Jump to content

Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

The image File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific rationale added. Thanks, bot.—DCGeist (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I Believe it happens, just because LED ZEPPELIN isn't a Heavy Metal Band.....And I believe that even its name should be , removed from these page, because there's no consense about any one of these bands mentioned at the beginning. It's reasonalbe doubt. In doubt, don't accept.

Thank You, deep Peace

Ricknupp (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknuppRicknupp (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Opeth?

I realise that the aim of this article isn't to list every single metal band, but surely the Swedish group Opeth should be mentioned? Their fusion of death metal with prog elements is largely unique and highly innovative, and has been a big commercial success in much of the world.--MartinUK (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While they are a notable metal band, I don't see any real reason to mention them in the article. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Opeth have incorporated softer elements such as use of acoustic guitars and clean vocals mixed with death-metal style growls and heavy riffing [1] which has not been seen much earlier. Surely that merits them a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.34.174 (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dissection have been doing it a lot longer than Opeth, Opeth weren't really doing anything "innovative". Just prog metal with death metal vocals. ThePerfectVirus (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I love Opeth, but I don't see why they should be listed in this article. Mason092 (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Opeth weren't really doing anything 'innovative'". Hahahaha. Peak of ignorance. If Tool are mentioned, Opeth should be mentioned.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rooting for either, but he's got a point. If a band like Tool is included - which is more associated to alternative rock than Heavy Metal - than why not Opeth. I personally would include neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Grunge

Even though grunge music does hold roots from Heavy Metal, I believe it is considered more alternative rock than metal. I don't think it should even be in the fusion genre category, for metal was only used as a mere inspiration for the genre.

UberHeadbanger (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (EST)

Look at Alice in Chains, Soundgarden for grunge bands that can easily be called metal & Melvins for a big central band/influence in the movement who were also metal. 174.21.45.89 (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Grunge should make his article, easily. They've been included in metal-lists since their start.Revan ltrl (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Funk Metal needs a section as well.

I have noticed that Funk metal doesn't have it's own section here. Anyone mind if I take care of that? Rockgenre (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that article would need more reliable sourcing yet, because it's only source seems to be Piero Scaruffi, currently deprecated as a source, at least by WP:ALBUMS. In fact, it's deletable as it stands due to lack of supported notability. Once that is sorted out, Funk Metal could be a "See also" and may be worth a minor mention within the article, but so far, it isn't apparent that it deserves one. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If power metal, a subgenre that has had very little success in the U.S., has it's own section, than I see no reason why funk metal, a subgenre that has even had grammy winners, shouldn't. I'm just going to write a small paragraph on the subgenre. Rockgenre (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument. I haven't looked at "power metal", but if funk metal is so poorly-sourced in its own article that it cannot be sourced from mainstream rock journalism, then it really isn't a "genre", but a "sub-genre" or "style" at best. What next, punk-reggae-metal? Rodhullandemu 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Funk metal already has its own section under the Funk rock article. Content doesn't need to be duplicated twice on 2 different pages. Fair Deal (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Living Colour? They won 2 grammys and were the first the first heavy metal band to have members of all African descent. If Funk metal shouldn't have it's own paragraph at least they deserve to get mentioned. Rockgenre (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I despair at this seeming desire to put bands into smaller and smaller pigeonholes, and it's a difference between genres and styles that to me seems totally unnecessary. We knew where we were in the 1960s and 1970s, and didn't really need these divisive labels. However, from our point of view here, if there are reliable sources applying these tags, I suppose some people might think they are important. My historical perspective tells me that "they ain't". Rodhullandemu 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
That was from your historical perspective. "My" historical perspective is that, winning awards and breaking racial boundaries are important things. I believe Living Colour at least deserve a sentence. Rockgenre (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You fail to take note that Power Metal is immensly popular in European countries, Japan and so forth. Stratovarius, Helloween, HammerFall, Iced Earth, Rhapsody and Sonata Arctica, to name a few, have achieved varied degrees of succes and media exposure. I could stay here for an hour naming various bands belonging to the genre and still have examples popping into my head. You mention only Living Colour. Yes there are others and I'm aware of them but can you sit here and enumerate tons of bands described as Funk Metal? Even then, most of these bands fit into the Alternative Metal category as well, maybe even more so.

EDIT: Also, there's an argument about breaking racial boundaires? When does the nationality of a performer ever create a genre? Here's a practical example; The sub-genre of Thrash Metal breaks out mid-80s, a mostly American phenomenon. Shortly after, a similar style emerges in Germany with common traits that differentiate it from its American counterparts. It gains the monikers German Thrash or Teutonic Thrash as a style. Later, South American bands gain a Thrash scene of their own, most notably examplified by the brazilian Sepultura. The nuance here is that all 3, despite their slight musical differences and distinct cultural flavors, are considered Thrash Metal as a whole. The breaking of racial boundaries, as you call it, is rather a mark of unique STYLE(a personal variation to a pre-existing genre), than in itself a SUB-GENRE(a full fledged movement with a local scene, possesing a notably different musical aesthetic and format, having many bands composing in a similar vein and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Queen Mention

I've been asked to put this up on the talk page as to why Queen should be mentioned in the introduction of the article along with Judas Priest. This is quite simple; Queen also spurred Heavy Metal's evolution by discarding much of its Blues influence, along with Judas Priest. Why it should only be Judas I have no idea; especially when my justification is sourced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/biography (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC))

That source says nothing about them taking out the blues influence. Wikipedia does not use original research. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 22:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
That is the source used on the actual Queen page, so maybe you could explain that to me? (82.28.237.200 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC))
Just tell us where in that cite it says what you want it to say. If it's used on the Queen page for the same facts not present, then we should remove it from there as well. Errors should really be corrected, rather than blindly copied. Random name (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
New evidence has surfaced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/albums/album/199416/review/5942941/queen This article states that Queen's metal material is nowhere near as bluesy-based as Led Zeppellin. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC))
Fine...for the article on Queen. But no persuasive case has been made that Queen belongs in the lede of this overview article, on a par with Judas Priest. They simply are nowhere near as crucial to or exemplary of the history of metal.—DCGeist (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Judas Priests contributions are not sourced either, so why should they have the right to be up there unsourced? We also have many METAL bands sourcing Queen as an influence; Iron Maiden, Anthrax, Metallica and more. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
"The right"? Interesting choice of words.
Judas Priest's major influence on the direction of heavy metal is well sourced in the main text. Per Wikipedia guidelines and well-established practice (it would be helpful if you'd familiarize yourself with those), we generally avoid repeating main text citations in the lede. As for the relative weight we give these bands, please familiarize yourself with the authoritative literature. Let's take a look at one of the leading sources for this article, Deena Weinstein's Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture: Judas Priest is mentioned on 43 pages of this book; Queen is mentioned on zero. The story is similar in another major source, Robert Walser's Running with the Devil: Power, Gender, and Madness in Heavy Metal Music: Judas Preist mentioned on 31 pages; Queen on 1. The third leading authoritative source we rely on is Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal: Judas Priest—86 pages; Queen—4 pages. (For those playing along, that makes the final score 160–5.) I'm afraid that your opinion that Queen plays a central role in the history of heavy metal is not shared by the sort of authoritative sources upon which we are obliged to base our work here.—DCGeist (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That could also prove something else. The fact that Judas Priest are overrated and Queen barely got a mention for their helping spur the evolution of Heavy Metal. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC))
I'll say that Queen is not a heavy metal band, but a rock band who added some heavy metal elements to his music and that have done some heavy metal songs. Queen was a mix of heavy metal, progressive rock, glam rock, rock n' roll, opera, pop rock, and even disco and funk by the late 70s and early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.99.104 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we can't generalise Queen as heavy metal when they made a handful of songs vaguely related to the genre. More often than not they made rock songs, progressive rock, pop influenced four-part vocal showcases, broadway style piano pieces etc. Second, the number of Metal bands being influenced by Queen's music doesn't make them Metal either, its misunderstanding the statement. Many early Rock n Rollers were influenced by delta blues artist Robert Johnson; that doesn't make Johnson's music become Rock n Roll.

Indeed Judas Priest are very highly rated, that's probably why they need to be monetioned in the lead, right?. That's not the issue here. I can place a bet that any book about heavy metal history that's worth its money mentions Judas Priest somewhere in there. Yes, because they are very-well known and have sold many albums; but more importantly because the bulk of their music itself is in majority straight in line with heavy metal music tradition. Similarly, compare Black Sabbath and Jethro Tull...who is a full-time heavy metal band and who simply dabbles with it occasionaly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph

Can someone please help this rewrite: "With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness."

I changed "overall loudness" to: "increased (above-average) acoustic decibel levels." which I thought was pretty straightforward, yet it was reverted by User: DCGeist with this notation: (rv nonidiomatic, awkward rewrite) But may I remind you Mr. DCguiest that we use encylopedic terms here, not idiomatic ones such as "overall loudness." Yes, my rewrite was a bit awkward, but it was by far less awkward than "overall loudness." The usage of these generic terms would not be advisable by any music scholar by any means... perhaps "frequency" would be a better word than "decibel." Nonetheless, I'm asking you editors to consider a better prossibility than "overall loudness"... (any type of music can be played loudly.) Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I have not reverted it yet, I'm reverting again, for now... but I would like someone to help with this, thank you... Wolfpeaceful (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Loudness is a perfectly clear, understandable word, appropriate for the lede of an article on a general interest topic in a way that "acoustic decibel levels" is simply not. I do not argue that the current phrasing is perfect or even close to it, but it is superior to the current proposed alternative. I'm happy to work on improving it here—until that happens, I'm restoring the long-standing language.—DCGeist (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree; acoustically, "loudness" is a concept related to, but separable from, "decibel levels". However, the non-expert reader would not know this, and we are here to communicate ideas to our readers. "Acoustic decibel levels", although technically correct, perhaps, is a barbarism and should be deprecated unless we are to enter into a purely technical analysis of heavy metal. "Loud" is, in my view, a more than ample word to describe typical heavy metal. "Overall", as pointed out above, adds nothing. Metallica are sourced as as heavy metal, but in no way are "overall" loud; some of their tracks (as are those of Led Zeppelin) are loud- but some aren't. A jejune argument, IMO. Rodhullandemu 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to decibels and frequency in relation to music is not a barbarism (linguistics)... since music deals with sound... and those are academic terms related to features of sound. I disagree that "loudness" is truly conveying the intended conotation here... Rock and Roll has "overall loudness"... anyone blaring their speakers with Rap music has "overall loudness..."... With the above proposed (or perhaps even something better) phraseology you are referring specifically to what gives Heavy Metal its unique "Overall loud" sound. Also, as being an experienced and published writer, "write for the intellectual, but uninformed reader." {Yes, I realize to relay information to the layman, but simeteonously this is NOT the "Simple English" article.} Or... perhaps its just better to omit this line altogether? Or perhaps we should copy the Simple English: "Heavy metal songs are loud and powerful-sounding, and have strong rhythms that are repeated."70.61.247.31 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think our article definitely supports the argument that loudness "truly convey[s] the intended conotation here". Of course, anything can be made loud—a polka can be excruciatingly loud if you turn the speakers up high enough. The point is that extreme loudness is a central, vital element of heavy metal, as our well-sourced main text explains:
In live performance, loudness—an "onslaught of sound," in sociologist Deena Weinstein's description—is considered vital.[2] In his book Metalheads, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett refers to heavy metal concerts as "the sensory equivalent of war."[3] Following the lead set by Jimi Hendrix, Cream and The Who, early heavy metal acts such as Blue Cheer set new benchmarks for volume. As Blue Cheer's Dick Peterson put it, "All we knew was we wanted more power."[4] A 1977 review of a Motörhead concert noted how "excessive volume in particular figured into the band’s impact."[5] Weinstein makes the case that in the same way that melody is the main element of pop and rhythm is the main focus of house music, powerful sound, timbre, and volume are the key elements of metal. She argues that the loudness is designed to "sweep the listener into the sound" and to provide a "shot of youthful vitality."[2]
I don't love our current use of "overall" in the lede. I suggest the phrase be changed to "extreme loudness", a characterization that is, again, well supported by the main text. Of course, extreme loudness is not a universal characteristic of heavy metal (I don't believe there are any applicable universals), but it is a general and iconic one.—DCGeist (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Touchy subject here, how about trying the phrasing...loud dynamics? As a lot of heavy metal plays its loud parts by setting up "light and shade"... "tension and release", "start stop rythms" etc. Constant, unrelenting loudness is more a general trait of punk rock, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Degree of synonymity

I just noticed the article has a tag reading "Note: Do not add "hard rock" here. As described in article, "heavy metal" and "hard rock" were synonymous for a decade—one did not precede the other." I disagree with this, and feel that use of the term (heavy metal) throughout the '70s was largely consistent with modern standards, and much of the crossing of "hard rock" and "heavy metal" very probably arose from the fact that many hard rock bands of the time did a few metal songs. There are even exceptions to this (particularly ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foghat, and Meat Loaf). I'd also like to note that there obviously was hard rock before there was heavy metal (though I'm not absolute on whether or not Cream, Hendrix, and certain Kinks songs were considered such at the time), and early metal and hard rock/heavy metal acts were influenced by it. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, when the terms came out doesn't matter since the music had already been established. And I also believe acid rock should be in the box since it was the heaviest form of psychedelia. RG (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the sources establish that the terms were used interchangeably back then. Hell, at times it was called "heavy metal rock". Also, there's the problem that "hard rock" has long been a vague term for any rock band with a "hard" sound, be they punk, metal, or certain strands of alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
When do the sources actually say that? I'm quite aware of the term "heavy metal rock," and have heard it used. From my understanding, it refers to heavy metal. If "hard rock" is vague in any sense other than its direct relation to metal, it's because of its use as an umbrella term, which I suspect is only partially connected to hard rock as a genre in-and-of itself. There are bands that play 'hard' (riff driven, aggressive) forms of rock, but aren't necessarily straight hard rock. After a brief failed attempt to discover when the term 'hard rock' was coined, I've only found that it's been around since at least January 1970, so as of yet I can't knowingly make the argument that 'hard rock' was a term existing longer than 'heavy metal.' However, I can point out that you didn't address one of my previous observations. If they were synonymous, why were certain hard rock artists seldom referred to as heavy metal? (Albert Mond (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
Define hard rock artists first of all. It's really difficult to. "Hard rock" is too vague to really be useful as a genre term, while heavy metal is very well-defined. That's why we can't list it as an influence; every other band with a distorted guitar tone has been called "hard rock" at one time or another. It's almost meaningless from a scholary standpoint. In contrast, the body of the article emphasizes that the genre evolved directly from blues rock and psychedelia. By the way, there's an incline citation in the article at the point where it says metal and hard rock were synonymous. The important part about the invisible note is the "established in the article part". It's all there. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to produce reliable secondary sources, because the article lays it out with such sources.WesleyDodds (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
""Hard rock" is too vague to really be useful as a genre term, while heavy metal is very well-defined." Now you seem to be pulling my leg. There are tons of things that fall under 'heavy metal,' and what constitutes metal is a matter of constant internet debate. Actually, I'd be willing to bet that most debate over what constitutes hard rock (and I doubt there's very much) arises from debate over metal. Actually, there are sub-genres of heavy metal that are still more vague than 'hard rock'. Look at the range of Avant-Garde metal, metalcore, and alternative metal (though Avant-Garde metal is an umbrella term). 'Hard rock' has two different meanings. One is a specific type of hard, riff-driven, rock originating in the late '50s and early '60s. The other is a popular umbrella term covering any genre which utilizes 'hard' rocking, though there is the prominent belief among some music journalists that grunge, punk, and the like are subgenres of hard rock. Anyhow, just because the words sound the same doesn't mean they're the same thing. I'd also like to add (again) that many '70s hard rock artists played some metal songs, and most '70s heavy metal bands played at least some hard rock songs. First things last, a hard rock artist is an artist one of whom's primary genres is hard rock. (Albert Mond (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC))
"Constant internet debate" is irrelevant here. Only reliable secondary sources matter. Unless you have some to back up your assertions, this discussion is a dead end. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wesley, I believe the loose sarcasm in that statement was fairly clear. I'm debating this with you right now to convince you of my point, which is very relevant since we are both editors, and that ultimately has more effect on the article than sources (which can be meager and show personal opinions) do. I've never seen what makes 'hard rock' debated, except in the context of whether a song or band is 'metal' or 'hard rock' during metal discussions. I've seen multiple 'reliable' sources show different views on what constitutes metal, as well. Do you have any actual sources backing up the idea that hard rock is not a real genre (if that's what you're saying)? Anyway, the oldest news article Google could find which refers to 'hard rock' (yes, that's the genre, not the geological term) is from 1966: "Hard Rock Stones Sweet Sound of Monterey Festival". Unfortunately, it's a Pay-Per-View, and I can only get the title and first line, though these are clear enough to illustrate my point. The earliest article Google could find for 'heavy metal' relating to music is from 1970: In Crystal River. This article contains a line reading "...and a rock group from Crystal River called Heavy Metal Thunders." I'm assuming both terms have been used earlier than that, but I think this still illustrates something. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia itself lists one of The Jimi Hendrix Experience's primary genres as hard rock, but does not list heavy metal. And, no, I'm not using Wiki as a source for a Wiki article, so please don't go bringing that up. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
Now you're engaging in original research by comparing when the terms show up in articles you can find. That's not acceptable. It's simple; find reliable sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying they were fully synonymous is a much, much more drastic claim than what I was saying. We also have a source used in this article saying that calling AC/DC heavy metal was as "wrong then as it is now," or something to that effect. How many sources do you have saying the terms were synonymous? (Albert Mond (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Sourcing Gold

Found a pretty well-done article from 1979 covering multiple genres of rock (heavy metal being very much among them). If anyone wants to use it, | here it is. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC))

Black Sabbath

This article will never be good or accurate as long as it has one fundamental error: Black Sabbath. They're gravely underappreciated here. They practically single-handedly created this genre, light-years away from Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, playing slow and detuned, discarding the blues-influence before Judas Priest (Master of Reality, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, Vol 4). They should get their own paragraph in the very beginning. Less focus on magazine lists! This is a serious encyclopedia!Revan ltrl (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that Blue Cheer was doing similar stuff in the '60s. Zeppelin had at least one slow, doomy song in the '60s. Gillan's screaming and Blackmore's classical-inspired riffs were easily as ahead-of-their-time as Sabbath's gloom, doom and occult-ish themes. I've heard the whole 'Sabbath discarded the blues' thing before, and I don't really see it. Most of their stuff until the '80s is still very much bluesy. (Albert Mond (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
Agreed. Popular discourse elevates Sabbath's importance to the detriment of their contemporaries, when even a basic review of the most important and in-depth sources on metal establish that Sabbath wasn't the sole progenitor of metal, and they weren't as unique as some believe them to be. Sabbath is great, sure, but they didn't single handedly invent metal, a fallacy which has been floating around for about the last decade. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Compared to other genres' evolutions Black Sabbath are gravely underrated, and you both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary. Blue Cheer? Led Zeppelin did one doomy song in the 60s? It can't hold a candle to "Black Sabbath" or anything from "Master Of Reality". I don't know why you persist, if you can't see how they discarded blues... well, please do listen to the albums I mentioned, among them "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", and tell me that you notive the slightest blues in it. I say that no band even touched Sabbath's importance, even in doing "similar stuff" around that time. Sabbath deserve their own paragraph in the introduction.Revan ltrl (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"You both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary". Have you read the article? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Have you read wikipedia's article on Black Sabbath? There's plenty of sources there that back my thesis up. Btw, your smug comment on OK Computer's discussion page needs elaboration.Revan ltrl (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that article has something about some critics saying they were probably the most influential or something or other like that. That was more opinion than anything else, utilized in the Sabbath article as an example of a prominent person's thoughts on the band. I've heard most (if not all) of the songs on Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and own copies of Sabbath's first three albums. What puzzles me is how you've apparently heard Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, but managed to miss the blatantly bluesy "Sabbra Cadabra," and to a lesser extent the heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
Also, lack of a blues influence doesn't define metal, given metal emerged out of blues rock. Metal pre-NWOBHM had a sizable blues influence, and even after that. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know, but these articles are about music, not rocket science; something you can't scrape down on paper, in figures. Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike? I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing. You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention. So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano. Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing? That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album. About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary. The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'. I'll take into consideration that you dedicated editors are dismissive to the flaws of this ugly side of wikipedia, but who decides this anyway?Revan ltrl (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know,"
Alright, let me go read that section again.
"Black Sabbath are arguably the most influential heavy metal band of all time. The band helped to create the genre with ground breaking releases such as Paranoid, an album that Rolling Stone magazine said "changed music forever", and called the band "the Beatles of heavy metal"."
This paragraph is rightfully phrased as representation of an opinion. In fact, in the next sentence, it mentions that Time Magazine called Paranoid the "birthplace of heavy metal," which is pure hype.
"Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike?"
That was oddly phrased. If you're saying what I think you're saying, then no. It is also not common knowledge that Sabbath "invented" metal; that is simply incorrect, and at best a common misconception.
"I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing."
I disagree with your opinion on my credibility. What's more, you've provided more attacks than you have actual arguments, here, and all to defend an entirely unreasonable claim.
"You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention."
I predicted your prediction of my comment. I'm not sure how this is relevant.
"So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano."
Then it would be wrong to say that Rick Wakeman took the blues out of progressive rock.
"Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing?"
Yes. I did. I also noticed the organ on "Children of the Grave," and the harmonica on "The Wizard." How nifty.
"That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album."
Actually, by that same logic Uriah Heep's debut would be the first progressive metal album. Frankly, I think actually classifying the album itself (Sabbath Bloody Sabbath) as "progressive metal" is rather drastic, despite the current state of Wiki's article on it.
"About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary."
Not crap, truth. I'll admit it has less than the Sabbath albums before it, but it still very much holds onto the blues.
"The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'."
Sabbath Bloody Sabbath discards blues about as much as Houses of the Holy. Actually, that's an exaggeration. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Wow, how insulting... Albert? What you want to prove with this outburst is confusing; what you do try to achieve, seemingly, is dismissing practically everything that backs my statement; be it magazines, reviews, general "misconception" or wikipedia-articles. And how do you manage this? How do you know Black Sabbath's importance is false, a myth? You just know it, do you? OK then, let me roll over on my back, defeated. I'm overwhelmed. But seriously, once again you prove nothing in your rambles, mr omniscience. Your rhetorics are as shallow as earlier, though more desperate in the unnecessary quoting. Nice try at patronizing. Black Sabbath should still have their own paragraph, and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is still not bluesy. I know it. And yeah, it is an exaggeration saying that Houses of the Holy discards blues as much as Sabbath Bloody Sabbath! And saying it's a "truth" (another smug dismissal, or possibly hubris?) that Sabbath Bloddy Sabbath is blues is just another example of your desperation. Cool it, Albert. Revan (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I never once said Sabbath's importance was "false." I believe them to be extremely important. However, so were the other groups mentioned. Saying that Sabbath single-handedly invented metal is hype, and about as correct as saying Zeppelin or Deep Purple single-handedly invented metal. I've never seen any popular consensus that Sabbath "invented" metal. I've spoken to about as many people who think that as think Sabbath was never metal at all. I'm so sorry that I tried to be comprehensive when responding to you. Perhaps next time I'll simply ignore you instead of quoting you, and providing sources for your argument. I don't recall ever saying that Sabbath Bloody Sabbath was a "blues" album. It's funny that you should mention the "truth" comment, though. It struck me as desperate that you simply disregarded my comment on the blatant blues elements of that album as "crap" and accused me of knowingly giving a false argument. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately for some of the above comments, it isn't up to us, because that would be original research. Wikipedia is not a gladiatorial venue for sorting out personal prejudices, however much it sometimes seems to be like that. We should report what reliable sources have already stated, and leave it at that. If there is difference between those sources, we report both and leave it up to our readers to make up their own minds. What we do not do is seek to force them into following our own interpretations; that's one of the major historical criticisms of Encyclopedia Britannica, and one that we should be able to rise above. It's not that we're actually short of multiple sources here. Rodhullandemu 00:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The article is currently an accurate reflection of how Black Sabbath is viewed by sources on the genre, and I see no reason to change that. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You obviously feel offended. Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say? You keep saying that Sabbath didn't invent it singlehandedly; I mentioned it once initially, but my point kept being that they need their own paragraph due to their importance, which is greater than Zeppelin's and Purple's. What this article needs, apparently, is an empirical study on the matter or something like that. Not our opinions, or what we think is an elevated, false, bloated misconception. I said that your blues comments were crap because I really, genuinely think they are. And I wouldn't say I'm out of line, I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics. Well, I assure you, many agree with me. And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous, but everyone's entitled to their opion, just like Radiohead are to their lousy musical tastes. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics." You do not count as a reliable source. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
"Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say?"
I don't. I don't really spend much time thinking about what you care about. However, I do care -to some degree- about presenting an actual argument. If you want paragraphs about Sabbath at the beginning of an article, go to the Black Sabbath article. This article is about heavy metal in general, and saying Sabbath is more important than Zeppelin and Deep Purple is utterly unverifiable. What's more, anyone could easily shoot that argument down by pointing out that Zeppelin was doing it before Sabbath, and had even more commercial success. Deep Purple's Ritchie Blackmore was as important to neo-classical and progressive metal as Iommi was to doom and stoner metal. I too am a musician, though I admittedly doubt that I'm as studied as you say you are. Neither that, nor the "friends and teachers" thing are particularly relevant here, however, as you still only seem to be talking about personal opinion. I have a few friends who I expect know more about music-on-paper than I do (I mostly play by ear) and I'd be glad to ask them about this.
"And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous,"
And yet it's a common enough opinion. I think that saying Zeppelin isn't metal is kind of outrageous, too. Not as outrageous to me as saying Sabbath aren't, but that's primarily because -as historically and musically questionable as it is- the 'Zeppelin aren't/weren't metal' thing is common enough to be taken seriously in the common mind. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

The subtle insults are dearly noted, and your complete resignation to sounding and thinking like androids is either frightening or impressive, though undoubtedly a result of the devotion put into this second hand source page. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Albert. Amuse me. Name one bluesy part in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Wakeman's piano licks don't count, because the background isn't blues. Shouldn't be so hard, you being a musician, as well. Revan (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the album itself, I already did. What's more, I contacted one of my more studied friends, and they very much agreed with my sentiment. If you're talking about the title track, all of the softer parts, instrumental breaks and the verse at the end starting with "Where can you run to" contain very clear blues influence. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

I have to disagree on that, Albert. It seems both you and your friends are amateur musicians. The softer parts are soft; neither the chord progressions, the song melodies, the guitar licks, or anything, contain any clear blues influences. They contain no blues influences at all, basically, and your already stated example is, as said, very poor. The soft parts can be compared to the soft parts of an Opeth or Tool song (both bands two prominent prog metal bands, heavily influenced by Sabbath and especially this album with its innovative heavy/soft approach), which, also, hold no blues influences. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, guys, this is an idea of what I mean: Traditional heavy metal. Notice how it says kind of exactly what I said. Just found it. Sabbath discarded blues. You: wrong. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Read it before. Actually, I've linked it before. Hell, I was in the discussion on that page February of last year. Halford's opinion is represented as an opinion in that article and he also contradicted it when he said "I'd like to feel that everyone would recognize that Judas Priest was the first true heavy metal band. I think there is a special attachment to Judas Priest and metal. We were the first band to really go out and claim ourselves to be a real metal band." The Sam Dunn claim is inconsistent with his somewhat notorious "Definitive Metal Family Tree." ((Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Albert! You cursed! I've been addressed by the wikipedian authorities for less, you know! Are you supposed to be an experienced wikipedia editor? What about the link you, uh, linked? Isn't that an example of a source you and that Odd guy so desperately further? Is the link you, uh, linked the source for the 'Judas Priest discarding blues' passage in this article? If it is, or if the source is a similar one, it only takes the very same guy stating that Sabbath was the first heavy metal band to, you know, erase the fact that Judas Priest were it! Basic maths, maths this second hand source page needs, maths that makes music pages in this site look like jokes. Revan ltrl (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabbath weren't bluesy? Sure I guess that explains this and the rest of their first album which came straight out of the Cream school of slow, English blues. RG (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I apologize. I wasn't aware "hell" was still considered a serious swear, let alone in a non-threatening context. Who is "that Odd guy"? Also, what do you mean by "further"? It's CNN. It's reliable under any circumstance pertaining to this website. I can make absolutely no sense of those last bits. Halford and Dunn's opinions were used as a reference to depict a certain viewpoint in the Traditional Heavy Metal article. However, anyone can see quite easily that neither has shown consistent support for the "Sabbath was the first metal band" belief. No, it's not the source. The statement about Priest is already sourced. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

RG, your comment is a butterfly's wing beat proving the butterfly effect wrong. I know all of Sabbath's albums with Ozzy by heart, and I have never dismissed their blues influences in their first album, nor in "Paranoid" (I can link "Hand of Doom", if you like). And talking about their first album; the opening title track, named after the self-titled debut, is enough to make it clear to everyone that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal. What is the mention of Judas Priest referring to, anyway? An album? A song? A riff? Black Sabbath did all of those things way before Priest did; I was mainly referring to their fifth album "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", which, I strongly state, has no blues influences, hence, discarding blues in heavy metal before Judas Priest, which this article falsely states. And that is the point of why I initiated this discussion, and that's what Albert and Odd oppose in lack of professors definitive opinions on the matter. You'd know if you'd read the whole argument, but I understand why you haven't (this is where you debate with yourself whether you should confess or not that you actually have read the whole discussion).

Albert, the Odd guy is WesleyOdd, whom you assisted in this, our, argument. And, as I said, Albert, I have been addressed by the authorities because of less; I guess your self-exculpation gives me free rein in non-threatening usage of swear words. And since you've already so profoundly called me 'evil', what's to stop me? Revan ltrl (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I already proved why Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is bluesy. The first track of Black Sabbath I would give you. However, that'd be like calling "Stairway to Heaven" a folk rock song. "Black Sabbath"'s final verses are very clear in their blues influence. The user's name is WesleyDodds. You just show me when I called you "evil." Oh. And you already used "crap." If you really are eight years old and get offended by "hell," I don't see why you should be so quick to use that one. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

You've proved shit, Albert. And if you think you have, you are sadly mistaken. I have already remarked on your less knowledgeable status as a musician which is clearly visible; the final verses of "Black Sabbath" are in a minor scale and not bluesy in any way, but since you see them as blues, I kind of get where you're coming from. Basically everything that's played in a minor pentatonic scale (the final verses are in natural minor, the common minor scale, which is used by guys like Beethoven, for example) is blues to you, and that's a very amateur approach, I must say. And I didn't get offended one bit by you swearing, I just satirized wikipedian policy.

And Led Zeppelin are often called folk rock! I would definitely call their fourth album more folk rock than heavy metal, and I'm not only referring to "Stairway To Heaven", but also to "The Battle of Evermore" and "Going To California"; three folk rock songs against zero heavy metal songs clarify.

Your 'evil' mention was on the discussion further down, by the way, and no, I wasn't offended by that, either. Revan ltrl (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I never called having blues influence "blues." Iommi has been very public about influence from Clapton. What's more, the technique of verse Ozzy uses at the end of that song is very much bluesy. Why not go and prove that Blue Cheer's "Just a Little Bit," or Uriah Heep's "Gypsy" are bluesy? Zeppelin are often referred to as "heavy metal," too. Just last year, I picked up a newspaper about a classical group adapting Zeppelin songs. They took little time before asking what it was like to adapt "metal" music into classical. NPR had a special bit on metal maybe two-to-three years ago. First things they covered were Zeppelin and Sabbath. I don't recall ever chance encountering an article or bit on Zeppelin that didn't mention their importance to metal on that note. Then again, I honestly don't read/watch/listen to that much news. Actually, I don't even recall a "folk rock" reference.
Once again, you grossly misinterpreted something. Here's what I said:
"Instead of whining and accusing everybody else of attacking you and being wrong and being evil"
Should I have put commas somewhere? If it's a grammatical mistake on my part, then my bad. I was saying that you were accusing everybody else of attacking you, being wrong and being evil. No, I didn't once call you "evil."
Dodds, is that what it looked like? (Albert Mond (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

You clearly have your own criteria about what is 'bluesy'. The article is flawed. I don't know, your sentence maybe could have been better composed, but I get the meaning now. And I disagree; I don't think everyone's evil and accuse everyone, I just think wikipedia editors, in general, develop tunnel vision, arrogance, and the emotional spectrum of an android. Don't take it personally, that needn't apply to you. I also wouldn't call "Gypsy" or "Paranoid" bluesy; it takes more than the interval of a minor third to make something blues. I'm thinking chords (the blues 12), for example. Blues didn't invent the minor scale. My strong siding with Sabbath might look like I dismiss Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, but I don't. I think "Physical Graffiti" is very heavy in a very metal way, and it is one of my favorite albums. But I definitely don't think they are as important as Sabbath in that genre. They work as influence, because they're a bigger band, but without Sabbath, bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer wouldn't see the light of day. The article is weak. Revan ltrl (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in introduction

The paragraph where Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin are mentioned as pioneers of the genre is invalid; it states that all three bands were reviled by critics. First off, Deep Purple met indifference in their start, which is not the same as being reviled, which their albums never were. With their success that followed in the U.S., they were, however, acclaimed.

Secondly, Led Zeppelin never met criticism like that of Black Sabbath; Zeppelin were, instead, criticized for not being as good as, according to Rolling Stone in the review of their first album, like The Jeff Beck Group, and Robert Plant was compared condescendingly to Rod Stewart. Basically, not the same kind of criticism Black Sabbath got.

Sabbath were persistently rejected until their fifth album (I dislike referring to wikipedia articles, but this is backed by the articles for all their first five albums) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. The criticism was a direct result of their alien-sounding music, which clashed with the current, which was blues-inspired Hard rock, like Zeppelin, Purple, Iron Butterfly etc.

To conclude, the introduction falters and misleads, and should be rewritten more accurately. An idea is what this article does: Traditional heavy metal. Even though I fail to see the meaning of that article, and how it contradicts this one, it is more accurate in its depict of the musical interrelations of the early bands, with emphasis on Black Sabbath.. but hey, that's the case with a few 100,000 articles here on this second hand source page. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Grand Funk Railroad was even more reviled than Sabbath and was plenty bluesy. Zeppelin was certainly one of the most critically popular metal bands, but they certainly were met with negative criticism. The review of their debut you mentioned complements Page, but pretty much shows dislike towards everything else about the band. Moving on, Lester Bangs hurls similar criticisms at their third album. You may be right about Deep Purple's critical status, though.(Albert Mond (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
Traditional heavy metal primarily draws from two sources (one a foreign language source), so it's in no way indicative of all research available on metal. Also, I've long advocated that that page be redirected here (you don't have a "traditional punk rock" article, for comparison's sake), but the editors who work on that page have been staunchy against that in the past, even though it's more or less redundant to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You fail to see the essence of what I'm stating, Albert. Maybe Grand Funk Railroad were reviled because they never were any good? Thought of that? Even now, in retrospect, they aren't hailed or remembered as innovators, by anyone. There's a difference between 'plain suck'- and 'misunderstood genius'-criticism. Have fun dividing Railroad and Sabbath into the different categories. Same goes for Led Zeppelin III; it has always been seen as a relative downfall in the middle of Zeppelin II and Zeppelin IV, which were hailed from the start. And Zeppelin III's current five stars from Allmusicgiude (wikipedia's biggest misplaced trust) is pure hype, as we all know. I actually commented, just recently, on the Zeppelin article, where I criticized its overuse of reliance on Rolling Stone Magazine; it practically bases its whole introduction with hails from that tacky magazine that includes 20 Beatles albums in its top 10 of the greatest albums ever. Do I need to say that a smug-faced editor came and rejected everything with wikipedian policy and subtle insults that commented on my "regrettable" wikipedia history? Ha, guess not! Funny how you refer to Zeppelin as a 'metal band', Albert. And Jesus Christ Superstar is a metal opera.

About your advocacy, Odd. Good luck with that; seems it is the only thing you do here. What is it, advocating reliable research? You have little to say about music, on the other hand, which these articles are all about, but this is wikipedia, after all; we won't hear any jingles streaming out our speakers, haha!

Oh yeah, forgot. Check this out: Hard rock: which band is missing?? Revan ltrl (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Music quality is debatable and based only on opinion. I don't like the Beach Boys, but that doesn't mean they "never were any good". And Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band(musicians like Dave Mustaine, Mikael Åkerfeldt, Dee Snider, Scott Ian, and many others cite them as such), but they proved that they could be a little diverse and do folk, blues, some reggae and funk influences, etc., etc. RG (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Revan, Sabbath is listed on that page for hard rock. What's more, your dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is neither relevant, nor factual. It's odd that you should suddenly advocate the same critics who you so unreasonably revile for having described Zeppelin and other bands as 'metal.' Grand Funk is now often very highly regarded as an early hard rock group and influence to heavy metal music (which they were actually described as during their early years, by the way). Very few would say that Grand Funk was the smartest band ever or the most technically talented. Very few would say that about Sabbath, either. And ohmygawrsh! AllMusic Guide is a shoddy source, you say? Oh, the blasphemy! Everyone knows that AMG has an absolutely stunning track record, and isn't frequently met with disdain here at the ol' Wikifactory. As for music, I've already spoken as to why Sabbath is bluesy. I've also contacted one of my more studied friends (as I said above) and they agreed with me. I've provided sources, and as far as reliable sources go, saying Sabbath was the first is like saying the moon landing was a hoax. You can find just enough "reliable" sources to make it an afterthought. I think you fail to understand how Wikipedia works. I disagree with some things here, too. Instead of whining and accusing everybody else of attacking you and being wrong and being evil (hardly an exaggeration of what you've been doing practically since someone first disagreed with you, I frankly am tired of it) you could broadcast your musical knowledge (yes, I think you have musical knowledge, and I respect that) and opinions from a blog. You can even condemn Wiki, its methods and everybody in it from there. (Albert Mond (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC))

RG, you state certainties, except when you say that Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band. They have one foot in the hard rock genre, and the other in the blues genre, together with the influences you mention, and I would hesitantly include heavy metal among those influences, because none of their albums are actual heavy metal; they don't have it as an overhanging concept, but they do have heavy metal-ish (I'd say hard rock) songs in their albums, like "Whole Lotta Love" and "Immigrant Song". I am also aware of the differences in musicians' influences. Mikael Åkerfeldt's main influence in making Opeth's latest album "Watershed" were Scott Walker's The Drift, and The Zombie's Odessey & Oracle, two non-metal albums. Today I listened to Alice In Chains and Kate Bush. Revan ltrl (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You miss took what I said about bands citing them. The musicians I mentioned(I actually forgot to mention Sebastian Bach as well) not only cite Zeppelin as an influence, but have called Zep a metal band(Åkerfeldt called them a metal band here for instance.) I still stand by "Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band".RG (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're listed, but clearly as a parenthesis, whereas, not really accurate for further mentioning in that article. And my dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is plenty relevant and accurate. I've never heard of them, and neither have Black Sabbath, I'm sure. I don't know what your source is that they were called "heavy metal" back then in the 60s(!). It may be true or not, I choose to believe it another day when I see it myself, but I am more familiar with Sabbath's influences, and I've seen Ozzy on interview saying that "there was no such thing as heavy metal back then"; it was on a heavy metal documentary called "From Black Sabbath to System of a Down", outlining a timeline for heavy metal. It was quite MTV-flashy, but surprisingly accurate, and it mentioned how Black Sabbath were set aside bands like Zeppelin and Purple because of their very different style, and stressed their sole importance. This site: http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_metal-art.html also shows the same thing. I know it probably isn't a reliable source, but they're knowledgeable, whoever do these lists, even though, on most of the categories, they follow a cliché pattern. But the metal page is quite good, and closer to a general consensus is hard found; it's forum decided, but I know, no reliable source. I see Grand Funk Railroad on 11th place on the list of bands that influenced metal, after bands like Pink Floyd and The Doors.

You probably like them alot, but comparing them to Sabbath is just vain; many would call, and do, Black Sabbath one of the best rock bands through all times! Unlike GFR, in which you are right.

And yeah yeah, I don't know how wikipedia works and whatever, but I sure don't like it. AMG, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, whatever; really unstable platforms to base music articles on. Just saying. I don't like blogs, either, and I make more use condemning wikipedia here than on a petty blog. Revan ltrl (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sabbath's very clearly listed outside of parenthesis. You've honestly never heard of Grand Funk? They were absolutely massive. They actually were perceived as something of a threat by Zeppelin's manager in the late '60s. They had great sales, decent airplay with "Closer to Home," and a lot of airplay with "We're an American Band," massive shows (they were very much "arena rockers"), and have been even in recent years been used in films ("Sin's a Good Man's Brother" was in "Law Abiding Citizen"). Ozzy says Sabbath was the first metal group? Halford says Judas Priest was the first metal group? What's so unappealing about saying your band was the first metal group? As far as Grand Funk getting labeled with it, Don Brewer (their drummer) says ""We were a three-piece heavy metal kind of a band in the late '60s, early '70s." Ah, to rely on band members. How, honestly, were Deep Purple so much more blues-based than Sabbath in your eyes? Is "Burn" bluesier than "Children of the Grave"? Is "Highway Star" bluesier than "Paranoid"?
In all honesty, as heavily flawed as it is, I'd hardly say that AMG is any worse than the masses as far as music opinions go. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

Getting back to the original point, I think there is a problem in how the sentence infers that these specific bands were reviled by critics, when the point is supposed to be metal as a whole was derided. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ozzy said that "there was no such thing as 'heavy metal' back then"; he didn't say they were the first, but that the term didn't exist back then. It is very easy for someone like Don Brewer to say they were heavy metal in retrospect, though. No, I haven't heard of them. They might be grand in America, but I'm European, and not everyone makes it on both sides of the Atlantic. I looked them up when you mentioned them first, and they were what I expected; very similar to Zeppelin, very blues-influenced, and not heavy metal at all, but understandably influential, even if Sabbath never heard them. I don't disrespect them, but one can't really compare them with a band that's generally considered one of the best rock bands through all times. And Halford also says that Iommi "created the metal riff", as extra information.

Do you want my honest opinion when you ask about my view on Purple and Sabbath, or is it a rhetorical question? i don't remember saying that Deep Purple were bluesier than Sabbath. Actually, neither one of the bands were as bluesy as Zeppelin, I would say. Purple's dismissal of blues is clear, but blues is still ever-present in every album, and they don't take a clear step away from it like Sabbath does in "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Purple never were heavy metal album-wise before Sabbath, though, they were hard rock through and through. They became heavy metal first when David Coverdale became a member, in Burn, I would say. In the songs you mention, there is a standstill in the blues difference. Speaking of heavy metal, on the other hand, Sabbath has the advantage. "Sweet Leaf" is groundbreaking in a groundbreaking album; notice the riffing in between the verses, and the riffs after the guitar solo; they are but a taste of what is a norm in metal music from then on; the breaking of common scales, and heavy usage of alternative intervals, like semitones and the tritone. "Burn" came later, and is kind of metal, but made when the genre already was established by Sabbath. The other songs are a little more similar in heaviness, but it's important acknowledging that Paranoid is relatively light in Sabbath's music, while Highway Star is particularly heavy in Purple's. Purple has no candidate for comparison with War Pigs, for example.

I can't help but feel that your justification of AMG is extremely elitist. I can be, too, in music, but not when it comes to justifying a site where a person works as a reliable source, and the masses' opinions are dismissed as flies; it is the closest one comes to a general consensus. I understand how you find the masses' opinion resentful, but still, it's mainly a musician's prejudice.

As WesleyOdd says, about getting back to point. There's tons of musical evidence that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal, and I'm strongly pro that Sabbath are set aside Zeppelin and Purple in the article. Revan ltrl (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The term apparently did exist by that point (the first use by a critic according to this article was in 1968), though it seemingly (again, according to this article and its sources) wasn't used by a writer in a context (relatively) in line with its current until 1971 on Sir Lord Baltimore. As for Grand Funk, I kind of doubt that Sabbath never heard them (Grand Funk was actually covered by a South African group before 1973) but I guess that doesn't particularly matter. I agree that Sabbath and Deep Purple weren't as bluesy as Zeppelin, but I still don't think Sabbath takes a (very large) step away from those influences in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. I don't really think it started with Burn for Deep Purple. I think maybe anywhere from In Rock to Machine Head could have been it, though I think their '60s material was much more exclusively hard rock. "Highway Star" and "War Pigs" are kind of hard to compare in my opinion. They represent the foundation of different camps in metal. "Highway Star" is sort of the prototype for a lot of speed metal and flashy '80s stuff, while "War Pigs" was obviously very influential to a lot of the doom metal and 'stoner metal' material from the '70s (Pentagram, Bedemon) on.
As for my AMG comment, I guess I don't really think there is a unified opinion by the group I referred to (somewhat rudely I suppose) as "the masses," and AMG functions in a similar disorganized fashion, I think. Or something. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC))
For the record Sabbath even played shows with GFR, see 2:37. RG (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, looks like I was wrong about GFR, but I just spoke hypothetically and didn't really disrespect them. My respects to them, then. Let's look at the blues matter from another angle: what does Judas Priest sound like? I'm assuming this article credits their "discarding" of blues in their classic "British Steel" (another weakness is this article's vagueness), which is their sixth album? I don't think the preceding ones are really deemed as classics. I've heard "British Steel" several times, and, in my opinion, I don't think it strays from the blues one inch more than Black Sabbath. To the contrary, it's closer to blues than much of Sabbath's music, and definitely bluesier than "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Without source or clarity, this source states this and I don't know who the hell to ask for elaboration, and if I changed it, there would be hell to pay. I know Anthrax's drummer said exactly what the article says about Judas Priest, and he is just one hell of a source! Why not write that Iommi created the metal riff, as Halfrod says? Sabbath's discarding of blues is musical hard evidence, on the other hand, so I don't why anyone would oppose it so harshly. Important to acknowledge is the metal genre's norms, many of which were created by Sabbath. The norms follow Sabbath extensively, meaning artwork, song titles, lyrics, 'sound, and their music in general. Another point why they had superior superiority.

We've made it a matter of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple, about who was more influential, but my other point is a Sabbath-Priest comparison about blues-discarding. And it's hard evidence, basically, that Sabbath discarded it. Hell, "Fluff" is a Bach prelude for christ sakes! The songs' structures are as progressive as anything, and the riffing is nowhere near the blues scale. Listen to "Breaking the Law" from "British Steel"; total blues standard in comparison. Revan ltrl (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your article sucks you have no idea what you are talking about. Whale Biologist calls em likes I sees em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.136.87 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Annihilation?

In the lyric topics it mentions "Nuclear annihilation was addressed in later metal songs..." citing Iron Maiden's Two Minutes To Midnight

Black Sabbath's Electric Funeral was already speaking of the subject in 1970, and so was Flower Travellin' Band's Hiroshima in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, don't expect any less from this bullshit article. Revan ltrl (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

System of a Down as nu metal?

This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV, and has been ignoring repeated warnings against his behavior and referrals to sources which contradict the source he has been trying to push to back up his own opinion. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Note: I changed the section title per the Talk page guidelines. This user in the above post is WesleyDodds. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wesley is very experienced editor on rock music articles, with numerous Featured Articles in this area to his credit. If he uses System of a Down as an example of being against a trend, and such is sourced, I don't have a problem with that. What is not clear is why you think it's a problem, or a POV? Rodhullandemu 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Only the controversy over whether or not Wiki considers System of a Down nu metal, I think. Personally, I don't really consider them nu metal at this point, and our article on them lists them as alternative metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Well to me, as an old fart, this multiplicity of sub-sub-sub-genres is both divisive and unnecessary, since these terms seem to be created either by rock journalists, whom Frank Zappa once described as "people, who can't write, interviewing people, who can't talk, for people, who can't read.", or by the fans themselves in order to distinguish themselves from some other sub-sect. In either case, this isn't moving forward. Nuke the lot of them and put them under rock music, and only rock music. When I was at the Isle of Wight Festival 1970, whether it was Leonard Cohen, or Emerson, Lake and Palmer or Jimi Hendrix or Miles Davis, it was all rock music, and we didn't need to separate ourselves from each other using a cigarette paper. Jeez! Rodhullandemu 01:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This slow motion edit war is not improving the article. Might I suggest that a request for comment be filed? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV". No, I was was reverting to what the source said, per verifiability guidelines. I have no attachment to System of a Down or how they are classified. Also, Ibaranoff has not been assuming good faith with me, instead assuming that I had a POV agenda.

Now, as for sources. The MTV article cited describes SOAD as a nu metal band and provides a context for them within the genre. Furthermore, one of the primary metal histories used a source for the article, Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, describes them as nu metal as well, in a chapter largely devoted to nu metal (I just double checked the book this instant). Aside from that, many of the sources Ibaranoff points to at Talk:System of a Down are album/live reviews. Reviews aren't the same as histories or biographies; they are critical commentary/opinion, and do not have authoritative weight on the histories and biogrpahies cover, because that's not what they are intended to cover. They are criticism, not research. What Ibaranoff needs to provide is a reliable source (or several) that explain why System of a Down shouldn't be classified as nu metal; providing sources that simply don't say the words "nu metal" isn't the same thing. So far I only see one source that would classify as such, that being this. Also, the methodology used on Talk:System of a Down worries me. We don't determine article content by tallying how many times a phrase is or isn't mentioned in a handful of online articles (and that is a handful; that's nowhere near the amount of press coverage the band has had in its career). WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  • In any case, what a handful of rock journalists have said is beside the point, considering that progressive rock, art rock, experimental rock and alternative metal are used more often in relation to the band's music, and they have none of the musical elements associated with the term "nu metal". The guitarist even points out that he doesn't use the tuning style frequently associated with that term. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC))
    • You have pointed to at most seven sources on the band's talk page (out of, what, hundreds of sources available?), all of which are only web sources (no print has been considered), and most of which are useless because they are album reviews, or they are simply unreliable. Additionally, that talk page failed to take into account two reliable sources listed here. Also, the artists themselves are not considered objective sources for determing genre. There is no sound argument to back the assertion that "progressive rock, art rock, experimental rock and alternative metal are used more often in relation to the band's music". WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"In any case, what a handful of rock journalists have said is beside the point,"
I must disagree. As you probably know, Wiki is based on reliable sources, and journalists are very important in that. What the guitarist thinks doesn't matter much here. It's significant, but what an artist thinks of their own music isn't always reliable. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
Rock journalists are not. They are very low on the writers scheme. Even individuals who were once rock journalists themselves, such as Matt Groening, admit that rock journalists are bottom of the barrel in the journalism world. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC))
That's ridiculous. Rock journalists are hardly any more sensationalist or absurd than any other type of popular music journalist, or even journalists on the whole. There are good journalists, there are bad journalists, and there are journalists in between. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC))
I think Frank Zappa summed up rock journalists perfectly. And the application of "nu metal" does not make sense in reference to System of a Down. (Sugar Bear (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC))
You have not supported this notion adequately. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Wesley, I clearly addressed the issue here. There is no need to include a specific band just because one source (MTV, a commercial source, whose purpose is to increase album sales) includes this band, when dozens of sources discredit the application of this term, and when the article for the term uses musical phrases that have nothing to do with the style of music that this band actually performs. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
It seems to me that Mr.Ibaranoff just doesn't like the term "nu metal." The term is not meant to be offensive or an insult to a band. It's merely a correct label to describe a certain style. And he has removed it even when it sourced for artists like Kid rock and RATM. Saying that we are the ones pushing POV is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. RG (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Use of "nu metal" on System of a Down is dubious, though. Kid Rock and RATM are really more rap metal, and in their cases I think editor's opinion weighs pretty strongly. I think if Wesley's really intent on including that bit, we can just compromise and say "some bands associated with nu metal," which System of a Down inarguably were, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. That of course, is sensitive enough terminology as to not state that they are or aren't "nu metal."(Albert Mond (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC))
I'm not arguing based on my own POV. When it's adequately sourced, I leave it, even though I personally feel that the term is nonsense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC))
"I'm not arguing based on my own POV" Really? The only band to my knowledge whose page you have edited and you haven't tried to remove the nu metal label from is Slipknot(correct me if I'm wrong). You have even excluded nu metal from that rap rock template you made despite the fact that most of these groups used rap. And I'm sorry people, but there is no way that Kid Rock's late '90s material wasn't nu metal. Regardless I believe changing the wording to "associated" is fair enough. RG (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that Ibaranoff's POV is playing a large part in his disagreement. However, I don't think saying "associated" is acceptable, because the reliable sources outright say System of a Down is of the nu metal genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
RG, you have been warned repeatedly about this. Your post clearly shows that your edits are based on your opinion and your opinion alone. You have absolutely zero separation between rap rock and nu metal. Rapping over hard rock does not guarantee automatic placement as "nu metal", despite your personal opinion on the matter. Accusing me of doing something that you're clearly doing is completely irresponsible on your part. What an article says about any given band should not reflect a single source when other sources contradict that source. The fact that I have an argument that isn't "this band is such and such genre because I say so" clearly shows that I am not editing based on personal opinion. I clearly stated on the Kid Rock page that I have no opinion on his music. Why do you care so much that the infobox for that page include a genre based on a single album that you can't even find sources for stating that that genre should be applied for, and that there sources discrediting the use of the term? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
As long as we're trying to jump to conclusions based on another's edits, maybe I should point out that RG isn't too particular about the sources which he uses to back up placement in whatever heavy metal-related genre he chooses? This is a travel site. It is not a reliable source for the biography of the band Velvet Revolver. RG's argument? "It's sourced". (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
Well it's is likely that I'm going to be banned for a while, but I've have apologized to you when I was rude Ibaranoff several times. And on the Velvet Revolver thing well I honestly didn't know that it was an unreliable source. Wouldn't this have been better off put on my talk page instead of on the page for a major article? RG (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we don't need more discussion about editors themselves. Let's all stick to the topic at hand. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Wesley, I've stated before that there doesn't actually need to be a band cited in order for that citation's use to be acceptable, especially when this band is not generally considered to be "nu metal". (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
By "generally considered" what do you mean? There's hardly any consensus (journalistic or otherwise) that SOAD isn't nu metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC))
I think there clearly is. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
I'm sure that's actually why 6 sources on the list of nu metal bands page and also an issue of Guitar World specifically cite them as a nu metal band. A majority of sources points to them being a nu metal band. RG (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no. And several more sources state that they are not nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Two sources vs. well now 8. A clear majority of sources points to them fitting this label. RG (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no. It does not work that way. The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal. Your overwhelming attempts at POV pushing have got to stop. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
The phrasing of the source Rockgenre provided isn't really clear either way, although from the context the author seems to be arguing that System of a Down is an atypical nu metal band, not that they aren't nu metal. Also Ibranoff, if you are going to keeping insisting "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal", you need to provide those sources so they can be evaluated. So far I've only seen one legitmate source that argues that the band isn't nu metal on this page, when I and Rockgenre have provided several that say that they are, one of which is one of the major sources used for this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't buy MTV as a source. It's like using Amazon.com or Best Buy as a source. It's hard to be 100% neutral when you're trying to sell product. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC))
MTV is not selling anything, particularly in that article, which is a news piece. The MTV news department is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV exists purely to sell product. They are best known, programming-wise, for airing promotional videos for artists on major labels. I don't think that makes them a neutral source for sourcing band genres. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
As opposed to what? Rolling Stone Magazine? I somewhat doubt MTV is as concerned with selling artists as it is with getting ratings and selling its own products. (Albert Mond (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC))
"They are best known, programming-wise, for airing promotional videos for artists on major labels." Ever seen 120 Minutes? Also, they've aired everything from reality shows to news programming, documentaries, and election coverage. You can't argue that MTV's news department isn't a reliable source, because it is considered so on Wikipedia, and the source cited here is a news piece on nu metal. Now to return to the original point: got any sources to back up your assertion that "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal"? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
MTV exists purely for the purpose of crass commercialism. Nearly everything it has ever aired is a promotion for an album or single. It's an advertising network, not an authority on music genres. And the sources clearly do not show SOAD as a nu metal band. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC))
Out of curiosity, are you at any stage going to find the sources that back up the assertion "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal" or can we disregard that as bluster? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted the sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC))
Can you repost them? WesleyDodds (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
We should change the sentence back to the way it was seeing that the idea of SOAD not being nu metal is a minority. RG (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't. And it is a minority. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
You're the only one here who has a problem with the sentence, and you haven't adequately backed up your point. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I still disagree with the claim that System of a Down is nu metal. Just less so. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
Ok then. Then we just need to establish that "The sources clearly state that they are not nu metal", which seems to be the main argument against the sentence. So far I haven't seen anything convincing to back that up, and Ibranoff/Sugar Bear hasn't been forthcoming when we ask him. Can you find material to back up his argument? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't really care that much. They're obviously associated with nu metal by a good number of people. I think that much is hard to deny, and impossible to deny effectively. I think the best chance here to get the 'nu metal' sentence removed would be if there was an editorial consensus that SOAD isn't nu metal. (Albert Mond (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC))
It certainly looks to me like the consensus in terms of cites says nu-metal. In terms of personal interpretation, I would say their older work is more clearly nu-metal, but I'd still call them nu-metal these days. As is always the case in these nth degree subgenres, there's more than just a little personal interpretation involved. Random name (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The consensus is in favor of everything but "nu metal", considering the overall brevity of sources. And your opinion does not count. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC))
I see no consensus to support that assertion. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
On this talk page, and at Talk:System of a Down, there is clearly a consensus. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC))
This is incorrect, particulary since we have asked you repeatedly to back up your assertions with evidence and you have refused. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is incorrect. I have repeatedly provided sources which you have ignored. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

System of a Down is alternative metal which is a subgenre of nu metal. Saying System of a Down is alternative metal and not nu metal is like saying Limp Bizkit is rap metal instead of nu metal. Nu metal is just an umbrella term used to describe all metal bands that add elements of alternative or rap music to their music. Metalfan72 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Metal lyrics

Do we have any recent sources for this? Jon Pareles' 1988 quote doesn't describe much of the successful metal of the 2000s. The Priest lyrics incident should definitely be covered, but is it really representative of attitudes towards metal today? Something about problems between metal and various religious organisations might be more useful here - black metal fans burning churches for example.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

aerosmith

someone should add the band aerosmith or at least "back in the saddle" cauz thats defiinetly metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.19.46 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

aerosmith is definitely and absolutely not metal at all ,but glam rock ,only people born in the 18th century would consider them as heavy!Val hallen (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes go to the wiki site glam rock,aeorosmith is not metal,metal is Megadeth,Metallica,Pantera,Black Sabbath,and Black Label Society.

Changing the title of the article

This article is called heavy metal music,however,it talks about metal in general,so I think the title should be changed to "Metal music",as the term "heavy metal" refers to bands such as Sabbath,Maiden,Priest,Motorhead,Saxon,Manowar,Accept and other traditional metal bands,and all of them have heavy metal listed as their genre,yet cases where this could be applied as an umbrella term are pretty rare. The Great Duck (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree. While 'heavy metal' itself is used to refer to the traditional style (along with 'traditional metal' and 'traditional heavy metal,' of course), it's also still used as an umbrella term in the same way as 'metal.' (Albert Mond (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC))
Just "metal music" would be more accurate,IMHO,one of the reasons being the traditional metal bands having "heavy metal" and not "traditional metal" listed as their genre,and its not like say Iron Maiden or Dio played glam,heavy,prog,power,thrash,black,doom,gothic and death at the same time.

78.3.126.90 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be called metal music instead of heavy metal music. Heavy metal and metal are both used as titles of the whole genre but heavy metal also refers to traditional heavy metal while metal only refers the overall genre. I also don't think someone who listens to only death metal and black metal would refer to their music as heavy metal. Metalfan72 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic describe related genres of "heavy metal" to be "Hard Rock, Hardcore Punk, Grunge, Arena Rock, and Album Rock". They do not seem to recognise a separate brand of "metal", although if search style for "metal", you get a list of various sub-genres, "funk metal", "rap-metal", etc. So if there is an overall genre called "metal" distinct from "heavy metal", I don't think it exists except as a shorthand for "heavy metal", which has been around as a term since 1968/69. Rodhullandemu 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick google books search suggest the term "metal music" is rarely (if ever) used in isolation and "heavy metal" or "heavy metal music" is used frequently in the literature.--SabreBD (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Then what subgenre would be used to classify bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio and Black Label Society who play heavy metal that does not fit into any other subgenre? Metalfan72 (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Traditional heavy metal" if you really, really want to avoid any potential confusion. "Heavy metal" works too, but "heavy metal" as an umbrella and "heavy metal" as traditional metal are two different things. It's a matter of context. (Albert Mond (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC))
  1. ^ [Review of Watershed by Tommy, Revelationz Magazine]http://www.revelationz.net/index.asp?ID=2621
  2. ^ a b Weinstein (2000), p. 23
  3. ^ Arnett (1996), p. 14
  4. ^ Walser (1993), p. 9
  5. ^ Paul Sutcliffe quoted in Waksman, Steve. "Metal, Punk, and Motörhead: Generic Crossover in the Heart of the Punk Explosion". Echo: A Music-Centered Journal 6.2 (Fall 2004). Retrieved on November 15, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heavy_metal_music/Archive_6&oldid=942240673"