Talk:Black metal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive from June 2006 to April 2008.

Wikiproject improvments

Alrighty, while I intend to do some of these, I think it would do us good to get a list going of what We think needs to be done to get Black Metal into 1.0 standards (it is as of today a B-)

1. Lead - Seems mostly ok, a bit ambigious already got a better wording for the parts I find so.

The lead is filled with fluff. There's no reason to include a (false) spiel about how black metal is supposedly anti-idealist, especially given that black metal is rooted in Romanticism, which is arguably a form of idealism itself. Also, perhaps someone should cite a source for the idea that black metal bands consider racism "a form of philanthropy" (??). No one is ever going to agree about what black metal is and is not, so perhaps it's just best to avoid any generalist statement about ideology whatsoever.Egendomligt 06:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Genrebox - Pages need to be made for US Black Metal and Eastern Europe Black Metal, other than that seems ok. We might want to add something about Scandavian Black Metal as a regional scene? Or rather might move Viking to Regional, and retitle it Scandavian, though this leaves the beginings of NSBM out and implies that their bands were part of the same scene.

I added for the first time USBM into the Black Metal page entry, and had several people removing it and the bands I added, simply because of their opinion. Finaly the basic entry has stayed, yet people are now fighting over what bands are included. The USBM is a legitamate musical scene, that is more similar to the early Norwegian scene where each band had its own look and sound, unlike the later frozen ideals which go against everything Black metal Stands for. If someone actualy things BM is about Corpse paint or Lo Fi recording, they have missed the point and are part of the problem not part of the solution. BM is about Free will, and not following the herd and express this with a very specific ideology. Thus the USA scene as it emerges over the next 5 -10 years, is going to greatly contribute to the evolution of the Genre. Im willing to write articles ont the USBM, but wont waste my time, until I know the info will be respected and not removed every 5 minutes by a European simply because they dont like the US. User: FromByond Dec 2007

3. Characteristics - My main problem with Characteristics is the listing of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. Bands such as Slayer, Venom, Deicide, and Immolation overlap lyrically with black metal somewhat but are musically defined as death metal (Deicide, Immolation) or thrash metal (Slayer, Venom), however, Venom coined the term "Black Metal" and laid the foundations for later Black Metal alongsides Bathory and Celtic Frost." As there are Christian black metal bands by actual music styles Christian Black

I think it's good the way it is, as it says "Black metal can display" (emph. mine) before the listing itself. That, and "Unblack" has no real importance/influence in Black Metal. It could perhaps be changed to say that there's also something as Christian Black Metal, and then a link to that page... 81.240.173.147 21:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you think it is saying can in any form, the direct quote from the page is is that of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. And its not just christian black metal that exsists, Wolves in the Throne Room have no lyrical base in pessesism, but are black metal. There mere fact that you can have these lyrics without it being black metal, makes me question the revelance of this, as you can say the same thing about other forms of extreme metal.Atechi 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As "black metal" refers to the occult in the first place, the lyrical content is as important as the musical content in defining something as "black metal." Thus, there is no such thing as "Christian black metal," as while they may musically style themselves as such, their lyrics are far and away from the occult and from any sort of "black"ness. --Skullfission 08:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

4. History - What is in our history section after the third paragraph goes on a tangent about Norweigan NSBM (one that is repeated on about four pages), Additioanlly, the entire section seems to lack sources (or they are at least not cited), and to me needs to be rewritten.

I corrected some grammar here, but you're right, this needs major re-writing, especially since at the end it goes off on a tangent about the future of the genre! Maybe this should be moved; it needs some serious thought. Many fans have very strong feelings about what can be/can't be considered BM, and talking about bands that bring in elements of industrial etc. could cause some controversy. 41214 21:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Artists - Seems good to me.

There are many more important bands that should be mentioned, such as: ildjarn, havohej, mütiilation, vlad tepes, vatain, nargaroth, behexen, 1349, etc.

I've been involved with the black metal scene for well over a decade, and I have heard of exactly ONE of those bands (1349). --Skjald 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're Norwegian, right? If not, you obviously haven't been reading your zines lately. But no, none of the above mentioned bands need a mention as they haven't had any big influence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.165.128.200 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Be weary, naming too many bands can lead to edit wars. People will delete or add band names just because they feel like it. I saw this happen on several pages. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of that. However, some bands, f.e. Moonblood, are by far more essental than, some of the mentioned bands, like Blut Aus Nord, Arkhon Infaustus, Anorexia Nervosa, Antaeus or Ofermod.

In what sense are Moonblood "essential"? And specifically, can you source that? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I worry that some of these bands shouldn't be mentioned at all; if a band bring in industrial elements, can they still be considered BM? There is a big rift in the BM bands that are emerging now- some are rigidly sticking to classic styles and some are being much more experimental. Fans have strong opinions on this. 41214 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Samples - We need to get some.

7. Misc - Can we take the NSBM section out? as a subgenre with its own page?--Atechi 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, there's no section in Country Music about racist Country Music--it's a useless distinction regarding an infinitesimal minority of Black Metal Bands, and including it here both overstates its importance and needlessly smears the greater community, who have no interest in this silliness. IronyValue (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree there should be some samples IMO. Darksteel 09:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I think we can delete the history and subforms, rename First/Second wave Black Metal to History, and it would clean it up really well, imo. --Atechi 16:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pagan metal

While we are discussing the possible deletion of some minor subgenres, there is one that seems to me to be sadly ignored, pagan metal. There are a number of relatively well known bands such as Primordial and Moonsorrow that fit into this category, but no section! Pagan metal presently redirects to Black Metal. There are about 20 articles that link to pagan metal ([1]), so it must to have some significance, and should deserve a section at the least.

Back in December there was an AfD for pagan metal, the result of which was no concensus (3 keep, 2 delete, [2]). Strangely enough, I cannot find the article or section that was up for deletion. Would someone like to create this section? Or at least tell me why it shouldn't be (re?)created, if that's the case. IronChris | (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[3] - dunno if it fits well in this article. It also has close ties to viking metal and folk metal. Spearhead 08:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of useless genres here. Pagan Metal is not a genre, is a stylistic description. Oriental Metal is similarly dumb, and doesn't exist. No one outside of Wikipedia references 'Oriental Metal'. Also, Neoclassical Metal or Symphonic Metal are, like Pagan Metal, stylistic descriptions, not actual genres. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.122.166.35 (talk • contribs) .

Yo, I got redirected here when I clicked on a link for 'troll metal'. I can't see why Troll Metal is more similar to Black Metal than it is Folk Metal or even Heavy Metal - Finntroll, Korpiklaani, TrollfesT - they don't sound very black metal to me.

i've heard people referencing oriental metal. Like Loudness.Miles 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Important Note:Oriental metal, neoclassical metal and symphonic metal are all real genres not just stylistic descriptions. However pagan metal usually refers to metal bands who have a similar style to viking metal or folk metal (sometimes black metal) but cannot call themselves viking metal because they are not from scandinavia. So it's not really a real genre. Oriental metal is on the border as well, actually. Symphonic and neoclassical are definite well established genres, though. Hackser (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i havent heard of oreintal metal, but neoclassical i hear mentioned quite often--Frenrir1 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I redirected Pagan Metal to point to Folk Metal, as it isn't strictly a type of Black Metal. --Atechi 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The only one related to it would be Blackened Pagan.

BTW, The Origins of Black Metal Publication > Articles > The Origins of Black Metal is a "dead" link.

Someone should explain why they all wear black and white face paint...

Corpse painting/clothing

There should be a short section on face painting (from kiss to mayhem and then it many bands gave it up etc.) and on clothing (black clothes, bullets, pikes etc.)

That's fine as long as it's encyclopedic and verifiable. Whatever was put up yesterday on this subject was not. Scskowron 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging the intro with History

It is misleading to have the section labeled History start off with the Norweigian DRA.MA. I would suggest to either start off the history section with Venom, Bathory, ect or to rename the History to Early Norweigan Scene or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.181.90 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that a lot of emphasis is made on the Norwegian history, and that's not all there is to it. This seems like a decent proposal to me, there's a lot about history in the intro. IronChris | (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree and will try and rewrite the article in the next few weeks, there is also alot of repetition most notably "Venom (the original line up being Cronos, Mantas & Abbadon)." which occurs twice. Also the start of the "History" section and the "First Wave" scetion both add exactly the same info about Venom. I also think it would be better to leave out the large section about the Euronymous/Varg episode as I'm pretty sure there will be info about it on either the Mayhem, Burzum, Euronymous or Varg (or all four) pages already.

Another thing of note is that there was no recording studio in Euronymous' basement, I think the writer is reffering to the 'Griegenhallen' (Greig Memorial Hall)? which is a general purpose studio, not limited to BM. Another thing would be the 'Inner Circle' reference as Varg and many others have stated that there was no large organization as many of them didn't stay in the same city (Euro - Oslo, Varg - Bergen, Emperor - Notodden), it could be noted however that the term is used. I also think the NSBM section could be shortened to one sentence as there is already an article about it and the 'War metal' section could be added as a separate page or a page could be made for Blasphemy as "It is generally accepted[weasel words] that Blasphemy were the first "War Metal" band".

I'd like to know what others think of these ideas first?--XdiabolicalX 19:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Downplaying the importance of the early Norwegian scene seems foolish, as this was the scene that basically defined the second wave of black metal and its varieties. The history of early black metal is a primarily Norwegian one, unless anyone wants to point out similarly influential groups from other countries around the same time.--Egendomligt 08:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where else to post this. I remember a friend telling me of a metal artist, who if I recall correctly was Burzum, which would seem right, as I remember him telling me of him being in prison (Though he said he synthesizes music from inside the prison now, and let me hear a clip of it. Much less agressive now, as would be obvious.) I just remembered a quote that I thought would be interesting to add. My friend says that somebody tried to kill Burzum, and defending himself, he killed the person. My friend said that in an interview, he said, completely casually and nonchalantly, something along the lines of, "He tried to kill me, and he failed miserably, so I killed him." Does anybody have any information on this, or know if there was a quote like this at all? From reading the history, I could see where some of it may have been misinterpreted or something somewhere, by my friend, but I'd like to know for sure and have it clarified. 4.234.30.224 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No one knows the truth for sure except Mr Vikernes and we can't take his word for it. Diabolical 16:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. He's consistently (well, consistently for Varg) claimed that the murder was in self-defence, however it's subject to endless dispute whether that meant Aarseth actually made an attempt on his life or that Varg simply felt threatened by him and decided to kill him first. The details are vague and most reports & interviews on the subject contradict one another in a number of ways.Thee darcy 16:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting excessively long (133 kilobytes, the recommended maximum being 32). Would someone like to archive some of the old discussions? It's getting kind of a pain to read and edit, not to mention that some particularly old browsers (if they still exist) might have difficulties showing or editing such long pages. IronChris | (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I archived it. It was getting much too long. IronChris | (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

War Metal

What the hell is War Metal? And why is it included on the Black Metal page? If it would be included any black metal subgenre it would be NSBM or Viking Metal. War metal it's just a stupid tag that some stupid fuck invented in order to earn some status. It's just stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viriatus (talk • contribs) .

Woah I can't believe "war metal" is still there... There were lots of discussions about it (see archive 1), but nothing was ever done. IronChris | (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to delete "war metal" or make a minor movement group as suggested in the archives? I personally lean towards deletion of War Metal, it strikes me a poseur subgenre. Google gives Black War Metal 303, just plain War Metal is 128.000 but most do not seem relevant to the music scene. Atechi 16:25, June 23 2006

At the very least, it would seem from it would be better to place this with Thrash or Death metal, most of the bands listed as influance are death/thrash and in the section description it is listed as a Death/Thrash fusion. Atechi

Deleted War Metal due to lack of objectives.

Some weird stuff

"Black metal is a sub-genre of extreme metal" Extreme metal? I never heard of this as being a real genre. BM is a kind of extreme metal but I don't think extreme metal by itself is a genre. And the Extreme metal page is a low quality page. Refering to extreme metal is not a good idea imo.

I think some reference to "extreme metal" is useful, however since that's a term created after the fact to describe black metal, death metal, grindcore, swedish chef metal etc etc etc (and not a real genre at all, just an umbrella term) I think at best one could say it's considered a form of extreme metal. Definitely not a subgenre thereof though.Thee darcy 16:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"It garnered criticism from mainstream media because black metal supposedly embraces anti-Christianity, misanthropy, nihilism and sometimes racism and nationalism though not all musicians considered black metal necessarily support these ideologies, especially not the latter two (they are almost exclusive to the sub-genre of National Socialist black metal), perhaps because standard black metal ideology is influenced by anti-idealist philosophers who often regarded racism as a form of idealism or philanthropy." This is a very long sentence. I think this could be more readable.

"A distinct "rasped" vocal style..." & "Screeching vocals" I think one could be deleted

"Standard tuned guitars (In contrast to death metal which is typically dropped D and down-tuned.)" In Death it's not common to play in dropped D. Downtuning is common, 'dropped D' isn't. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The second wave

Regarding Litany's edit: I agree that the article should cover the origins of the second wave wore widely, but except for Bathory (which is already covered in the article), the Swedish black metal scene was very small in the late-80's / early-90's and the bigger Swedish bands only started after black metal was already "popular". Claiming bands such as Lord Belial, Dark Funeral and Mörk Gryning as a major influence or originator is just a factual inaccuracy and blatant fanboyism, as these formed in 1993/1994. If you want to make the section to cover some important non-Norwegian bands too, please do so, but don't only add your favourite bands from your own country and make it look like Sweden was a key scene together with Norway. Most sources agree the second wave originated from Norway. Prolog 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha fanboyism? First of all they are not my favorite bands and second of all most bands. Both Marduk and Abruptum (and also Dissection if you want) came before bands like Dimmu Borgir, Emperor and Gorgoroth. Dark Funeral, Lord Belial and Mörk Gryning came during the same time between 1992-1993. I'm not trying to put down the fact that Norway was a big influence during theese years, but they are not the single one (just like with Melodic Death Metal from Sweden). Sweden was also a prominent inspiration in the second wave of black metal. Regarding Bathory, that band was one of the big influences during the first wave. I think we could cover more band's that wore important during theese years than just Norwegian and Swedish, like Samael for Switzerland and maybe even Sarcófago from Brazil.

The line between the genres of black-, death-, thrash/speed-metal were (and still is as fare as I consider) rather blurry during this time (late 80's/early 90's). Best regards - Litany 19:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section is too Norway-centric and should cover influential bands from other countries, like the ones you mentioned along with Master's Hammer, Blasphemy, Beherit etc. This shouldn't be hard to do as the section is still pretty short. I still think the article should keep the usual consensus of Norway as the most notable scene, as otherwise it might fall under original research and go against the few semi-reliable sources that there are about this subject. Prolog 21:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Dark Funeral and Abruptum as influences from Swedish scene as Abruptum isn't black metal at all and Dark Funeral wasn't found until 1993. Dissection hasn't really ever stated themselves as black metal but "metal of death", but I suppose it can stay there. I also added Finnish scene as influence, namely Beherit and Impaled Nazarene. Ofcourse there could be a long list of the smaller bands which have later become famous and somewhat influental from these two countries (Sweden: The Black, Azhubham Haani etc., Finland: Archgoat, Unholy etc.), but it's getting rather trivial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.136 (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I wanted to emphasize the significnce of Dead's suicide to second wave of black metal as after the attention black metal got through it, death metal bands started to be more interested in BM. These bands include Thou Shalt Suffer (pre-Emperor), Black Death (pre-Darkthrone), Amputation (pre-Immortal) and partly Old Funeral (Varg Vikernes used to play in the band before Burzum). Ofcourse some of the bands changed their name already before the suicide, but their style suddenly turned into more BM after it.

Also I wanted to ask if anybody here considers the Black War (the so-called "BM war" between Norway & Finland in the c. 92-93) worth of a mention? I could write about the incident. After all it had a effect on Finnish black metal scene (espescially Impaled Nazarene & Beherit).

I'd like to know why the Norwegians hated Beherit so much to spawn a band called Fuck Beherit. I've never saw anything about them othe rthan the Metal-Archives page. XdiabolicalX 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added the Dark War into the history section. You can check pretty much the same shit from Finnish 'zine Isten #8 (I can also send scans). And although the "conflict" can sound hilariously funny now, it was far more serious back then when people were being killed.

There also could be some mention about the murder commited by Bard in the history section and in general the article should handle also Finnish and Greek scenes as they were the two big scenes with Norwegian one.

Beside the Finnish and Greek scenes, the German and Dutch ones should be considered to some extent, especially with bands like Funeral Winds, Bestial Summoning, Lacerated Gods, Martyrium (ie pre- Secrets of the Moon), ABSURD to be considered as all having some influence or mark on the scene. Bestial Summoning, while despised by the Swedish and Norwegian scenes still made a valuable contribution that was imitated to some extent by some in the scene at the time, and their name is still quoted a lot today by many chaotic BM bands and projects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.168.129 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for all the blood

Just a quick note; something I noticed, but didn't Dead's suicide note read "Sorry for all the blood" and not "Excuse all the blood"? Or is this just due to different translation (as I'm not sure if it was written in English or not).

It was written in Swedish or Norwegian, not that it matters because there was more on it than just those words as the media would have you believe. XdiabolicalX 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the exact text matters, the gist of it is that he apologized for all the blood. Spartacusprime 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe he also apologized for firing the shotgun in the house, said goodbyes, etc, but I'm certain that he said, somewhere in the note, "please excuse all the blood". 68.107.196.211 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Wave?

I'm not sure there really is a third wave, but there are definately modern BM bands which are not second wave. Compare bands like Negura Bunget, Nokturnal Mortem or Arcturus with Transylvanian Hunger... Huge difference. I think something needs to be said about modern/"third wave" BM bands.

I agree, there's been lots of talk about French band recently, I'd like to see some more development on the paragraph about these "third wave" bands and the similiarities and differences. 41214 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not hugely familiar with modern black metal, but to me it seems like releases from bands starting in the late 90's and early 2000's differ greatly from early to mid 90's black metal. Bands such as Wykked Wytch (sp?) and others are being lumped into the black metal category, and recent releases from groups such as Enslaved, Satyricon and Dimmu Borgir suggest a much different sound than what they were 10 years ago. I personally feel, from my own observation, that black metal groups that are embracing more commercial or accessible sounds, or prog-oriented sounds (such as in Enslaved) or avant garde/ambient sounds (such as Blut Aus Nord) should be considered part of a third wave.

This is post-black, rather than a new wave.

there are some who belive that any band past 1995 is the third wave. but since many bands choose to sound raw like second wave black metal its har to say... maybe bands like dimmu borgir could be considerd third wave. but genre conflictions could prove otherwise...(malacath)

Performance

Unless anyone objects, I am going to add a brief section about performance, saying how most black metal bands do not play live. It's rather critical to black metal, which I don't think you'd get from reading the article. -- scskowron 09:41 15 December 2006(UTC)

I think you could include this in the Aesthetics section. Although you could rewrite the part about drum machines and ambient samples as not fit for live show as it has been done by for example Mysticum. Also you could add something about the stage show (many bands using flesh and blood to throw to the audience). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.165.128.200 (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Most bands that don't play live only do so because there is only one member writing the music so it usually ends up unfit for live performance. Most bands do play live. XdiabolicalX 21:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the ridiculous claim that a "SIZABLE portion of black metal bands employ drum machines," changing it to the neutral "some." Skjald 10:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Most black metal bands don't play live? Nonsense. Impaled Nazarene, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Immortal, Marduk, Dark Funeral, Satyricon, 1349, Enslaved, Destroyer 666, Gorgoroth, Goatwhore, Dodheimsgard, Dissection, Borknagar, Carpathian Forest, Mutiilation, Mayhem, and Hell-Born all are or were live acts, and most of these bands actively tour or did at some point. Also, that thing about bands throwing flesh and blood at concert-goers isn't very common as far as I know. I know Mayhem did it and, though not black metal, Deicide used to do it.12.72.247.29 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but one must concede that the live experience is not central to black metal. Black metal is an recording-oriented genre, not a performance-oriented or media-oriented one. Scskowron 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First Wave

I added a note about Death SS to the first wave section. There is also some inconsistency between the opening paragraph and the first wave section. The opening paragraph states that Venom only had an influence because they influenced Celtic Frost. The First Wave section makes it seem like Venom had a huge influence and doesn't even mention hellhammer/celtic frost (I just added one line that needs to be expanded). Olliegrind 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up this whole section (First Wave), but it could use a total rewrite by someone intricately familiar with the history of black metal. I just cleaned up the language a bit. Skjald 13:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonality

I've analysed some black metal recently and I think there should be a section on the tonality and harmony used in black metal, i.e. uses the Diminished scale, often rather than using diminished and minor chords it uses ambiguous parallel minor thirds to create a very dark and grim atmosphere. A progression typical of the styl would go something like this:

I-II-I-IV-III

Although this sort of things is a common feature, it is not a universal one.

If you want to add it, go ahead, just make sure you provide specifics and can back it up with a song. Maybe "Funeral Fog" would be a good one? Scskowron 06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's needed references about Mercyful Fate on the article, even if some radicals don't see the band as a influence for the entire style, but think about the tributes to Mercryful Fate/King Diamond and the presence of bands like Emperor, Dark Funeral and others.

Black Ambient

I found an article on Black ambient and I thought I'd mention it in case you guys wanted to add it to the list or something. I wrote an article for Payasage d'Hiver and I might do one for Darkspace as well. I am not an expert on the Ambient side of Black Metal but if anybody wants to help me then by all means. Lord of nothing 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Several Edits/Merged Info

I hope nobody here thinks I'm a jackass for doing this, but I put the page through dozens of edits (many of which could have been done at one time had I thought of them). HOWEVER, it should be realized that, despite the long list of edits on the history page, no information was lost or vandalized in any way.

I simplified the "History" section (renamed it) and split up all the information for an easier read. All the info from before is still there (and more, actually, like the Faust incident), but I made it an overall easier read for anyone who wants to learn about black metal's history for the first time. Before, it was mashed together and who was who became impossible to tell for anyone who doesn't know their stuff already.

I also removed redundant information. A lot of stuff, like definitions on what corpse paint was, was repeated upwards three times. I defined it once, using much of what was already here, and put it where it belonged. Some stuff in the opening section was merged as well (why repeat things and draw them out?). I also fixed some grammar issues, such as "LaVey-satanism", which is actually written as "LeVayen Satanism" (I'm sure the originaly scribe meant well).

A picture of the stave church was also added for visual effect, as well as a picture depicting Dead and Euronymous to help demonstrate corpse paint. A link to an interview with Mayhem shortly after Dead's suicide has been added as well in one of the paragraphs under "Historical Events in Black Metal". It was also somehow lost that the usage of Dead's pictures on "Dawn of the Black Hearts" was never done by the band itself, at least not officially, and the photographs were in fact stolen to make this cover. Aarseth also didn't actually eat the brains, and the scan of the interview linked there shows this. It should also be noted that, even though one of my source links leads to a Yahoo! Music page, all biographical info on that page is actually from the All Music Guide (AMG, which probably hightens the credibility in some people's eyes).

I'm a huge music and metal fan in general (not just black metal), and I feel black metal is still not getting its story told cohesively or with credit. That's why I all did all this and hopefully, upon inspection, you will all agree the page is much better now. Thanks. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205

The work is good. At first I was about to flip out when I saw all those edits but they were all well-done and verifiable. They make a good addition to the page. Scskowron 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the compliments. Your initial skepticism is understandable. I imagine this page gets defiled a lot by uneducated youths. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205

Issues with this article

Aside that it is largely unsourced, I ran across the following issues with this article:

• Characteristics is a huge list that needs to be reworked into proper prose
• Characteristics is full of vague and sometimes confusing or contradictory terms ("Relatively thin or thick guitar tone", "an uneasy atmosphere", ""evil" sound", "Fast, repetitive, aggressive drums" and then "the drums can take a slower role"
• Characteristics has lots of musicological terms which in itself isn't a bad thing but makes it hard to read
• how can "Some black metal songs" be a characteristic? I expect here something that would generally describe black metal not list all kinds of possibilities. Similar "Certain bands... "
• "...This wave included the British band Venom..." contradicts with "Venom cannot be credited as a true black metal band" a few paragraphs down
• It seems to me that "The First Wave" basically equals blackened thrash metal
• Modern Black Metal does reflect a third wave?
• "One of the most striking features in black metal is the use of facial corpsepaint" is confusing and vague: So it really isn't about music afterall but all about looks?

Spearhead 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, as far as your last comment... yes! Well, okay, I'm kidding, it's not entirely about looks, but yes, looks must be emphasized, as in black metal image perhaps exceeds music (let's be honest here) than any other subgenre.

No, there is not enough evidence to claim there is a "third wave" per say, despite the fact that the genre still remains somewhat alive today. Saying there is a "Third wave" is pretty a profound statement and we have yet to see that happen.

Yes, the "First Wave" is basically "blackened thrash metal", as black metal builds off thrash itself! But the term "blackened thrash metal" was coined AFTER black metal, and became useful only after the "second wave" took the genre in a different direction, what with punk-like drums and even symphonic elements, so the term "blackened thrash" then became somewhat of a necessity.

I agree with the Venom statement, the individual who wrote that must be comparing them to Norwegian styles, so it does seem confusing. But they did in fact coin the term "black metal", and introduced the heavy emphasis on anti-Right Hand Path sentiment in music.

And lastly, I myself am "casually interested", and am in no way trying to make things complicated. In fact, I've been the one grouping and simplifying things on this page for the sake of the uneducated for weeks now! -- 68.4.207.20

Your work is much appreciated. Most metal articles are very messy, like including black metal, death metal and doom metal, as well as unsourced. I did some cleaning up and tagged issues that would require sourcing. And for my last statement I was half-joking. BTW consider registering an account - it makes communication a bit easier. Spearhead 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem against tagging facts? This article does need references. Tagging where it does need so is helpful. Instead of removing them, consider providing actual citations for these statements. Those aren't of "the is blue" type. Spearhead 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the initial issues:

• Please look up the word 'striking'. Corpsepaint being striking does not mean that it is important, it means that it is highly noticeable.
• I think it is counterproductive to turn characteristics into a section of prose. I like it better in list form, and it is easier to read that way.
• Some of the descriptions are vague, I agree.
• The use of the phrases 'some songs' and 'some bands' is important to distinguish that a certain characteristic is not all-encompassing.
• The Venom thing is real annoying and needs to be fixed.
• Yes, the First wave is essentially blackened thrash metal.

Scskowron 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact put the First and Second wave portions through major revisions, now that you brought that aspect to my intention (so thanks). And by striking, I mean noticeable. Corpsepaint does in fact strike you as a black metal thing, nobody else does it. So that's what I meant. As far as the tags thing, it just seems to me that it brings a level of discredit to the page to have that many "citation needed" things all over the page, and the thing is this is all true, not debateable. It just looks bad, and doesn't seem necessary for some of the stuff you tagged since a lot of it is so blatantly verifiable for anyone who just listens to a mere sample on Amazon, let alone a whole record. Citation claims should be reserved for controversial statements, or least so it seems. I know you mean well though.

Tormentor

Where should i place the band Tormentor? i've already added them to the first wave section (now deleted), as they played BM in the late 80s (and later, even without knowing about the Norwegian scene). Several bands (from early second wave) stated them as influence.

One also deleted the entry (with a linked source [4]) that Mayhem chose Attila for 'De Mysteriis..' _becouse_ Tormentor was one of Dead's favourite bands. I think this kind of fact has much more to do with black metal (the music) then bone fragments.

--- Dukey42 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertising, removed

Hi all, I noticed a couple of redirects to www.metalreview.com in the main text. I have removed this, as this is blatant advertising. Instead, since it seems to be a genuine metal site, I have moved it to external links.

FSHero 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro and ideology sections

Totally unecessary copy/paste from my talk page removed. I explain why below (*). Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

would like some third opinions on the current version of the article made by me, and also some criticism from LD. what needs to stay in the idealogy section (give me quotes followed by the reason) that i have removed, and why? 86.149.59.252

A couple of things I'd like to mention to you, 86.149.59.252 who started the edit war. You seem to think that the ideology of black metal is its most defining feature. This is highly debatable, and I do not think that most fans/scholars of black metal would agree with you. It is true that the majority of black metal embraces a sort of anti-religious and hateful ideology. Yet this does not belong in the introductory sentence. The purpose of the encyclopedia page on black metal is to explain to people who are not familiar with the subject what black metal is. Therefore, when people read it, they should know immediately what it sounds like: it has highly-distorted guitars, shrieking vocals, etc. That is what separates black metal from every other genre of music. No other genre of music can be classified in the way that it is described in the second sentence. Afterward, the ideology of black metal can be noted, and it is, in the third introductory paragraph. Other genres of music have "uncompromising" ideologies, like punk rock and indie, so it is the description of the actual music that is most significant to the non-listener.

To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description. Some of my favorite bands, like Shining and Abyssic Hate and Burzum don't even use vocals in many of their songs, so it would be difficult to recognize an ideology simply by listening to a record.

Regarding the ideology section, you cut out some details that made the paragraph flow nicely. You may have kept the crux of the ideology, but the way it reads is very wordy and seems to be a bunch of "ism's" all stringed together. The ideology section is the most controversial section of the black metal page.

Moreover, though idealogy is an acceptable spelling, ideology is much more common and is used elsewhere in the article, so please be consistent and use the latter spelling.

I did not appreciate all the edit war you created, 86.149.59.252. If you are so serious about improving this page, please register a username and discuss all controversial topics in the Talk page first. You are welcome to help us make this entry great, but insisting upon undiscussed controversial edits is not welcomed.

Right now the word "shrieking" needs to be fixed in the second sentence. Request permission to change.

Scskowron 00:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"they should know immediately what it sounds like: it has highly-distorted guitars, shrieking vocals, etc" - but what defines black metal apart from other forms of music that ALSO use distortion and screaming? punk rock and indie may well have ideologies, but black metals different values are easily identifiable and unique. you all seem intent on giving black metal a disservice by simply labelling it as angry music. if you cared about the genre, you wouldnt. and LOL at thinking burzum has no ideology, if you are the kind of person that thinks that then you don't know enough to edit this article (the problem with 80% of wikipedia)

"To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description" - why? wouldn't they want to know?

also nice to see the page locked. go listen to cradle of filth you complete tits, you're all untermensch 86.154.174.199

I know what your problem is...you can't read. I never said Burzum had no ideology, ever, anywhere. I said it is difficult to recognize Burzum's ideology simply by listening to one of his albums. That's not even close.

And you want to know why the fact that black metal's ideology is useless for a description? It's because it doesn't describe how the music sounds. Ideology is not music. I didn't say they didn't want to know. It's in the article already.

Try reading what people write; maybe you'll be able to write better.

Scskowron 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(*) First of all, to the anonymous IP: it was totally unnecessary to copy/paste our conversation from my talk page to this discussion page. You could have raised the issues in another manner. Granted you did this out of bitterness to smear me, however, the result disfavored you, as the conversation shows that I tried to inform and reason with you; someone who instead replied with antagonizing statements and invalid points with no other intention but to argue. Please find an external forum on another site where such behavior is commonly regarded. (the archive of this conversation is in available this page's history)

That aside, to everyone else: The edit history speaks for itself; the record shows this anonymous user demonstrates ignorance beyond negotiation. Unable to read and comprehend the responses users have given him (explaining why his silliness merits reversion), he jumps ahead without thinking, responding sporadically, causing an edit war while continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered; not to learn, but to antagonize. Despite being warned not to personally offend (after calling me a “pedophile” in one edit summary), he goes on to call Scskowron and others “tits” and “untermensch” above. Finally, completely aware of his wrongfulness (but still unaware of Wikipedia policies, proper grammar, anti-defamation, or simply how to write an informative article clearly and concisely), he admits in one edit summary to changing his IP consistently in order to return for no other purpose but to raise conflict with users and impose illogical bias, which recently forced an admin lock on the article. ‘’IPs used so far: 86.154.174.199, 86.149.59.252, and 86.145.249.81).’’

Without drawing theories about why he behaves like this, I will simply conclude he is beyond reasoning with at this point. Therefore, all users should avoid giving him the confrontation he enjoys and simply report to an administrator upon further disruption. Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pendulum strumming?

What the hell is pendulum strumming? No other article mentions it. And the part about characteristics is in more than one way hard to digest for people without Ph.d.'s in music science..! Please! TheEsb 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

the brutality

Is black metal brutal at all? Since many death metal fans disses black metal and thinking ball pinced bitches screaming, can i have an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you need an explanation of? Whether or not it's "brutal" is not something an encyclopedia needs to discuss, and maybe you should actually listen to the music to find out for yourself. Scskowron 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamat/Treblinka

I wonder why in hell Tiamat and their precedessor Treblinka is not a mentioned? Because Sumerian Cry is certainly not death! And their scene mates Grotesque??? Altought they are best known as a leaders of the Sweden's black metal scene along with godfathers Bathory in the end of 1980.

Black ambient

I have put a paragraph concerning "black ambient" in the "modern black metal" section. If I have not put it in the right place, feel free to move it. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good Zouavman. Do you have the initial article by any chance? I wanted to see if you left anything out when you merged it. I also miss the band listing :....( Would have been cool to have as a link to another page.User5802 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a great addition to the page and I think it's at the best place possible, without adding another boldface segment. A few of the other bm veterans here and I have been trying to keep things compact without disregarding informative details; I think you wrote that perfectly and it's probably at the best location. Logical Defense 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Black metal or Death metal first?

Which one came first? There seems to be a debate about this. Any facts to support either???User5802 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What debate? Death metal didn't become a formidable genre until - at the very earliest - 1984/1985. The first band you could consider actual true death metal was Death, and they didn't form until 1983, and even then, that was one recognized band that had no influence on black metal as a single entity. The first wave of black metal already had its start building of thrash in the late 70s/early 80s, with Venom, Bathory, and so forth. If you would like facts, feel free to explore this very website... Thanks. Logical Defense 17:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet Venom and cronos clearly state that Venom is Black Metal, and Black Metal is ALL the extreme metals which include Death Metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal ect. So If according to him, Death Metal is one of the components used to create Black Metal, than he is saying that Death came first as did thrash and speed metal. User:FromByond - Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FromByond (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Venom... Thrash Metal????

Sorry, but that's a glaring error. Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash. Also: I hate citing a Wikipedia article as reference, but Thrash is largely an American phenomena: Anthrax, Metallica, Testament, Megadeth... They are the product of NWOBHM meets Hardcore punk; so, how can Venom be a part of something that came after them?

Anyone of you ever heard Venom's Skeletons in the Closet (1994) compilation? Listen to the last track, "Radio Venom": they're dissing Thrash! I mean, these guys had HUGE egos... they would never diss themselves. (Just for the record: back in the day they did tours with Metallica, Slayer and Exodus).

And for those of you who still aren't convinced, I'd say you're probably infected by Norwegian fanboyism. Venom invented Extreme Metal. So, be it Doom, Thrash, Death - or even newer stuff like "Metalcore" or Post-metal - they all have something of Venom. By calling the band "Thrash", that someone is actually limiting the extent of their influence.

Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so. And denying that by judging a style not by it's creators, but by it's followers? Not smart. Musicaindustrial 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of your sentiments except for the fact that you limit the thrash metal scene to "largely" America. I think that is an insult to great bands like Sodom and Kreator. True most of the attention is focused on the American scene, but European thrash (and also South American if I may say so myself) has contributed a great deal, often which is underrepresented. Scskowron 15:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "Teutonic Thrash" trio are truly important: Sodom, Kreator and Destruction. I fully agree on that. But weren't they influenced by American Thrash from the start? (Except for Sodom's first EP, of course). These three were putting out their first records in 1984-1985; that's 1-2 years later than the debuts of Slayer and Metallica (and I'm not counting on Metallica's demos).

But... that's that. And what about Venom? Does anybody else agree that they're not Thrash metal? Musicaindustrial 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I can agree with you on that. Venom is pretty hard to classify, in my opinion. They exhibit characteristics of thrash, NWOBHM/heavy metal and black metal. However I think their greatest contribution was their use of fairly unconventional song structures, which is one of the defining features of black metal. I mean, thrash metal and NWOBHM bands mostly have that intro-verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus formula in almost every song, whereas that was not so much evident in Venom's songs. (Admittedly some songs followed that formula, but not many). How many truly black metal bands can you think of that employ that standard (and boring) formula? Practically none. Combine that revolutionary method with some dark lyrics, and yes, you have the first black metal band. Scskowron 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash." Later, you say "Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so." Wait... Venom isnt black metal, either. Because Venom came around before thrash, and black metal came from thrash metal. So how can Venom be part of a genre that didnt exist at that time? Prepare to be Mezmerized! 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because a band came out before its genre doesn't mean it still can't be classified as its genre. Case in point - Black Sabbath. They are doom metal, but doom metal didn't really emerge as a viable genre until 1986, 16 years after Sabbath's first album. Scskowron 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat ridiculous to try and draw up some kind of organized chronological history of metal sub-genres, as there wasn't a straight line of evolution across the board, and in the early '80s everything was a giant melting pot of bands in embryonic stages anyway.

In any case, the problem with this faulty blanket statement ("black metal came from thrash metal") is that it totally negates several bands, most notably Hellhammer and Bathory. What "thrash" was Tom Warrior listening to in 1982? How about Quorthon? Depending on whether to choose to believe him or not, he was either inspired by punk and hard rock or the biggest Venom plagiarist ever. Thrash was never in the early equation. I think some bands just took some of the occult topics present in the NWOBHM to the extreme, and subsequent bands expanded on that. Were many later black metal bands inspired by thrash or coming out of thrash backgrounds? You bet. But saying black metal was born of thrash is iffy.

Bands part of a genre in its infancy are often labeled differently in retrospect. Metallica where regarded as power metal in the beginning. Nowadays a lot of bands are seen as deathcore bands; a few years ago they were simply called metalcore. Metalcore was referred to as post-hardcore by many in the late 90ies. Venom is black metal (amongst other genres like NWOBHM) in retrospect (they even coined the term). Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Lets allow Cronos to tell us what Venom is. In the 2007 documentary Black MEtal by Bill Zebub, he states Venom is Black Metal. And Black Metal is all the extreme metals put together. Its Death metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal ect. All the metals. Its an experiment in Heaviness" User: FromByond Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FromByond (talk • contribs) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Artists aren't always a good source for their band's genres, though. Lemmy, AC/DC and Guns N' Roses (to name just a few) all call their music rock and roll, when it obviously isn't... It's better to use an independent source than just what the artist says it is. Funeral 23:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

IF artists aren't a good source for their bands genre, than EVERY referance, in this article, has no weight, as almost every referance, is sourced back to a documentary, with the muscians speaking for themselves about themselves as well as on the Death or Black Metal genre. Also Independent sources are an illusion. For example BLackmetal.com is independent resource right? Wrong. They own a record label and have vested interests, as do almost every resource site available on the BM. Even if its only a fan site, supporting their own bias. Most Independent sources are only parroting what they heard or were told by the artists anyway, and again supporting their own bias with cherry picking FromByond (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly fans are typicaly not a good resource for determining what a genre is or isnt as everyone is bias. I would say the band playing the music has more ability to define what they do based on their influences. Who am I to tell ACDC they are not playing Rock n roll? And really, to me, it obviously is Rock and roll. Its modernized Rock and Rock, and never branched off to become "metal", as it lacks the defining characteristics musicaly. Cradle of Filth, is defined by some as black metal, and NOT black metal by others. So which fans are correct? or Which independent resources are correct? Well lets allows COF to define themselves "Were not black metal. Weve moved past that. We are Extreme metal".FromByond (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Allowing bands to define their own genre by what they say is a terrible idea. H.I.M defines itself as love metal. Think we should listen to that? Scskowron (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well allowing fans, who mostly are not even muscians to define the genre is an even worse idea. If we did that NOTHING would ever be solved or properly documented. For an exampe - 50% say Cradle of Filth is BM, and 50% say they are not. If we let Cradle speak for themselves they clearly state "we are not BM, but extreme Metal". 69.47.128.166 (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it help to call them blackend thrash metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malacath (talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Logical Defense, your reversions

You reverted basically everything I did so I'll just try to go through things one at at a time. First of all, why did you re-add this sentence: "Bård was interviewed for a black metal mini-documentary that accompanied the DVD release of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey."? I'm sure he's been interviewed many times over the years so why is this worth noting? How does it enhance the reader's understanding understanding of black metal at all, let alone enough to justify writing it in this article rather than in Bård Faust?P4k 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

After looking at this closer, I think you really just need to go through this more carefully and decide which of my edits you actually have a problem with. You're reverting like 10 things here but only complaining about one of them; some of those edits you've restored and some you haven't. Maybe you're still in the process of fixing things, I don't know.P4k 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The mention of speculation regarding whether or not Varg took the picture alludes to the conspiracy that surrounded that very question at the time of release of Aske, via the Norwegian press. Your citation tag, however, was accidentally reverted in the group of things and I hadn't noticed until now; I'll fix that, along with the Headbanger's Journey cite tag, which at first appeared absent because it only appeared at the end of the paragraph (when fixing, I'll post twice to avoid potential third-party speculation; and trust me, it's happened). So first off, sorry about that, it wasn't intentional.

Additionally, under the NSBM section, it was important to keep a universal perspective regarding some of the generalization that befalls all black metal acts, besides just Burzum. The wording regarding Aarseth and Dead's brain was phrased the way it was because it wasn't Aarseth himself necessarily who raised such claims first. The removal of the addition of the comic book edit (which I explored after you post) seemed like much of a stretch and didn't hold strong ties to actual black metal music. Your header adjustment to "Dead's suicide" was fine; I merely took it a little more literal by referencing Ohlin by his birthname. Also, you make a good point about the sentence at the end of the section regarding Bard, and quite frankly, I don't know how that one got reverted in the midst of things. If it seemed like a personal smearing against your edits, I apologize, I just didn't want any details to get lost. As mentioned eariler, I'll restore your efforts put forth with the cite tags. Thanks. Logical Defense 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

South America

In the genrebox it states that the mainstream popularity "varies in Scandanavia," which is correct but I have also added South America to that statement as Black Metal is actually extremely popular on the underground in countries like Brazil. Hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. South America, North America, and Asia all, have their own unique scenes that are very popular, though North Americas is by far the youngest, and least developed. But that is changing. Each has differant focus as well as visual presentation. Now while this doesnt consitute its own unique genre (as others have helped me see), it still deserves recognition, in that these geographic areas, have their own influences, sound, look, and development. FromByond (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I just added Asia, because in certain parts (such as Singapore) black metal can get pretty popular. As far as the USBM scene goes...most of it sucks. My WP:POV. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the inclusion of Asia, but have added North America. Regardless of your POV, the scene is important, both historically and particularly at present. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, no. Asia does belong as does south american and of course scandinavia. But north america? The fact that you say their scene is important is not only POV and debateable, but just wrong. Yes, they have an established scene and much USBM does have a certain sound all its own (though its arguable whther or not that sound is good; too much ambience and copycats and unoriginality, etc.) but that doesn't make them important. Tell me a single big or well known bm band from NA. I mean, I'm not saying popular, just well known on the bm underground. There aren't any. Xasthur and maybe Judas Iscariot are about as well known as it gets. I mean, I know there's more USBM bands than that (I've listened to and studied the USBM scene) but most are not well known (or known at all) worldwide. However, i can point to many SA and Asian BM bands that are or were well known on the BM underground. Sorry but NA's small scene just doesn't cut it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Then we need a source to back that up. I added a 'citation needed' tag but it appears to have been removed. I've listened to and 'studied' (I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this) constitutes original research. Whilst my initial response was to defend the notability of US black metal bands as opposed to, say, Asian black metal (easy to do... an example would be to look at Terrorizer 's forty most important black metal albums from their black metal special and note the US vs Asian albums included), what we are actually looking for is evidence of popularity. I would guess something appropriate would be album chart placings in the various areas, total album sales figures or possibly appearances in mainstream music magazines in different countries. At present the information is POV and / or OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note - Sorry, I didn't really make a point. My point is that the popularity does not vary in North America. It's all underground. At least in Scandinavia and certain areas or South American and Asia is can get more popular. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize the original research part. I was just saying that. It's interesting to note, though, that what we are talking about is ironic. What exactly constitutes popular? Sales? Media coverage? I will say this for sure: the NABM is all underground. It seem to me people are agreeing with what I'm saying. Everyone knows BM is more popular in parts of Scandinavia and it looks as if people agree that the same is true of South America and, yes, parts of Asia. There should be no argument that BM is all underground in North America, though. Besides, pseudo "bm" bands like COF and Dimmu Borgir (both of which are not really bm) almost no one even knows about BM. However, in those other places, people know about BM whether they want to or not. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, limiting European popularity to 'parts of Scandinavia' seems a little strange. What about, say, Germany? I have a worry that the popularity section may devolve into a list that is effectively meaningless. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that's a good point you are making. Heavy metal is certainly known to be more popular in Europe in general and Germany does have a pretty strong BM scene but nothing like those other places. As for your worry that the popularity section may become worthless, I get what you're saying, but IDK what to say. You may be right. I wouldn't worry too much about it. I never found the popularity section that meaningful in the first place. It's just very general and meant to be. It's too hard to get specific with it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you agree a source listing OTEP as black metal is a bad source...

Please speak out here [5]. 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) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Need opinions

Will someone please tell FromByond to stop editing the black metal article and adding "combat metal" and American black metal as subgenres. Combat metal doesn't exist as far as I know and American black metal is not an actual subgenre. There are tons of countries with black metal and they all have their own style, should we add every single country's style as a subgenre? I mean war metal doesn't even have a section on this article (war metal actually redirects to black metal) and it is arguably a real subgenre...more so than the two FromByond wants to add. Navnløs (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he understands now from our discussions on his page (I know you wrote this before then anyway), so it shouldn't be an issue anymore. I explained in depth what was wrong with those additions on his page already. Logical Defense (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that last comment of mine was old. I already talked to him about it a while ago and he seems to be on the right path. Good luck with proving "combat metal" is a subgenre of black metal, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Its taken me awile to get used to the thinking here, but im gradualy becoming aclamated to it. Learning how to work within the system! I see how Combat Black Metal is like War Black Metal and is debatable. A band can consider what they do something specific yet that doesnt define a genre, unless their are many differant musicians from a wide geographic sampling, partisipating in forming it, into a legitamate genre.

As to countries with Black metal, while that doesnt consitute a Genre it is a "Scene", and each Scene, has its own look, sound, influences, and end product, and deserves its own entry, if their is enough bands and fans to consitute a "Scene". So not every country or area would have its own BM Scene. Each Scene adds to the evolution of the genre and should contribute - I would saying proving this lagisticaly is the hard part. The USA black metal scene has a differant sound to the Norwegian scene for example, as not only have the bands been influenced by Venom, Bathory and others, but also Thrash, Speed, and Death metal, as well as the early Norwegian scene, and other Extreme metal bands that are on the borderline of Black Metal. The early Norwegian scene has obvious Motorhead influences, Venom, Bathory, and Death metal, as most of the early bands were playing Death metal first, and have no influence from the bands postdating themselves.FromByond (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Need Neutrality

This article is written from a Bias point of view almost exclusivly from a Norwegian standpoint. Anyone that doesnt agree, need only watch Bill Zebubs new documentary on black metal called "The Black Metal Documentary". This interesting interview with Cronos, will shock many of the Norwegian fans. First he is asked "if in his opinion that the term "Black Metal" is bastardised these days" - his responce is that "many people are using the term Black metal WHO SHOULDNT be". he states "Like the NORWEGIANS. They are not black metal. They should call themselves "Corpse Paint Metal" or "Norwegian Metal" but not Black Metal, as Black Metal ~IS~ Venom. " He further elaborates and states " Black Metal is Venoms style of music. It includes ALL the Extreme metal styles like Death metal, Thrash metal, Speed Metal ect. Its an experiment in heaviness"

So according to the founder of the term "Black Metal", the Norwegian bands are not Black metal nor should they even use the term.

Further more, during the entire documentary which includes interviews with not only Enslaved, Venom, Gloomy Grim, Gorgoroth and others, everyone agrees on several core points, that MOST Black Metal fans have completly lost sight of.

Black Metal is about free will and individuality, not following what others are doing or trying to sound like a band from 20 years ago. Thus anyone trying to freeze a style and sound to BM goes against what ALL the creators and evolvers of the genre stand for. Each commented on how thinking one needed corspe paint to be "true' were rediculous. Several commented on the absurdity of thinking one had to use Lo Fi recording to be "true' and were actualy called "Traitors to the genre". Thus as the early scene, had everyone looking and sounding unique, they than continued to evolve and still sound unique, while fans have tried to freeze things in time and space to the early period.

Also fans completly misinterpret the idiology of Satanism, but this is a differant discussion completly. Suffice it to say, true Satanism has nothing to do with Anton Le Vey, Black Magic or Devil Worship. FromByond (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My friend, you are so just totally filled up by your own POV that it's frustrating. Stop making edits based on your own interpretations. Logical Defense (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You suggested I show proof of why I have my POV, I have repeatedly done so to substantiate the truth , and I still experiance Wikifacism at its finest. The differance between me and most of the editors on this page, is the editors on this page have a POV that is not well rounded, and is completly lacking neutrality. That is obvious bias in what is allowed, and its sickening. Where as my POV is more well rounded and looks at the big picture. Im also in my mid 30s, Ive activly listened to and created Metal music since the 80s. My research is also based on EVERY available documentary on Black Metal, as well as real time interactions with several fairly well known musicians, which ive used to write 4 articles on Black metal, which is more than most have contributed to the scene. The statements I made above, are what has also been said by members of Mayhem, Burzum, Immortal, Satryicon, Darkthrone, Gorgoroth, and others. I have proof of everything Im saying, and with the joke of resources used to pen you BM article its no wonder everyone is indoctrinated to believe more garbage.

I have had issues learning how to work within the Wiki framework because of all the guidelines. But than I finaly start getting the hang of it, and i get discouraging posts like: "you are so just totally filled up by your own POV that it's frustrating." - Well good. We frustrate each other as the facism here and that you help exhibit, is going to make myself and many others run in the opposite direction, which is your loss. And really this place could use some more intelligent people to contribute to articles, IF the collective of thumb twittlers, would stop banding together and blockade something just because they dont agree(Even if there is real time proof)or they dont want to be showed up. How disappointing!Byondthis69.47.128.166 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Neutrality warning. The editor is just Pov pushing. 209.107.117.197 (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: the above from IP 209.X is an anon sock of User:Scipo who is permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia and can be disregarded. 156.34.239.197 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gorgorothvid.jpg

Image:Gorgorothvid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

church burnings

I just noticed that the section on church burnings starts about church burnings, then halfway moves straight onto euronymous' murder, which makes no sense at all. Could someone sort this out, because i dont know that much about it Nick227 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... what's the confusion?

They're seperate sections. We tried to put them in as close to chronological order as possible. And it doesn't even unfold as abruptly as you're saying so again, what's the confusion (.) Logical Defense (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Guarding of article vs WP:OWN

It is good that editors are compassionate about the quality of articles about subjects close to their heart, or topics they in other ways are passionate about, as long as this doesn't begin to manifest as sentiments of article ownership. Blanket reverts of some contributions I have made over the past few days appear to me not to be reasonable as User:Logical Defense does not argue the actual changes which these edits constitute, merely that they "bastardized content and removed vital historical info." I'd like to have these assertions expounded. But first I shall list the changes inherent in my edits:

• In this edit of Dec 25, I added

1. In the documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, Canadian anthropologist Sam Dunn characterizes this genre as "punk rock meets Wagner, dressed as Alice Cooper."

• In this edit the same day, I:

1. Combined the numerous footnotes that were identical using the formula <ref name="">
2. Added "This branch, by many considered a unique genre within the scape of heavy metal, is often called Norwegian Black Metal.<ref name="Dunn"/>"
3. Added a red wikilink to True Norwegian Black Metal
4. Removed YouTube link

• In this link, same day, I added:

1. Alice Cooper makes a commentary on his appraisal of the authenticity and credibility of the Norwegian Black Metal bands in Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, stating, "I love going to Norway and Denmark, because I love picking up the Black Metal magazines. It's so Spinal Tap, 'cause each band is trying to be more wicked and evil than the other band [...] And you know these guys when you meet them and their mother 'Hello mr. Cooper. Nice to meet you. My mother is right over there. Could she have your autograph?' (parodizes in a feeble, timid voice). And I say, 'I thought you guys were like Satanists or something?' You know, it's like 'well.. yeah.. we are, but..' (same parodic voice–Cooper bursts into laugher)"<ref name="Dunn"/>

In a remarkable display of article ownership and bad faith User:Logical Defense leaves the following edit summary: "Somehow, at some point, with the temporary absense of the most rational contributors of this article... this page got totally raped." Apart from the attitude inherent in this comment itself which in my opinion suggests that this editor has a marginal capacity to function on a collaborative, consensus-driven project like Wikipedia, several changes also attest to bad or lacking judgment:

1. Footnotes are converted to the cumbersome format of duplicating identical footnotes instead of applying the <ref name=""> formula
2. Sam Dunn's spiffy characterization of Black Metal is removed.
3. Accentuated "main page" in the first sub-section of the "Historical events in black metal" sections ("See main article Early Norwegian black metal scene") is removed.
4. The paragraph presenting Alice Cooper's critical comments about Norwegian black metallers is removed.
5. Inline YouTube link is restored.

Upon this I revert User:Logical Defense, leaving this in the edit summary: "Use talk page instead of blanket reversal of constructive good faith edits." This spurs User:Logical Defense to revert back commenting: "With all do respect, we've been guarding this page for months before you stumbled upon it. If anything, your so called "good faith" edits have bastardized content and removed vital historical info." Apart from the token display of "due respect" this again reveals arrogance and prejudice in assessing the qualifications of other editors to make reasoned edits, and the attitude that these are rather encroaching on someone else's legitimate turf. The substance part about "bastardizing content" and "removing vital historical info" are assertions that have to be explained. What changes do these characterizations refer to? This is not self-evident.

Then User:Logical Defense in a change of heart decides to allow the "main article" referral to Early Norwegian black metal scene, but strangely circumvents the previous name change of that article in making it link to Black Metal Inner Circle which is a redirect to the former.

I'm sure it can be argued that Cooper is silly and that Dunn's characterization if way off the mark. That is irrelevant. We are not here to argue views presented in our articles but present notable opinions from reliable sources. A feature length documentary on Heavy Metal which is widely referred to in Wikipedia's articles on this subject area cannot be dismissed at any one editor's whim.

The reverting of a cleanup of duplicating footnotes is just plain destructive.

I'd like to see some comments on the specifics of this post as well as the general issue of how this article is edited in a collaborative way and not by a select clique of über-editors. __meco (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't endorse the tone of Logical Defense's edit summaries in this case, or the reference reverts, but I do agree with the removal of some of the content you added. A whole paragraph dedicated to what Alice Cooper said in a documentary seems a bit silly and is not really due weight. I also don't think this documentary (Sam Dunn) should be used as a source for controversial assertions not verified by other (more reliable) sources. A wikilink to True Norwegian Black Metal is a bad idea, because if we ever have an article titled like that it is likely to be an essay or a POV fork and end up deleted very quickly. Prolog (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect I agree that that redlink isn't warranted. As for the other points you make, I am not so convinced that someone like Alice Cooper should not be quoted extensively when he basically divests the Norwegian BM scene wholesale of their integrity. That should be considered notable, however awkward (or stupid) that may be understood. As for it being an entire paragraph, I would think it'd be difficult to condense that one. Better then to find a source which takes issue with him. As for Dunn's statement, that is his opinion. An opinion doesn't have to be verified the way you suggest. It is. as I wrote, a spiffy line, and his notability on the subject should be well established. Again, I suggest rather to insert opposing commentary from other reliable sources than removing this. I hope there is a climate here which does not condone the biased editing by BM fans to the detriment of doing unbiased encyclopedic work. __meco (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't check your second diff well enough and missed the context of the wikilink. The feature might meet our notability guidelines. Considering the documentary's inaccuracies, like claiming that Cradle of Filth is Norwegian black metal, using it as a source for This branch, by many considered a unique genre within the scape of heavy metal, is often called Norwegian Black Metal might not be the best idea even with an "According to...". Alice Cooper's article does not mention black metal at all, and it is not like he is a notable critic of black metal whose views on the subject are often reported (and thus should be reported here too). Also, genres aren't capitalized and I'm pretty sure Cooper says "...like Satans...", not "...like Satanists..." in the short interview. That's just not an encyclopedic comment, in my opinion. Besides, neutrality comes into play as Cooper is a devout Christian and stated in this interview that "I have totally preached against the whole satanic movement. Not preached but warned against it." Prolog (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Logical Defense is a little blunt but the guy knows what he's talking about. His edits are good. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that several editors who appear balanced and reasoned share in their assessment of the redacting-centered issue at hand. I would still make for a dissenting opinion, but I fully respect what appears to be a differing majority consensus. __meco (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Les Légions Noires

There seems to be no mention of LLN and the bands involved, viz., Mutiilation, Vlad Tepes, etc. I guess they are important, as there are a fairly large number of bands involved here. Welt^anschaunng 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even within black metal circles LLN could ever be regarded as "important". There may be a large number of bands, although there is some controversy as to how many of them exist as anything more than a name. Either way, very little music was released, making most of the claims concerning LLN unverifiable. It might be worth mentioning it in a sentence but beyond that they don't meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, does anyone have any ideas how we could actually improve that page. At the moment it's terrible. But given the near impossibility of finding reliable sources, it's getting close to AfD level. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, that page needs referencing to hell and back and back again then returning once more. From the looks of the content, much of the needed references will be in french. Currently, to be honest, the article has no sources whatsoever, and so would deservedly fail an AfD. It is this lack of strong references which has resulted in the poor style of many of the statements within the article. Many of the links provided fail to add value aside from directing the reader to forums on the subject matter. [6], [7], [8] and [9] may be of some use in polishing the article up and referencing statements. Ideally we need a major music magazine's coverage to be found. LinaMishima (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiamat/Treblinka

These guys need mention.

What the heck does kvlt mean?

I've heard the term used in relation to black metal, but I have no idea what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.86.114 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...cult...don't ever use that term...Hackser (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Les Legions Noires again

The page is currently up for deletion as no reliable sources have been or can be found. A reliable source in this case would be a book or commercially published music magazine. If anyone can find such sources, please add them to the article. If they cannot be found, the article may well need to be deleted. Either way, if people could offer their opinions on the deletion page that would be really useful. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note:The LLN is a big deal and it shouldn't be deleted. It was a real movement. It doesn't matter if it has no sources. There are plenty of articles on wikipedia that don't have sources but cannot be deleted because people will say "it's real and existed" and it will be kept, even without sources. Also, the LLN should be mentioned in the black metal aticle. It was a movement just as much as the early Norwegian scene had it's "black metal mafia." Hackser (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks as if the LLN page will be kept, but will need serious re-writing. In light of this, several of your comments are incorrect and unwelcome of an encyclopedia. Firstly to say that the LLN is/was a big deal is POV and hence unacceptable to Wikipedia. You need an independant thrid party reliable source to attest this, such as a book or commercially published magazine. To say it doesn't matter if it had no sources is simply on the basis that 'people will say it existed' is simply moronic; two of the major pillars of Wikipedia are verifiability and NPOV. Maintaining the article as a stub may be the only way forward unless sources are found. That the LLN should be mentioned in the main Black Metal article is again POV, and you will need to find a reliable source to justify its notability. Finally, to say it is 'just as much a movement' as the Norwegian scene is simply to state that both existed. No arguments from me there. If you are claiming the LLN has equivalent notability, then you are demonstrably wrong, as a lack of sources or even record releases will attest. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not new to wikipedia. I'm glad the LLN page will be kept. I realize what I was saying was POV, but that doesn't make it false. I was only making a point. In the past some shitty genres have been put up for AFD because they had no sources but people wouldn't let the pages be deleted. "You can't do that, it's a real genre! It exists! It doesn't matter that it has no sources!" I'm not kidding and guess who won? They did. The LLN may not have had as much notability but they are a big deal. They were more underground than Norway's scene. They also were not around as long. But mostly, the reason there aren't as many sources about the movement is because (besides being way, way underground) most of the bands in the movement released about 3 albums within a short time span then totally disappeared. They wanted to be underground as much as possible. They limited their copies to very small numbers. It was basically like they didn't want to be known. They were so knee deep in the super undergound type philosophy that they just wanted to quickly release a few great albums and then never be seen again. Or something similar to that. Many of the bands in the movement have articles here on wikipedia. Hackser (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if you are not new to Wikipedia... my mistake was based on your lack of contributions and your misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. Obviously, we can all recognise that the AfD policy is flawed, as although it shouldn't rely on a democratic vote, in reality that is broadly what happens. However, on top of this, your understanding of the LLN is flawed. Firstly, you state many of the bands have Wikipedia pages; whilst this in itself just not confer notability, the number is in fact five at last count... hardly 'many'. Secondly, you state most of the bands released about 3 albums then disappeared. That again is patently untrue. the vast majority of the bands (and I've trimmed the list on the LLN page but there are still twenty or so) released precisely no albums over the course of their careers. Seemingly, the exception to this rule is Mutiilation. Bottom line is, the article needs improving. if you'd like to help me do that, that would be great, because what we really need are sources. If material cannot be sourced, then it cannot be included on Wikipedia as per WP:V. Simple really. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I meant "releases" not "albums". I agree that there needs to be a lot of improving, though. We'll see what happens. I don't plan on getting on much. Hackser (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

War metal and norsecore

Both are real genres but I can understand the argument with war metal. Norsecore, though, is a real genre and should be recognized. Just as grindcore is the extreme of death metal (pretty much), norsecore is the extreme of black metal. One of the defining elements in norsecore is the usage of blast beats (almost constantly) and usually (though not always) even shittier production and rawer sound. Just look at the results herefor a google search. Now not all of those pages are right, but I'm sure once could find sources for norsecore. Hackser (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Then Be Bold! Find a reliable source for Norsecore (which I confess I have only ever heard used in a pejorative sense) and include it. I'd start with books and commercially published magazines though, rather than a Google search... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and grindcore is not the extreme of death metal for the record. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only ever heard norsecore used as a derogatory term. Inhumer (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It usually is used as a derogatory term. But it also implies that a band basically plays blast beats throughout their music and have an emphasis on the raw bm sound. Grindcore may not be technically the extreme of death metal, but many consider it as such seeing as how they are highly influenced by dm but try to be more "extreme" sounding (i.e. blast beats, cookie monster vocals that are usually super fucked up, repetitive simplistic playing at high speeds, etc). Just for the record I'm not a fan of any core genres or anything else that's gay that masquerades as anything even closely associated with metal. Hackser (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As a derogatory term, it really has no place in an encyclopedia. Similarly, we wouldn't create a page for 'mallcore' or 'faggoth'. Secondly, much grindcore has no metal influence whatsoever, although grindcore often does contain thrash or death metal elements. Thirdly, comments like 'anything else that's gay' is unhelpful and puerile, even on a talk page. Regardless, this is not the place to discuss your personal tastes in muisc or push POV. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

I created a userbox related to black metal.(highlight to read text)

ist krieg!!This user likes black metal.

the juggreserection ^IstKrieg! 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck. That not only has nothing to do with this article but is shameless self promotion and pure idiocy. Hackser (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

okay.....i was just throwing it out there. where do yousuggest it belongs? the juggreserection ^IstKrieg! 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Black ambient

I made it so it now rediredts to dark ambient#black ambient instead of black metal#modern black metal which didn't make a lot of sense in the first place. Black ambient is a type of ambient music (dark ambient to be specific) and is definitely not a sub genre of black metal or metal at all. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblack metal

Uh, just out of curiosity, why the hell is the unblack metal article almost as long as the black metal article? It used to be a lot shorter. It just seems wierd that they would be even close to the same length. I think the people over on the unblack metal page have been going more in depth and writing a lot more stuff. Perhaps the black metal page should go more in depth and add some info in the spirit of competition? Also, the fact that there should be WAY more info on black metal than unblack. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no wonder! The unblack metal page name drops like crazy! It basically talks about every record company in existence that released a unblack metal album and it talks about every single unblack metal band ever and all their releases. Something needs to be done about this. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you all too lazy to respond about this business?! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about a competition which article should be the longest, but an encyclopedia. If you think that the unblack metal page has too much redundant information and requires a clean-up, I suggest to feel free to leave your comments on the talk:unblack metal-page. User:Brynnar/sig 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Raw Black Metal

There are (as of March 12, 2008) 443 bands in Encyclopaedia Metallum described as some sort of "raw black metal". Why isn't that subgenre of raw black metal mentioned in this page? BT^C 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is far from obvious that it is a legitimate musical subgenre. Metal Archives, despite people claiming otherwise, is not a reliable source, owing to being user-edited. It has been pointed out that the editors keep a tight control over genre changes, but that simply makes that aspect of the site a self-published source, and hence not reliable as per WP:SPS. Come up some something better if you want to claim legitimacy as a 'real' subgenre. I think you will struggle though... simply attaching the adjective raw to a description of the band doesn't imply a legitimate genre or scene. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Raw" black metal is just a description. I hear many bm fans call bands "atmospheric" black metal, "depressive" black metal and so on. It's not an actual genre, though. Just a description. Raw black metal would be something like Darkthrone (or at least the earlier stuff) whereas Burzum might be considerd atmospheric black metal. Just an adjective, not a genre. Some fans are idiots. I've seen plenty of stupid crap on MA. People call bands like Sigh post-black metal. At least their newer stuff. But there's no such genre. It's just avant garde black metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

To all editors of the black metal article-music

The article needs music. Even the unblack metal article has music clips and so do most of the metal subgenres. We should probabaly put at least a few different clips in to the article. One or two from the First Wave and one or two from the Second Wave. Then maybe one or two more modern bm bands. This will improve the article greatly. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

First/second wave of black metal

The First and Second wave of black metal are only an original research described by few references. They should be deleted. --Born Again 83 (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. They are well sourced and well known to fans of bm. There's plenty of sources including Ian Christe's book (which is used all over wikipedia as a source for absolutely everything metal; see heavy metal) talking about the first and second wave of bm. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ian Christe's book isn't enough. I read "Metal Hammer", "Rock Hard", "Kerrang!" and many other magazines, nobody has talked about those waves of black metal. Some critics labeled bands such as Celtic Frost and Bathory black metal, that's true, but IMHO the waves are only invented by few (for Metalstorm.ee there's also the third wave!). --Born Again 83 (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, I respect your opinion but there are plenty of sources supporting the first/second wave of bm arguement and it is accpeted by everyone I know in the black metal community. I know this is POV, but everyone I know who likes black metal (and I know quite a few of them) know of the first and second wave distinction and they didn't get their info from wikipedia or Ian Christe. Yes, some do say there is a third wave, but it is not well defined so there's not much written about it and so it stays out of this article. This supposed "third wave" is generally considered to consist of more symphonic black metal bands, but there is not much agreement on the issue. Some people would consider this "3rd wave" to just be almost all bm bands after the mid 90's or so. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Subgenres

I'm not sure we should have Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal listed as subgenres. The only way these few bands differ from "traditonal" black metal is lyrically. Even then, "traditional" black metal bands hold many different ideologies. Both this article and their own articles agree that there is no method of playing black metal in a Christian/Nazi way. Therefore, I would suggest they be regarded as black metal "scenes", or put in the "other topics" section instead. Opinions? ...Superfopp (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I agree that those genres don't really differ, other than lyrically. But they have their own names and have therefore become some sort of subgenre. To put them in "scenes" would most likely be a misnomer, and other topics would just seem weird to me for a number of reasons. They're probably best off where they are now (in the subgenres section). But I do agree they don't differ except lyrically. There may be some small differences, though. I wouldn't know enough about this as I have never listened to any NSBM and only very little unblack metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

War metal (hilarious)

I saw that the portuguese wikipedia had a war metal article: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_metal. At first this made me think even more that there should be something about war metal in this article at the very least, but then I saw there black metal article. Not a very well done article with some inaccuracies I could see right away. So we won't be making that war metal article, I guess. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Keyboards

Why can't we include keyboards as part of the black metal instrumentation section of the infobox? Keyboards aren't just for goth pseudo-black metal bands like CoF and lame Russian bands. Respectable BM bands that use keyboards include: Abigor, Arcturus, Blut Aus Nord, Borknagar, Burzum, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Illnath, Ishtar, Limbonic Art, Obsidian Gate, Opera IX, Samael, Satyricon, Windir, Xasthur....just to name a few. I know some of those bands are crossover, but if you can't consider most of those as BM, then I don't know what BM is.

This is true, but when talking about instruments we are aiming for generalities, and in most bm, keyboards are not an instrument used. It's just not widely used enough in black metal. If you put that in there it's like saying, "almost all black metal bands with some exceptions use keyboards," which is not true. If it was for a genre like power metal, yeah. But not for black metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't massively care either way, but the previous edit said 'often use keyboards' (which is true) rather than 'majority use keyboards' (which is untrue, but would be unverifiable in reality anyway). Many of the biggest names in black metal do use keyboards... Emperor, Dimmu Borgir, Burzum, Satyricon etc. It doesn't seem such a big deal to include that in the instruments section. But if you feel strongly about it, fair enough. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of the "keyboards" in the Black metal article. Although it is true that a lot of BM bands do not use keyboards, a lot of them actually use this instrument, mostly for atmospheric reasons. I am aware that the use of keyboards is often frowned upon by some fans and acts (for example Skyforger implicitally (and proudly) writes in some album sleeves that no keyboards have been used), but a fact is that the some of the most well-known BM-acts frequently use keyboards. Dimmu Borgir, Emperor and Immortal for example. And even Mayhem on the album Grand Declaration of War does not have clean hands. But also other bands, such as Morgul, Siebenbürgen, The Kovenant, Borknagar, Thyrfing, Solefald, Falkenbach, …And Oceans, Satyricon, Vintersorg, Troll, to name but a few, are using keyboards. Of course, one can debate the "blackness" of some of these acts, but it is a mere fact that keyboards are frequently incorporated in BM-music. User:Brynnar/sig 08:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason why Skyforger would write something like that is because they are a folk metal band and use authentic folk instruments instead of keyboards. I don't think that has anything to do with black metal. You say a lot of bands do use keyboards but you also say a lot of bands do not. Your own words therefore indicate that keyboards are not a typical instrument of the genre even if it is commonly used among some of the more prominent bands. That's what the infobox is for: typical instruments. --Bardin (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But conversely, you wouldn't regard keyboards as atypical, given their prevalence. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not regard two negatives (atypical instruments = not keyboards) as a positive (typical instruments = keyboards). The infobox indicates typical not common. I have the impression that symphonic black metal bands are more prevalent and prominent than other bands in the genre but that would not make them typical of the genre either. --Bardin (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The listing of instruments does clearly mention that they are used "often", not "always". I admit that keyboards are mostly used in symphonic-, industrial- or avantgarde-influenced BM, but nevertheless, they can be regarded as typical in some sub-genres of BM. Even more, the use of keyboards in BM is quite typical when you consider that this instrument is indeed mostly absent in other metal genres, such as speed metal, thrash metal, death metal. You can delete it from the article, but you cannot ignore this fact. In general they can be considered typical for BM (and goth metal for that matter), compared to other metallic genres. User:Brynnar/sig 14:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Bardin. As for your latest comment, Brynnar, I can point out a couple of flaws with your reasoning. You admit yourself that, "keyboards are mostly used in symphonic-, industrial- or avantgarde-influenced BM". And just because it is more typical to be in bm genre than other genres means nothing. It still does not mean it is typical of the bm genre. You also say that, "they can be regarded as typical in some sub-genres of BM," which I will not argue, but you are talking about sub-genres and not the main genre, which is what this article is about. Technical death metal is known to incorporate jazz fusion in their music but that doesn't means it's typical of death metal as a whole. Do you see where I'm coming from? Also, you mentioned that keyboards are typical for gothic metal, to which I have to say, "What the hell does that have to do with anything?" Gothic metal isn't related to black metal in the slightest. I apologize if you were just making a passing reference with that comment, though, and not actually trying to compare the two genres (which should not be compared anyways). But other genres hardly matter. Keyboards are a common element in power metal, symphonic metal, progressive metal and avant garde metal as well (I might be stretching it a bit with those last two genres, I admit). It means nothing in this issue, though. Most black metal is supposed to be raw, etc. and most bm bands shun the use of keyboards. Not all, I know, but it's still not a typical instrument. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any intention to force my opinion onto the article. If the majority feels that keyboards are a-typical, then so be it. However, I would like to point out some misunderstandings. Indeed I mentioned that that keyboards are typical in some sub-genres and bands who are influenced by other musical genres (industrial, avantgarde, etc), but still they are considered as branches of the BM-tree. But some of the major regular BM-acts actually use keyboards, as some have pointed out already. You say that Most black metal is supposed to be raw, etc. and most bm bands shun the use of keyboards., which is true, but are there rules about this? Has some-one written a set of rules? Does this mean that we'll have to clean up the list of BM-acts who don't follow the rules by adding keyboards in their musical arrangments? If the majority feels like deleting "keyboards" from the article, I will no longer object to this, no problem. Still, I disagree, but I prefer to settle it in a democratic way (which sometimes is a strange phenomena at Wikipedia, I know). User:Brynnar/sig 07:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC) PS: I indeed mentioned goth metal as passing reference, not in direct relation to BM. I could also mention symphonic metal or anything else, but it was just an example that first came to mind.

I'm confused. If you agree with Blizzard Beast that it is true "most black metal is supposed to be raw, etc. and most bm bands shun the use of keyboards," then what's the problem? Seems pretty clear to me that if most black metal bands do not use keyboards, then keyboards are not typical of black metal and hence should not be included in the infobox as a typical instrument. Or are you suggesting that typical instruments should include just about any instruments performed by the prominent representatives of the genre? That's a pretty strange way of looking at typical, if you ask me. --Bardin (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be confused. It says that most bands indeed shun keyboards, but it is also a fact that a lot of the major players (which is not equal to "most") in this league actually do use them. To the outside world (who may solely know Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Mayhem, Marduk, Immortal, etc) therefore keyboards can be regarded as typical instruments. User:Brynnar/sig 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If the "outside world" only know the "major players" and erroneously think that keyboards are typical instruments because of that, should not this encyclopedia do its duty to correct that misperception? Many people in the so-called "outside world" also think that heavy metal fans, goths and devil worshippers are all one and the same thing. Or that nu-metal and glam metal are somehow representative of heavy metal as a whole. Or that the Tower Bridge is London Bridge. Et cetera. --Bardin (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A-fuckin'-men. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fast tempo?"

"Black metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is typically abrasive and characterized by the use of fast tempos, high-pitched electric guitars often played with tremolo picking, high-pitched shrieking vocals, and unconventional song structures."

All true except for the tempo? That's just a stereotype outsiders have of black metal. Whether something is black metal is pretty much irrelevant of the tempo. If you show even the fastest projects like Sethereal down to an eight of their original tempo it would still be clearly recognizable as black metal. And there are tonnes of black metal projects which operate on such tempos, take: Trist, Nortt, Vinterriket, Wyrd, Amesoeurs, Xasthur, Life is Pain, Ekstasis. The latter three having had a great portion of their tracks with no drums at all still clearly black metal with the last not having made any tracks with drums as of yet. Niarch (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might learn a lot from the above conversations. The article is meant to talk about what is typical of the subject (black metal in this case). I realize their are many black metals out of the norm as many are prone to experimentation, but this article is talking about what is typical of black metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read, and typical black metal is nowhere characterized by fast pace either. It says 'characterized', not 'is commonly', The most noteable bands synonymous with the genre such as Satyricon, Darkthrone, Thorns and Ulver have all created slow paced black metal at one point or another. And no one felt it ceased to be black metal because of the slow tempo. 'Characteristic' according to Wiktionary is a 'distinctive feature'. Even in typical black metal it isn't and never was. 1990 demo's that started the genre featured medium or slow-paced tracks on it which were still recognized as black metal. I think it is sensible to say that if it were a characteristic feature people would at least comment in reviews of Satyricon phrases like 'The unusual feel of the slow tempo that it brings..' or something in that vein. They will mostly just make a note of it but see it as nothing particularly avant-garde. I agree that it is common in black metal to be fast paced but saying that that is a characteristic of it would be the same as saying that a 4/4 time signature is a characteristic of music, no? Niarch (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're actually right. I didn't really read the sentence. My bad. It would be more accurate to say "usually" before "charcterized" or to say something to that effect. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again a discussion about what is and what is not BM. I suggest that everyone reads this: What is Black Metal? User:Brynnar/sig 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's funny but we're hardly arguing about what is and what is not black metal. It just seems to be the whole question about what is typical and common of black metal. It's prone to experimentation, though. So it's hard to pinpoint sometimes. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, for one time I fully agree with you that it is hard to pinpoint the exact definition. Keyboards or not. How many bbp. WHether or not a double bassdrum is used. Shrieking vocals. Lyrical themes. Lofi production. Corpsepaint. If one thinks there are guidelines, there will be a lot of bands, proclaiming to be BM, which are not bounded by these stereotypes (which is why I added the link above as illustration). People will still feel the urge to attach labels onto music, which by definition is subjective, while every musical group (either within the BM-genre or in avantgarde techno) will have it's own characterics. User:Brynnar/sig 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed 'usually characterised by the use of fast tempos' to 'usually makes use of fast tempos', as the first phrase is a bit strange. Something is characterised by something or not. Niarch (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This new sentence, "It is prone to experimentation and certain elements typical to black metal are not always used by every band within the subgenre" is pretty redundant. You can say that about ANY type of music. Have you ever heard of a type of music that was not prone to experimentation and in which every band demonstrated every single characteristic of that genre? The sentence needs to be removed. The "usually" word from the first sentence is also redundant because it says "typically" right before it in the same sentence! The "typically" is the antecedent for both parts of that phrase. Obviously if something like that "typically" it's also like that "usually".

Furthermore, I wish to claim that black metal IS typically characterized by fast-tempos. I have not heard of any black metal bands that use exclusively slow tempos. Nortt may lay claim having black metal characteristics, but I would hardly classify him as a typical black metal artist; he is more fringe BM. All his songs are slow, and there is something missing from his music that enables it to be placed wholeheartedly in the BM category. (I love Nortt by the way). Same thing with Bethlehem. On the other hand, every single major black metal band (Immortal, Burzum, Mayhem, Darkthrone, Celtic Frost, Venom, Bathory, 1349, Dimmu Borgir, Gorgoroth, Samael), all thrive on speed. Perhaps speed does not define nearly all or even most of their songs, but it is fair to say that without speed those bands would not be where they are, and they would likely be considered fringe black metal if black metal at all. Additionally, it is agreed that black metal stemmed from NWOHBM, Speed Metal, and Thrash Metal, and each of these genres have speed as one of their main characteristics. It is certainly possible to deviate from an ancestral genre by eliminating a certain characteristic as speed, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the general path within the black metal community.

Therefore, I am suggesting we remove any references that suggest that high-tempos in BM are not the standard, though make mention that songs are not exclusively performed at high tempo. Well-argued responses welcomed. Scskowron (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with that every single major black metal list. It appears as if you have selectively compiled it to suit your point. The Trilogy of Ulver does not necessarily thrive on speed. And Satyricon's work never did. Not to mention the very early but extremely influential work of Thorns which has for a large part shaped modern black metal. Also, the 1990 promo of Arcturus, before Darkthrone ever made black metal slow paced. Also, you have actually included a lot of bands there which most feel that they are fringe. (Venom, Celtic Frost and Dimmu Borgir), many agree that those bands are not black metal due to either just the proto-form. Or simply in the case of Dimmu Borgir because it's too much 'gothic metal-like'. The argument is still that if you would slow down any fast paced black metal track by a factor of four. Anyone would still count it as black metal. Which is not the case on death metal. Alluding to the phrase 'Doom metal is just death metal slowed down.' And how does Burzum Thrive on speed in the first place? He has made his fast paced and mid paced tracks to his slow paced ambient and to say that because he has fast paced work he thrives on speed is a bit ludicrous to me. We have already established that fast paced is more common than slow paced or mid paced in black metal. But for it to be a characteristic of it something could not be black metal without fast paced, or at least it should be avant-garde. Saying that it is a characteristic of black metal to be fast paced is again saying that it is a characteristic of music to be in a 4/4 time signature or a characteristic of a species of life to be unicellular. Niarch (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5