Talk:Unblack metal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Contents |
[edit] Bands with no page
Wikipedia policy is i believe clear on that band with no pages (thus no asserted notability) should not be cited in a list. Hence i'll delete them.Laguna117 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Vaakevandring is part of the Christian Metal workgroup and will have a page soon.glocks out 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] living sacrifice
okay im not sure about the rest of you but from what ive heard these guys are the whitest of the black(just need the lyrics and boom they are black metal) so please comment on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cradle thy filth (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crimson Thorn
Crimson Thorn are death metal, and are not black metal, nor are they unblack. This should be deleted.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.26.160.10 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
However: SCREW UNBLACK METAL >:/ Black Metal is a genre born in thoughts of anti-christianity/religion, hatred, suicide etc. Me and hundreds more just can't see the connection between this and to extract Holy stuff into that. Get your own genre!
-
- Sorry man, it's around, deal with it. Some christians like the style of black metal but not the lyrics. You can't just pretend something doesn't exist. Scskowron 02:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted them. --Inflictor of Grimness (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Immortal Souls
I don't think Immortal Souls should be listed as unblack as they are melodic death metal.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.250.37 (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] As I Lay Dying
Would As I Lay Dying fit into this catagory? --Trusader 00:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course not. They are not a black metal band (despite implicit terminology smiliarities as well as musicians' attire (corsepaint etc.), black metal should not be be confused with the goth subculture & music). - Dark Prime
-
- AILD does not wear Corpse Paint. But you're right, they should be listed under metalcore, christian metal, and melodic death metal.glocks out 22:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- AILD is heavily Christian, alike Underoath, and most likely fall under some sort of Metalcore/Melodic Death category. -- 68.5.56.205
Are you fucking kidding me? As I Lay Crying is complete trash and nowhere even CLOSE to black metal. Get off this site. 72.39.159.155 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
AILD are definatly not Unblackm i'm listening to the right now and they're Metalcore. Jerry teps 08:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Horde
Some native speaker should correct the description of Horde. The only concert was given in 06, 12 years after the release of «Hellig Usvart». «Horde played only a single show before disbanding, the only actual member was the drummer Jayson Sherlocke, who wore a hood during the show. Despite Horde's quick disappearance,…» is therefor complete nonsense. --62.53.218.216 18:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For someone who is looking to wikipedia for information about unblack metal, someone is obviously expecting more than they really should be...never have I seen so many [citation needed] labels in a single article. It seems to me someone with something to against the genre has defaced it with these tags. Jlricherson 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yeah that is pretty obvious as you can see from the edit summary of "find about what metal really is" from the IP 196.25.255.214
[edit] Origins
The article stated that Horde was the first-known unblck metal band, but Antestor seems to have preceded them as they released their first demo in 1991 (Horde only released their first album in 1994). Thus, I modified the paragraph to take that into consideration. Also changing the origin of the genre from mid-90's USA to early-90's Scandinavia (as to not single out just one country such as Norway). --Voievod 00:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Out of curiosity
How the hell does this article have even nearly the same length as the black metal article? I mean the bm article is still longer, but still. There is way more info and material out there concerning black metal than unblack. So how the hell is this article even close to the same length as the bm one? It seems ridiculous. Either the bm article needs to expand and more info needs to be added, or there is just way too much info in this article. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Now I see why it's so long...it's full of name dropping of record companies and bands. Way too much. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The "name dropping" itself is not the reason why the article is this long. The unblack metal movement began around the same time as the second wave of black metal started, so it is natural that there is a good amount of history to write about. It would not even be difficult write a more in-depth history, pre-history of Christian thrash bands opposing the Venom and Sodom type attitude, aftermath of what an impact the bands had, or going for a more focused analysis on the lyrics or motives. I find it rather silly that one would get worked up because an encyclopedia article is longer than an other one. You make it sound like that the length of a Wikipedia article is the measure of how significant a subject is in comparison to some other subject. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your wrong on a few accounts. First off I'm not "worked up," but I was a little incredulous. Second, the black metal article is actually about 3 times longer, but still. Third, name dropping is the reason the article is so long. This article feels it's neccesary to talk about every single band involved in unblack metal (which is fine), but also attempts to mention every single album in the movement and (this is where I was most incredulous) even seems to mention every single record company used for almost every single one of those albums mentioned. It doesn't really matter anyways, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The "name dropping" itself is not the reason why the article is this long. The unblack metal movement began around the same time as the second wave of black metal started, so it is natural that there is a good amount of history to write about. It would not even be difficult write a more in-depth history, pre-history of Christian thrash bands opposing the Venom and Sodom type attitude, aftermath of what an impact the bands had, or going for a more focused analysis on the lyrics or motives. I find it rather silly that one would get worked up because an encyclopedia article is longer than an other one. You make it sound like that the length of a Wikipedia article is the measure of how significant a subject is in comparison to some other subject. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Right. Currently this article is in a phase where we're trying to bring in more info. So the structure is now a timeline of what bands released what albums on what labels. Obviously an album release timeline is pretty numbing to read and therefore not a good solution. The next phase would be to organize the info in some way without doing original research. I was thinking that this article could be divided to regional scenes and we could write summaries of who were the leading bands, what they achieved, how were they received and so on. It's pretty challenging to write band articles for some of these groups because not all of them are notable. But I agree that it doesn't make sense to mention every demo band and labels. Say, you left a comment in the controversies section saying that the section should be removed because of POV issues. I think the section itself is necessary but maybe the content needs revising. Maybe the first few lines needs to be toned down a little but I think the quotes of Simon Rosen and Satyr are alright untill we find better arguments. You wouldn't happen to know any noteworthy, third party opinions on the style?--Azure Shrieker (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
On unblack metal? No. I'm sure it's not too hard to find, though. This article is surprisingly good in a few ways, one of them being that it actually has a lot of references. Feel free to edit in any way you see fit. I will keep watch of the page, but right now I've been working on some articles that are in total disarray and it takes some of my attention. As for the Controversies section, i don't have a problem with it, however I do feel, looking at that entire first paragraph, it seems to be almost total POV and OR (I forgot to put the OR part). But I encourage you to do anything you want/can and, as I said, i will keep watch over the page and may do something at some point, but right now my attention is being required elsewhere on a few articles. Not to mention my life outside of wikipedia. I'm a college student so...it gets tough. I already sacrifice way too much time to wikipedia, heh. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Much better. Good job. Kudos. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Underoath
I don't care if it's the early stuff, stop adding them, damnit. They are not and never have been anything near to black metal (and yes that also means unblack metal smartasses) so stop fuckin' adding them to the list. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
u need to just leave. your probably not even christian, your causing problems, and your excessive use of cursing is not apreciated here.
