into all of these categories, as well as some of the others... most 'brutal' death metal is also 'technical' and may well be 'progressive' or 'melodic' or whatever. And I contend that slam has no legitimacy at all. It's certainly not come up in any credible source I've read. Another thing that would be interesting to put into the article would be regional scene differences... again I can onto this if you like, using Terrorizer, ZT and Mudrian's book as sources? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we generalize a bit more? Prog, death/grind, and blackened should be easy to source. The rest are just subgenres of subgenres. We could maybe mention the different playing styles, but even that would be hard to source. --Wick3dd (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone of an anonymous IP also removed "Slam death metal". I almost reverted immediately, but stopped my overreaction and thought... had I even heard of the term before Wikipedia? I tried to find a legit source for it to merit its replacement. Alike Kameejl, I couldn't. So I left it removed.

• applauds* Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however. The rest still need valid citation, but at least they're more recognized of the subgenres. Logical Defense (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this as well, though the other fusion genres bit could probably be combined with other sections. We talk about fusion genres, and let's face it, you've got death/doom, death/grind, death/black, death/thrash and probably death/reggae. They're all fusion genres of some sort. I still quesuion 'brutal death metal' as a separate subgenre... it strikes me as simply defined as a counterpoint to 'melodic death metal'. Either why, I want to see some sources defending it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to you all: go and search for sources. I did some research for the rewrite I did and couldn't find any sources other than sources stating "band X is Y death metal" or just simple enumerations of genres. I couldn't find sources describing a genre. I didn't look for magazines but did look for websites and books through google. Maybe melodic death metal isn't that hard to source, the rest probably (brutal, technical, blackened, progressive and fusion genres) is. Nevertheless, please look for sources, we need them. Kameejl ^(Talk) 17:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorizer certainly wrote specific articles on death/doom, death/grind, funeral and drone doom and progressuve death metal (for instance, see the edit I did for death/doom). I can have a go at start up articles (i.e. complete rewrites of what's currently there) in the next few days. The others effectively need to go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In light of this discussion, I've made an attempt to merge the strongly similar "technical" and "progressive" death metal subsections. Why they were ever seperated, after a good read through, it's highly questionable. Logical Defense (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning, in my opinion, the notion that some bands hybridize death metal with numerous other metal/hardcore subgenres, not just in "death n roll"... acid bath, soilent green, sepultura/soulfly/cavelera-conspiracy. 128.59.34.156 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Favourite Band

What is policy round here regarding which bands should be included as examples within the subgenre sections. I'm specifically referring to the inclusion of a band like Between The Buried And Me. I'd deleted on grounds of notability and it has been re-added, admittedly with a citation to demonstrate that they do indeed play some form of progressive death metal. However, the rest of the section is talking about bands of a calibre like Pestilence, Gorguts, Atheist, Edge of Sanity, Opeth and the like. This is not meant as a subjective statement... their notability is reflected by their inclusion in books like 'Choosing Death' by Albert Mudrian and prominent placings in things like the Terrorizer and Zero Tolerance magazines death metal specials, and Terrorizer's retrospectives of the 80s and 90s. My feeling therefore is that bands like BTBAM lack notability, and in order to justify their inclusion a source should be provided not to confirm their genre but to explain why they are notable. As such, I'm deleting them again, until someone can provide such a source (and will do so with other bands of this nature). However, feel free to discuss it with me here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The same goes for whovever just added The Fatal Effect ;-).Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I re-added BTBAM. Not because I like them, but because they have been there. Remove the Fatal Effect. Keep it the way it has been for awhile. We have the bands down, no need to add more.--Wick3dd (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slam Death

It should be slimmed down and a few sentences should just be added to Brutal Death. Inhumer (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, can we have a legitimate source to justify its inclusion at all? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No. (...) (lol) Logical Defense (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] technical and progressive death metal

I've noticed someone combined technical and progressive death metal. I totally agree as these terms are sometimes used interchangeably and the genres have a big deal of traits that overlap (and we have no sources). However, I am concerned readers will think the 2 genres are completely synonymous, and that isn't 100% correct (some DM bands are never called technical (Opeth comes to mind), while others are never referred to as progressive (Origin/Cryptopsy)). I adjusted the prose to feature both genres, without making a clear distinction between the two. Please review the following rewrite I did. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical death metal and progressive death metal are related terms to refer to bands that are particularly distinguished by the complexity of their music and the virtuosity of their musicians. Common traits are abruptly changing, sometimes chaotic song structures, uncommon time signatures, atypical rhythms and unusual harmonies and melodies. Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz and/or classical music. While the term technical death metal is sometimes used to describe bands that not only focus on complexity but also on speed and extremity, the line between progressive and technical death metal is thin. "Tech death" and "prog death", for short, are terms commonly applied to such bands as Cryptopsy, Edge of Sanity, Opeth, Origin and Sadist. Cynic, Atheist, Pestilence and Gorguts are examples of a bands noted for creating jazz-influenced death metal. Necrophagist and Spawn of Possession are known for a classical music influenced death metal style.

I like it. But like you stated, the terms are not always interchangeable, and though you mention this slightly, I think there should be a little more (like a sentence) about how they are not always the same. You could even mention what you just said before about Opeth and Cryptopsy. Otherwise, It's great. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I will copy it to the article. If you want to change it, go ahead. Kameejl ^(Talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

For what my input is worth, I think the rewrite for that section is great and should be left as is for a while. Logical Defense (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are differences between Technical Death Metal and Progressive Death Metal. I think it is not correct to combine them in one title. Every technical Death Metal band is not progressive at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enslaved (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early black metal infl.

We already had this discussion, which was started by me, and we all agreed that death metal was influenced by early black metal. I still agree with the assessment. However, not that it needs changing, I should point out one thing. Death metal was indeed influenced greatl;y by early black metal, but not all early black metal bands. In fact, only a few, I would say, influenced the death metal genre. Bands such as Mercyful Fate probabaly had little to no influence on death metal. The only bands that really had an impact on the dm genre were probabaly Venom, Celtic Frost, perhaps Hellhammer and I doubt whether Bathory had an influence or not. Just thought this was worth pointing out. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should all BM bands need to be an influence? Not all thrash bands where an influence. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I know, I was just saying. I guess it was kind of unnecessary to say. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, but I think the problem is that at the time we're talking about black metal, death metal and thrash metal were not in fact delineated in the way that they are now. Finding references for this should be trivial and may be a useful way of getting round what are fairly nitpicking points. Are Hellhammer black metal? Death? Thrash? I hope you see where I'm coming from. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I get you. Definitely. I guess I just said it for the hell of saying it, but yeah, there's no reason to put it in the article, it would just cause more problems. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK

BTW, back then those bands were not widely known as black metal (I even remember reading an interview where Quorton said he thought his band was death metal, just because the term death sounded better). Just like I said before (and now is stated in the article), back then around 1984, there were only a few bands playing extreme metal and this "pool" inspired musicians to create death metal. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep early Tiamat out from this!

Tiamat were black metal NOT pure Sacandinsavian death metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.155.119 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're a moron. Listen to Sumerian Cry, The Astral Sleep and the Treblinka demos. All are clearly death metal in the Scandinavian vein, similar to early Edge of Sanity. If you still disagree, I'd advise you to get your ears/head examined. 205.174.170.153 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That band is officially marked as a black metal band. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.197 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Although early Tiamat lyrics indeed delt with "satanic" and occultist lyrics, this doesn't mean they're black metal. And sound-wise, I agree with the first amonymous post. There's a definte scandinavian/Entombed vibe going on in Sumerian Cry. Furthermore, it was recorded on Sunlight Studios (note the "buzzsaw" guitar tone?) and Johan Endlund was definately associated early on with the people that were to become Dismember, Entombed and Unleashed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

There is one thing. It is black colour for infobox. It isn't very important, but I think most of people would agree, that it looks much more apposite. Why? Heavy Metal includes bands such as Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix and Sepultura or Mayhem. These bands are musically pretty really very different, so these subgenres should have another colour. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours as black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres". It is 100% allowed to do it. But some people (unlogged) just have a problem with it and delete it unreasonably as a POV making pure edit war, what is POV by itself. So I would collect some people that want black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres", which would help to keep it...--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only natural to allow extreme metal to have black for the infobox color. What other genre(s) could allow it? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am leaving it. There are too many stubborn bungholes and big bloodthirsty edit-warriors. Typical metalheads... But why is their problem with black?--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe they're upset with the association to black metal? Maybe they'd rather keep it red like blood? No idea. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Including number of death metal bands in page via MA data

On the verification issue, every band page I've seen on MA has an external link to one of four sites: the band's official site, the band's MEEEspace site, the band's page on something like Rock Detector or the band's page on their record company's(/ies') website. The fact that they exist is verifiable, and in the case of bands who's record label site is included on the archive, it is also verifiable that they play metal or played metal. So...what exactly is it that isn't verifiable here? As far as genre goes, Encyclopaedia Metallum is basically a data collector of already verified genre information. I see no reason not to use the site as a source for something this simple. 128.255.179.241 Ours18 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with MA is that anyone can put any information they want on there - although the editors claim they gatekeep, the fact is that band information is almost never verified (if it sounds plausible). In no way is MA "basically a data collector of already verified genre information", since anyone can start a page for a band and write whatever they feel is appropriate to describe the band. I myself have started several pages, and contributed to several pages. Best, A Sniper 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...except if no information that the band exists is provided, then the submission is rejected either outright or later deleted. There's an entire thread devoted to bands which should have never been submitted, mostly bands which are borderline metal but also some which managed to slip through the cracks due to lax rules in the first year the website was founded. Read it, they're very strict about this. Much stricter than Uncle Wiki, I might add....there's no moderator approval for creating an article here, last time I checked. Ours18 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that MA articles are moderator approved does not established anything as it is still just a self published source (see WP:SPS). They may well claim to be authorities on metal and metal genres but that's irrelevant unless it is published in an independent, relibale, commercially published source. MA does not fulfill these criteria. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MA is just not reliable for this piece of information. Besides what would it matter? You say it establishes popularity. Does it? If a person comes to this page and sees that x number of bands of this genre exist, is it going to matter? I'm sure most people don't even know how many bands exist in other genres like pop, so it doesn't establish popularity at all. Even if you said a million death metal bands exist, does that mean death metal is popular? For all we know there could be 100 million pop bands, which would make death metal very unpopular actually. So numbers like that don't matter. Besides popularity is perspectival anyways. Not to mention there's a section in the infobox saying what kind of mainstream popularity the genre has. No amount of info you're going to get from any site will prove that or disprove it. Knowing how many bands exist in a genre is purely inane. Unless, perhaps you want to go and find a site that lists ALL genres and how many bands exist in EACH of those genres. In that way there would be some comparison/ perspective. Oh and then you would also have to go and put that information down in each genre's article, cuz if you only put it in a few, what would we have it to compar it to? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct regarding the numbers of bands listed on MA being a measure of popularity for the reasons you have stated. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Blizzard Beast - it isn't just MA itself but simply the lack of need for the information. I also don't agree with your MA vs. Wiki stance: at MA, as I've already stated above, anyone can add any bit of information, as long as it is within the guidelines of the site. However, here you have active editors who challenge each other for accuracy and relevance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

...and as I have stated numerous times on Wikipedia, that is simply not true. To begin with, until you get to a cetain number of points (which takes most people forever to get to) all edits must be approved by an admin. Secondly, even if you get that many points, the mods there are far more active in finding incorrect information than Uncle Wiki is. Also, there are sections of the boards in which people link pages with errors so that mods can find them easier. It's considerably more difficult to put false information there than it is here, where we have an utterly stupid policy of letting anons with no account edit almost anything. Having to go through the trouble of creating and activating an account does more to keep vandals off than most people realize.

And where does the moderators' authority come from? Who decides what is incorrect information? People with a certain number of points? That's laughable. Whilst Wikipedia is deeply, deeply flawed, it at least has the ultimate recourse to reliable sources. MA only recourse is to its self-appointed mods. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel it also must be mentioned that they don't pussyfoot around vandals like they do here. Here, a vandal can do nothing but ruin articles for six months and he won't get a permanent ban; if you try it once at MA, you're gone, done, banned, "dursted." No 24-hour blocks, no two-week blocks, no one year blocks. Just banned. They have much higher standards than this place does.

On this I am in total agreement with you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That being said, if the consensus is that the information is not relevant enough for the article, then I suppose it shouldn't be in the article. I'll leave the issue alone from now on. Ours18 (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It just isn't relevant or reliable information. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] death or black

which form of metal is more extreme--Wikiscribe (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikiscribe, may I remind you talk pages are not meant for chatting because wikipedia is not a forum. But I can't help myself, so I'll answer your question :). One cannot say BM is more extrem than DM or vice versa. Windir is less extreme than Nile or Cannibal Corpse; Anaal Nathrakh is far more extreme than let say Obituary. Some black metal bands are focussed on lo-fi production and focus less on technicallity. The sound of such a band can be very inaccessible (and crappy if you ask me). If you compare raw black to brutal or technical death metal I think generally black metal is less accessible (therefore more extreme) Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

hehehe i know your right but thanks for your insight i had though that death metal would be more extreme ,thank you--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Huge problem

The progressive death metal and technical death metal were moved into one section together as one thing and now I just noticed they have their own sections again. Progressive death metal doesn't even have an article, but technical death metal does (that article needs a lot of work, too) where is described as also progressive death metal. What's up with this change? This is a problem! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It sure is... maybe a mention of progressive death metal and it's difference to technical death metal could be found somewhere (like in one of Sharpe-Young's books about genres and the bands within them or the history of heavy metal, or that death metal/grindcore book: Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal & Grindcore and that one on the dm scene especially (Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture) because I keep thinking there is a distinct difference between the two. Listen to uhh..., Sun Caged or Coroner they have plenty of jazz fusion riffs in their music (although they are just technical metal not tech death) and then Circus Maximus or Pagan's Mind and you'll understand the difference that I'm talking about. Sadly, if we can't find any refs for progressive death then it should stay as a combination again. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know there's a difference between technical and progressive metal, though it is a fine line (and usually both genres are progressive and technical), but idk about prog death and tech death. But yes, I believe those two sections should probably be combined as Kameejl once did, I believe. It doesn't seem what I'm saying is getting a lot of attention, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although metal purists know/think there is a difference, the term is used interchangeably by the press. F.e. Death, Atheist and Cynic have been labeled both prog and tech. I couldn't name a technical dm band that has no progressive elements and, to play progressive music you need a fair amount of technique. Both sub-genres are so close to each other, even the section's content was practically identical. It's best to have both genres combined, until good sources, distinguishing the two, can be provided. I've searched through a couple of books on (death) metal, without any succes.

By the way, the combined section is addressing this dispute, readers are not misled. I've reverted this section split. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job! Thanks, and a good example of being bold. I don't know who changed it back to the split sections in the first place but they belong in the same section as Kameejl made it. And yes, it addresses the dispute, even better! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] single-purpose account Jackmantas

This user has been trolling around after me, and in the process has made some disturbing edits to the Chuck Schuldiner article and talk page. The most startling is a long paragraph on the talk page that attacks the relevance of Chuck (and in a previous edit the relevance of death metal itself) and personal attacks, innuendo and ridicule. I fear this editor will continue the trolling and hit this article, as he/she seems bent on messing with any article I lightly or regularly contribute to. Thanks for any assistance you can offer. A Sniper (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of death metal bands

I think some kind of comment on the popularity of death metal relative to other metal genres is totally appropriate to the article, but the last comment about it added is a bit problematic. Firstly, I'm not sure Metal Archives is a great or appropriate source for the comment as currently phrased, but regardless at the moment it's basically OR (Metal Archives themselves make no comment on the phenomenon, and the numbers simply reflect what's been added to the site). Perhaps a way round it would be to simply state, "Metal Archives lists x death metal bands out of a total of y", with the same source and no other comment? Thoughts? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Blackmetalbaz and that a qualifying statement re: MA would make it more encyclopedic. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see why it matters at all. Stating a number of bands just seems a little ridiculous. Popularity is always going to be up to the person pretty much. It's all perspective. You might live in a city where everyone listens to death metal, but that doesn't suddenly make it popular or mainstream. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we have this discussion awhile back and agree that we WOULDN'T use the Metal Archives information because it is irrelevant? If the consensus is to have it, it must be qualified by noting it is from MA - but I would also ask WHY? My vote is not to include it. A Sniper (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we did and I agree with you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Job For A Cowboy so famous?

Can somebody answer this? They're not that great. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I wans't aware they were "famous." But they do suck, at least in my opinion (and many others). However, they are not even death metal, so why bring it to this page? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. It seems I'm mistaken. I looked at their article and it mentioned that they changed their style from deathcore to death metal. I didn't believe it, even after reading the sources until I just saw a vid by them (a rather gay metalcore-looking type vid). They have changed. And they are now death metal. They still suck, though. I listened to it and it was standard death metal, but extremely boring. The one good thing about their new album (on which they turned death metal) is that it might bring their deathcore fans to listen to some new, better shit. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I might have given them too much credit. Their new album got to like #54 on the Billboard 200 charts - some AMG guy was comparing them to Damageplan by saying "JFAC is one of the highest-charting debut albums from a heavy metal act since Slipknot's 1999 debut." Fame doesn't nessicarily equal high charting, I was just wondering why so many teenage kids like that band. On a better note, Children of Bodom's Blooddrunk has recently cracked the Top 30, as seen in the latest issue of Rolling Stone Magazine. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death By Metal

Was by Mantas, the band that would become Death. I woun't won't change it because of the source though.Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)