Talk:Sepultura

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sepultura article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Portal	Sepultura is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil: This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating 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.

	Heavy metal Portal This article is within the scope of the Black Metal WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles related to black metal. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Bio 2 Genres 3 (year) in music links 4 Confusion 5 New Album 6 Discography 7 Year of Formation 8 Can we get a picture of the band? 9 Deathrash 10 Recent Sepultura Albums 11 Too Many Genre Changes 12 early-Black Metal 13 Clean up 14 Discography Section 15 What happened? 16 Death Metal 17 Doubts about Restructuring this Article 18 Black metal / death metal

[edit] Bio

for a historic band that has been around for so long to have a short bio is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.65.145 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genres

I don't think the genre "thrash metal" fits Sepultura throughout its entire existance. Maybe it could be labelled thrash metal in the begining, up until Chaos AD in 1993. I think the music in their later albums changed. I beleive hints of various styles of music could be heard from 1993 onwards, including industrial metal, grunge, hints of nu metal,doom metal, some rap, and even tribal music (?)...

Could they be "world metal" like... soulfly? --202.36.252.2 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to get picky, I'd argue that Morbid Visions and Bestial Devastations habe more than an overshadowing of death metal. The question should be "is the genre label used to describe what they are now, how they're generally regarded, or what catageories they've ever fitted into for the lifetime of the band"? If you go with the last of those options, we'd be listing Pantera as "glam" though ;) IainP (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that nu-metal should be added as a genre. I mean, have you heard the stuff off of Roots? The guitars sound JUST like Munky and Head (from Korn)!

I was bold and changed the genre (probably the 9287927th time). The musical artist template [1] states we should aim for generality ("The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)"). This one had too much detail that should be incorporated into the article, not the infobox. If someone really feels the need to add metalcore (just because of the "new" singer?) I wouldn't be totally apposed but then I'd like to see reliable sources. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SEPULTURA BLACK METAL! It's ridiculous! For me is an original research, all the metal media label them as thrash metal and, later, groove, aternative metal ecc... But black metal is inappropriate! Those critics are only making confusion in the whole metal music with those craps. --Born Again 83 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully agreed! Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (year) in music links

Folks, the article seems really hard to read with all the 1991 (1991 in music) links throughout. Virtually every other article just goes to the "year" link, though I'd say that the "in music" one is more relevant to this article.

Any objection if I trawl through and replace them all with a single link to the "in music" pages, aliased as the years (e.g. "[[1991|1991 in music]]")?

IainP (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It is very difficult to read "... 1991 (1991 in music) ..."

[edit] Confusion

The line that says "Gloria, was hit by the death of her teenage son in a car crash" is a little bit confusing... was Gloria hit by her son? Or was she emotionally devasted? Also, I thought one of the band members was murdered by the portuguese government (which took over brazil) for propaganda against the government. Which led to the breakup into Soulfly? And that they had to channel all their albums underground to the US to be released to prevent the government from finding them? --Nzhamstar 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Personally, I don't find the initial line confusing but I suppose it's just down to how you pick it up on first reading it. As for the second bit... the breakup was down to a personal rift in the band, partly due to Max dating the band's manageress (Gloria). Nobody was killed as far as I know. As for channeling albums to the US... haven't they recorded in the US/Europe for ages now, anyway? (happy to be corrected) IainP (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Oh ok, maybe its just me then, nevermind. As for the murdering thing - found this: : According to legend, the Sepultura break-up was over a combination of money issues and clashes over where the members wanted to take the music. In 1996 Sepultura fired their manager, Gloria Cavalera (Max's wife). At the same time, Max apparently wanted to go in a @different direction to the rest of the group, which included his brother, Igor. This, along @with the mysterious murder of Mamma Cavalera's 21-year-old son (Max's stepson Dana @Wells), further separated Max and the rest of Sepultura. Finally Max left in search of @something new, while Sepultura searched for a new vocalist. from here --Nzhamstar 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I suppose different places will have different sources. Everywhere I read at the time said that Dana had died in a car crash, although the word "mysterious" is often used to describe the incident. Perhaps there may well be other information there, but I can only find the same @text repeated over umpteen other sites stating "unsolved murder" (do a google on '"dana wells" sepultura murder'). All does seem a little mysterious :) IainP (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

As soon as anyone reads this, please re-evaluate the past comments and consider deleting them... Hate to do it myself, it's someone else's words. The comments above are a little far from full research. Even basic history research. Sorry guys, I'm really sorry in writing this, but... pretty bad stuff written above. Take a look down, please. I plea.

Sepultura's break-up occurred because the band, in a majority consensus, fired Gloria Cavalera, Max's wife. Occurred, as best reports can tell, as something like this: the band, with the excpetion of Max, were disliking Gloria's work as their manager. The band discussed the manager exchange and, as one can expect, things got a little bit hot between Igor and Max, main founders of the band (both are brothers by blood, both started the whole idea of having a band, it was their house that was used as practice room, using as drums some domestic parafernalia. First time Igor had a chance of playing at real drums was during a small-time band festival, where most of the drums are shared among the bands). During discussion, Max, as far as is known, claimed that if she were fired, he would leave with her. Igor took that "blackmail" pretty seriously, and kept on the decision. Max fulfilled his claims. It is said that both talked calmly about it afterwards, and did not quite reach an understanding on the subject. Max left Sepultura along with Gloria, and founded Soulfly. Soulfly itself was Max's way of staying on the music business with people he enjoyed and performin his personal experimentation, long wished since the days from Sepultura. Sepultura, since then, went down and under, as they couldn't find much of a replacement for Max. Even after finding a good replacement, they still had trouble on going on, as Igor's interest on music declined, since most of his time is now devoted to his own fashion business.

Dana Wells, son of Gloria Cavalera, stepson of Max Cavalera, died on August 16, 1996, approx. 1:43 AM, at Phoenix, Arizona, in a car crash on Cactus Road. The reasons that lead Max to refer to his stepson's demise as murder are that the circunstances surrounding the "accident" are suspicious to the last. No precise confirmation on the occupants of the second car involved (it never crashed) are available, and the two persons that were on the car with Dana claim amnesia. Both. With the precise, exact last memory. Testimonies that don't match, no material proof, no witnesses, no responsabilites held by anyone at all. What really stirs Dana's friends and family (please take note that Max fits on BOTH groups, they were best friends) is that both facts and alleged facts don't match at all Dana's demeanor and personality. Both passengers refuse to take the lie detector, the other car's only confirmed occupant (local witnesses says there was two, but no confirmation on the passenger's identity was made, as the "probable second occupant" provided by the driver testified and proved all but being in the car at all) is using every legal procedure possible to avoid full prossecution and questioning. Heck, he even appealed to the Fifth Ammendment. Police has the investigation open, but not active. Solution to the mystery will only occur when the three people involved tell who was fourth and start talking, something none of them has any reason to do.

Now, about the comment on a possible member murdered by portuguese government... HELL, where did THAT came from??? Brazil is an independent nation since their early imperial time (early 19th century) having nowadays close relations to Portugal, due to it's cultural inheritance, but no more than that. Brazil's government has been autonomous ever since. Brazil HAD a military dictatorship (the last one) from 1964 to 1985, having it's repression power increased in 1968 and then demeaned in 1979. From 1985 to today, it returned to be a democracy. Political murders and disapperances occurred from 1964 to 1979. An attempt occured later, but never came to completion due to an unexpected early activation of a bomb (the car was pretty beat up, but still in one piece... the military officer carrying the bomb on his lap during the explosion is the image that serves as an icon to the event). Political murders occurred to persons of political militancy, and always people that wouldn't have their disapperance noticed by more than family, friends and co-workers. Artists that went too far from the intended ways were cast of, exiled. That practice was known as "Brasil: Ame-o ou Deixe-o" (Brazil: Love it or Leave It).

The reason why Sepultura always was more active on the US is based on the public's acceptance on music. Brazil, in terms of music, is quite anti-metal in a general practice. Sepultura isn't the only metal band on the country, but the only one, in that time, to actually have quality enough to sell on more receptive markets as the US and Europe. It wasn't a bad thing to think in brazilian metal as Sepultura. Of course, nowadays, things have changed. There are more bands around, and they have quality. Brazilian heavy metal scene is much more intense than it was 20 years ago, but is far from being extensive or even good enough. Punk-rock is what grows steadilly in Brazil, and most of the metal scene concentrates on nu-metal. Geographic concentration of metal scene gravitates towards the São Paulo metropolis (nowadays being know as the largest city [some say second largest] in the whole world, and I mean it, the place is huge).

Hope all this was enough to satisfy most know-why cravings of most around.

200.180.164.73 20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)<a.abdiel@terra.com.br>

---

So, Igor left the band? The main text of the page doesn't even mention it. What happened?

---

Just to make a little something clear, Igor has sold his fashion business (cavalera) some years ago. He owns a night club with derrick greene in sao paulo tho.

[edit] New Album

I edited the new album release date, its been pushed back to March 31st by SPV

TEM.

[edit] Discography

In line with other music pages, I'm planning on moving the discography to another page, if that's OK. Same format and content, just a page of its own linked by a "See also". I'll do it when I get a chance over the next few days. This saves repetition and possible edit errors on information spread over several pages - many bands have individual member pages containing the discography repeated. IainP (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done IainP (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of Formation

In the top section of the article, it says the band was "assembled in 1984". In the sidebox, it states "Years active 1982–present". In the Biography section it says it "was formed in Belo Horizonte in 1983". So... which is it? 1982, 1983 or 1984? 59.167.63.221 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

SEPULTURA ROCKS!

[edit] Can we get a picture of the band?

That would be swell. -Iopq 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deathrash

Sepultura is Deathrash, and thus I think it should be added to the genres. Maybe drop Thrash, and Death metal? Groove could stay though...

Sepultura was deathrash. Later they played regular thrash. Finally they went to a groove sound. --Pasajero 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Sepultura Albums

I know I'm just 1 person in a fairly large fanbase, but does anyone else think that Dante XXI was kinda... I dunno, weak-sounding compared to albums like Beneath The Remains and Chaos A.D.? The lyrics were kinda strange from Dante XXI - is that part of the "concept" too? Anyway, is anybody else here hoping that they return to their early thrash sound? They had the most fans, highest album reviews and highest album sales when they did that, or at least that's the hint I get. I'm a fan of Sepultura's 80's/early 90s material.

A new Sepultura album has been rumored to be in the works for 2008, the 1st without any Cavalera member... or is it? Has he left the band with the intention of permanent departure, or just temporary, like David Silveria of KoЯn? URFG 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)URFG

[edit] Too Many Genre Changes

Does anybody else agree that the genres are changed way too much? I think we should just list them as Death metal, Thrash metal, and Groove metal, and leave it as that.

That leaves out too much, such as the nu-metal/experimental tones on Roots, the hardcore punk of Against, and the metalcore of Dante XXI. We want Sepultura's entire catalogue to be displayed here. If you disagree with this classification, feel free to start a discussion either here or on my talk page. By the way, remember to always sign your comments. Dark Executioner 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Kudos to the user Slicing for helping me out with the genres. He found some credible sources. Now this genre debating should be over. I didn't set out to cause an argument, only to better the article's coverage. Dark Executioner 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Their main sounds have been Death Metal, Thrash Metal, and Groove Metal, in that exact order. Only one album had numetal leanings and that was Roots, and it was more Alternative than nu. Then they went back to Groove Metal and lasted as that until they released Dante, at which point they changed to a mix of Hardcore Punk and Groove Metal. They've never been black metal and that much is obvious, so that goes. Also, I'm removing metalcore, as no reliable source you mentioned for metalcore (purevolume? lolxd) is verifiable and is more along the lines of a blog. Not a credible source. -Motley ^{a b c qu} 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Have you ever listened to Roots? Andreas' guitar sounds exactly like Head and Munky from Korn. They even credit them as major inspirations in the linear notes! As for black-metal, yes they were, originally. Look at their lyrics/musical stylings. Also, Dante XXI sounds a lot like shadows Fall. That's metalcore to me. Dark Executioner 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I'd like to mention the sources for the genres Groove Metal, Nu-Metal and Metalcore are totally useless.

As posted in the article:

Groove Metal^[1]
Nu-Metal^[2]
Hardcore Punk^[3]
Metalcore^[4]

1. ^ http://metal-videos.blogspot.com/2006/07/sepultura.html
2. ^ http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/review.php?review_id=296
3. ^ http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3130
4. ^ Dante XXI

My concerns:

• Groove Metal: The source is a blog, any amateur could have written that, blogs are never reliable sources. See WP:SPS
• Nu-Metal: Nu metal is only mentioned in a user comment (AnarChrist - 17.07.2007 at 19:33). Some guy's opinion, therefore not reliable at all.
• Metalcore: that's no source at all, this is original research. If Dante XXI would clearly be metalcore than professional reviewers would certainly have noticed it and mentioned it in their reviews.
• Hardcore Punk: this is a nice source but the problem here is that they only mention that 1 song is hardcore punk. (""Dictatorsh*t" was straight-up hardcore punk, complete with noisy, hissy intro.") 1 song on 10 studio albums is not enough to make Sepultura a full-fledged hardcore punk band. Hardcore punk might be an apparent influence (as proved by Dictatorsh*t) though.

Here are some examples of professional review sites WP:ALBUM#Review_sites

I'll remove Nu-Metal, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore from the article page until reliable sources are presented (as WP:VER allows me to do so) Emmaneul ^(Talk) 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] early-Black Metal

Well it is not definately their early sounds at all, but i though that Bestial Devastation/Morbid Visions and some of demos falls under the classification of initialliest black metal, cause of, that there is blast beats, tremolo-technique riffing, bulletbelts, corpsepaints, satanical/antichristian lyrics and shrieking thrash screams. All significant black-elements/hints are there. Thoughts?

I totally agree. Added. Dark Executioner 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I disagree. Removed. They're more along the lines of Possessed type Death Metal. Satanic references doesn't make you black metal, or Slayer would have been. Corpsepaint doesn't make you black metal, or Kiss could be! All of those arguments are irrelevant, and the information provided is provably false. -Motley ^{a b c qu} 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see some good points in both arguments (Possessed type DM vs. anti-christian early-BM). But on wikipedia we don't care about these opinions, we care about sources. If reliable sources can be found stating early Sepultura is BM, then it can be in the article's infobox (preferably followed by (early) or the like). Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On AMG, any artist that is heavier than thrash is black/death metal. Sepultura to Bolt Thrower to Deicide, all the way to grindcore and pure death artists. Black is definitely not worth including. 12.165.254.36 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that about AMG, but there are other factors that (arguably) make them a first wave BM band. Listen to their early recordings and you'll find similarities with f.e. early Bathory recordings. But then again, around 1985 BM and DM were still in their infancy and not as different as they are now. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but that's a lousy argument. I've been a fan of their music since 1992, and I've never seen them mentioning Bathory on interviews or even wearing one of their t-shirts. You'll be hardpressed to find a direct link between Bathory and Sepultura.

Furthermore, if you think they sound alike, that's purely incidental. (For the record, early Sepultura's oeuvre is basically Slayer / Possessed / Kreator put together. No Scandinavia here.) Bathory and Sepultura shared similar formative influences (Motörhead, Venom), and because of that they're bound to have some similarities - but that's it. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Morbid Visions is listed within Terrorizer Magazine's Top 20 Black Metal Foundational albums, (issue #128 within their Black Metal Special, p.42). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Which, sadly, doesn't say much. I've recently acquired Terrorizers #108 & #109, the ones which come with the two-part Thrash Special. Their "Thrash Top 20" on #109 is hilarious! I mean, what is Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark doing at a "Top Thrash" list????? What a royal screw-up! There's other oddities: Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales and To Mega Therion (what?) and Venom's Black Metal are there too. Wait... wasn't the latter the record that gave birth to an entirely (different) metal subgenre?

Guys, let's take "Black Metal" off Sepultura's page, shall we? Because using Terrorizer as reference isn't a good call... Hell, they don't even know the genres that each band belongs to! Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I've done a slight clean up, with the biggest change being addition of numerous 'citation needed' flags as there appears to be a lot of POV or unsourced material, particularly concerning critical response and fan opinion. Some of this should probably just be deleted, but I'll wait to see if any sources turn up. Also, someone deleted the black metal section from the infobox, despite it being well-sourced. That should probably go back in (see above paragraph). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the info box thing was slightly more confused... Terrorizer #128 lists Morbid Visions under its top 20 foundational black metal records, which makes the genre listing extremely notable; however the reference was being used to justify the inclusion of death metal, so I changed that. However, Terrorizer helps out with this as well, as their top 40 greatest death metal albums of all time (#151) lists Arise at 16 and Beneath The Remains at 22, so I added that as a reference to justify that genre-listing. I think the naysayers are going to be struggling to regard the world's biggest-selling extreme metal magazine as anything less than authorative on the matter :-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We meet again...

• "Terrorizer #128 lists Morbid Visions under its top 20 foundational black metal records..."

...which is a complete load of crap, by the way. While some american metal mags such as Metal Maniacs were dissing (norwegian) black metal in the mid-1990s, treating its followers as retards, Terrorizer was doing the finest hype job ever over the aforementioned metal subgenre. Of course they would eventually commit an abomination, like naming a clearly DEATH METAL record such as Morbid Visions as being "black metal". But, hey - they have to please their readers, right? I also happen to have the official Sepultura biography [2] and it explicitely states that they were basically a death metal band until Schizofrenia.

I hope I won't see the day when they'll start saying that Kiss is a black metal band because they wear "corpsepaint"... Ha ha...

• "Terrorizer helps out with this as well, as their top 40 greatest death metal albums of all time (#151) lists Arise at 16 and Beneath The Remains at 22..."

...which is also bizarre. According to Sepultura's biography, their were eschewing their death metal roots since Schizofrenia. For the next two records they were a Thrash band with slight Death Metal touches. Sorry, I also - my opinion here - can't place Sepultura in the same league as Morbid Angel or Incantation.

Beyond that, I also have Malcolm Dome's Thrash Metal (1990) book, and Sepultura gets mentioned in the last chapter as an "up-and-coming Thrash band", destined to be one of the greatest of the genre. (In fact, they were).

So, to finish up: I think that Malcolm Dome's book and Sepultura's biography are more reputable than Terrorizer, in that genre confusion matter. Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that in the 80s the lines between black, thrash and death metal were not as rigid as some would have us believe today. The band have been referred to as 'black metal' by a reputable source, as well as thrash metal and death metal. There is no reason why all three descriptions cannot be listed provided they're sourced. There is no 'genre confusion'. To the best of my knowledge, Terrorizer remains one of the world's biggest-selling extreme metal publications (edit: actually I'm sure of the relative sales of Terrorizer and, say, Metal Maniacs but that is rather besides the point) and as such has high notability in this area. That you disagree with them is neither here nor there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in the 1980's the genre lines between different extreme metal subgenres were blurred. What I don't agree is ignoring that there are two sources (mine) openly contradicting a third (yours). And worse: one of the sources is the official biography of the band. Have you considered that maybe you're POV is getting in the way because your musical tastes tend to favor black metal? Think that one over, please.

I recommend you consult Wikipedia's policy regarding civility. I'll address your issue with my username below. Regarding genres, as far as a Wikipedia entry is concerned, it is perfectly reasonably to state that, for instance, their early work has been described as thrash, black, death or whatever, as long as it is sourced. I am not POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not the most "civil" of Wikipedians, either, ha ha... If Wikipedians are civil at all, of course!

Regarding the validity of sources, Wikipedia just doesn't care about truth. It is stated right there, in Wikipedia's verificabilty policy article: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verificability, not truth". So if John Doe at Terrorizer publishes an article calling Burzum "glam metal", that's it. It's a complete load of crap, but it can be used as a Wikipedia source! By the way, I have Terrorizer issues #108 & #109 (the "Thrash Special"), and they had a "Top Thrash" list which included Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark and Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales. What the Hell...? Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And what about not having that 'genre confusion' bit? Have you already forgotten the "Actually, it turns out the info box thing was slightly more confused..." line that you wrote? Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If you actually take the time to check what I was saying, the issue with that particular edit was simply that someone had altered the 'black metal' tag but had not changed the reference (which was to Terrorizer's black metal article). The reference did not support the claim. If you can't manage civility, at least try and maintain some degree of accuracy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are many other bands of the era which end up having silly genre disputes on Wikipedia talk pages or fan forums... Celtic Frost and Possessed leap to mind. Bottom-line is, if it's well sourced, it stays. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also incidentally, a guy that chooses the user name Blackmetalbaz would never push the "black metal" tag were it doesn't belong, would he? I think what we have here is a probable case of vested interest. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic case of what is known as the ad hominem attack. Actually, the 'black metal' prefix is a college thing, distinguishing me from another Baz who happened to be more of a thrash fan. As it happens, I'm a great lover of many forms of metal, including thrash, black and death. I fail to see how my username denotes vested interest any more than yours does. And yet I'm remaining more civil then you. Interesting, given that you have already insinuated that I am a troll. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a legitimate questioning of what might be your underlying motives. An ad hominem attack would be calling you a stubborn a**hole. Did I do that? No. And I used your name in argument as an example of your attitude in general, which is the insistence of calling early Sepultura music "Black Metal", which in some knowledgeable metal circles would be quite laughable. And yes, you can be civil - at times. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, "Terrorizer #128" isn't well sourced. What about the month this mag was released? And in what year? Who was the author of the "Top 20 Foundational Black Records"? What was the original title of this article? In what pages of this mag can it be found? For a guy who's always ranting about "proper" footnotes, you're presenting a very badly written reference... Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point I bow to your superior pedantry. This is where my Wikipedia skills are wanting... the reference is Terrorizer #128, February 2005. The article is entitled "The First Wave", and the specific section on Morbid Visions is written by Paul Schwarz, p. 42. As a decent Wikipedia editor and someone who is not interested in POV-pushing, I'm sure you'll be able to incorporate that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for tidying up the Schwarz reference. I have amended the Hinchcliffe one as well to match. You're right, it's much better this way. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, a magazine that calls Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark or Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales "Thrash Metal" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously! Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(not indenting as thread is getting long) I'll reply to everything you've said above in one place to avoid confusion. My position is probably quite similar to that of Terrorizer and numerous other commentators, that thrash, black and death metal in the mid 1980s were not particularly well defined, the boundaries being nowhere near as rigid as they would be viewed nowadays, if they existed at all. From this point of view I'd argue that Bestial Devastation and Morbid Visions could easily be viewed as both death metal and black metal. You clearly disagree. That's fair enough and there's no point getting into an edit war over it. Similarly I'd argue that things like Venom and Frost could also easily be viewed as thrash metal, without this precluding them from also being other styles at the same time. This is of course simply my POV, but it is one shared by the Terrorizer staff amongst others. You are correct that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth and I'm struggling to see how a magazine of Terrorizer's importance and readership could possibly be discounted as a reliable source; the fact that you or others happen to disagree with them is neither here nor there. If we get a consensus saying that something like Terrorizer should not be used as a source (and I think that's highly unlikely), fair enough, I'll stop using it as a reference. Until then I believe those references should remain. Like I say though, edit wars help no-one and we're both trying to improve the article here, right?

One final point though... you're not correct regarding what the ad hominem logical fallacy is. Calling someone a 'stubborn arsehole' is simply an insult. An ad hominem would be if I was editing, say, an article on Margaret Thatcher, and someone said that I was a communist and therefore anything I wrote on the subject was intrinsically wrong or biased. In this case, your suggestion was that as my username is Blackmetalbaz, my opinion on what is black or death metal is therefore biased and intrinsically wrong. This is clearly untrue; see ad hominem. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I should say as well, a reasonable compromise might be to remove it entirely from the info box and simply mention the Terrorizer listing in the body of the article without comment. That maintains NPOV and allows the reader to make up their own mind as to whether they want to pay attention to Terrorizer's opinion. As a commercially published print resource, specialising in extreme metal, with a wide readership, I'd personally regard that as a reliable source, and to exclude it altogether would come across as POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discography Section

If there's already a Sepultura discography, why repeat it on the main Sepultura page? Here's my suggestion: instead of repeating the discography, why not tell the band's history through its albums? The Nine Inch Nails page is a good example of that approach - plus, its a featured article in Wikipedia.

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though the page'll need some fairly major restructuring. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

Why are there so many "citation needed" markings on this page? At least 90% of that stuff is true, believe me, I've either read it online (AMG.com, Metal Observer.com, etc.), in a magazine (Revolver, Terrorizer, Metal Hammer), or it's listed on their official website. I think the number of "citation needed" needs to be reduced. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reduce them by providing sources then. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just found out an interesting unofficial Sepultura page with loads of transcribed Metal Hammer articles in it [3]. You guys should check it out. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll trawl through it at some point when I get a minute! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, question for you: have you got any decent reference for the correct spelling of Jairo's surname (the biography for instance)? At the moment there's a discrepancy between this page and his persoanl one... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the "Guedz" surname is an alias / stage name. In terms of Protuguese pronounciation, it is relatively close to "Guedes" - a proper brazillian surname -, while being similar (?) to an English or Germanic-sounding name. It's good to remind ourselves that these guys loved "foreign" bands (read: non-MPB music), and that they were trying to emulate their heroes by adopting English or english-sounding pseudonyms.

I'll check the Sepultura biography and then I'll get back to you on that "Guedz / Guedes" matter. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears that both "Guedes" and "Guedz" are feasable. According to the Sepultura biography, it is "Jairo Guedes". Interestingly, the brazillian music site PoppyCorn [4] has two articles which feature different spellings of Jairo's surname. There's a "10 years of Roots" feature [5] which spells his name as "Jairo Guedz", while an article on Eminece themselves [6] spells "Jairo Guedes". I also happen to have the second Eminence [7] CD, Humanology (2004), where Jairo is credited as a bass guitar player. "Jairo Guedz" is the spelling adopted on the record's liner notes.

Maybe something in the lines of "Jairo Guedes a.k.a. Jairo Guedz" would settle this matter? Musicaindustrial (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be the best option. We should pick one and stick to it though, and set up a disambig. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death Metal

When Sepultura were born, death metal didn't exist yet. There's a big incompatibility with sources. If the first bands were Possessed and Death, how can them be part of that genre? Sepultura were thrash until Arise and part of Chaos A.D., after they experimented styles such as groove, alternative, tribal.

If the first wave of black metal were Venom, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Celtic Frost, how can Sepultura be part of black metal in the early days? --Born Again 83 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The way Sepultura can be a part of black metal in the early days is that they PERFECTED it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Absurd... Just doesn't merit further comments. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts about Restructuring this Article

I was going to restructure this article's biography - I planned to tell the Sepultura history through the group's albums. My model was the Nine Inch Nails article.

I've recently revisited the NIN page and found out that they traded the album images for group and music video shots. That solution avoids the "fair use rationale" image problem and keeps the proposed biography structure intact. I could do the same with the Sepultura page; I have their official biography, which has loads of exclusive photos that I could scan.

My question is: how do I upload these images within Wikipedia's media copyright protocols? Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black metal / death metal

By WP:ALBUM#Review sites recommended Allmusic Guide (actually the most reliable source for reviews on the internet) says in the Morbid Visions/Bestioal Devastations review: "Sepultura's early work can be described as extremely raw, under-produced, and unspectacular death metal". Read the difference between black metal and death metal for example here: "Death metal flourished from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, and then was for most purposes replaced by black metal. Where death metal was structuralist with heavy emphasis on chromatic phrasing and hence rhythmic, black metal used narrative construction based on melody". Listen to some Mayhem (band) and some Morbid Angel and you will understand that Morbid Visions/Bestial Devastation has nothing to do with black metal.--  LYKANTROP  10:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)