Talk:Industrial metal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page needs a lot of editing but I think that it's stupid that Industrial metal didn't have it's own article. If you want to delete something discuss it here first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.156.151 (talk) 22:18, 6 August, 2005 (UTC)

"Extensively followed by dedicated fans throughout the world." doesn't really mention anything about how mainstream it is, just that the fans are dedicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.62.210 (talk) 22:24, 15 August, 2005 (UCT)

Yes, I agree, but this isn't the page to talk about it, try the "Heavy Metal" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.66.47.149 (talk) 14:43, 19 August, 2005 (UCT)

I've added a bunch of bands that were not on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.144.11 (talk) 1:24, 1 October, 2005 (UCT)

Malhavoc?

Should these guys be in the innovators section? According to their webpage, they were making industrial-metal in the mid-80s, but since they didn’t have an official release until the 90s, it seems like they weren't particularly influential. Personally, I've never heard of them in reference to the genre's genesis. Any thoughts? -- Rynne 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

i almost removed them when reverting the vandalism in the edits directly after until i double checked. i haven't heard of them either, but then again i don't really know my industrial metal that well.--MilkMiruku 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Two Industrial Metal pages!!!

People keep chopping and changing the whole umbrella of 'industrial' articles - when I first went on, there was one for the lot, but now people keep adding more and more...

Which would be a good thing, except that it means we've ended up with some confusions. A particularly bad example is that as well as this page on 'industrial metal', there is another one of the same title, which 'coldwave' currently redirects to. The latter page is less detailed, and so could do with deleting, but it's format is superior (with the 'genre' box on the right) - so perhaps a merge would be better?

Either way, having 'coldwave' redirect to that page is pretty damn confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.42.220 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 1 November, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Unless its history's been changed, it looks like Coldwave has only ever redirected to this page. in any case, wikipedia shouldn't allow duplicate Industrial metal namespaces. Are you maybe looking at an old cache? -- Rynne 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad... I don't know Wikipedia very well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.39.149 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 November, 2005 (UTC)

Genre Templates

Industrial Metal really shouldnt have its own template. It should either use the Industrial Template, the Metal Template, or the footers for both (best idea since the genre is a fusion of two styles). Leyasu 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

why not have it's own template because it's a fusion genre? basically put, the info on the metal and industrial templates relates to genres other than industrial metal. parent genre footers (and obviously the parent genre links in the subgenre genrebox) are best suited for each subgenre page as they allow users to explore with the needless extra information. --MilkMiruku 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Industrial rock VS Industrial metal

Please see my entry on Talk:Industrial rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avador (talk • contribs) 11:14, 12 January, 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Rock is not Metal, the genres should not be merged. In my opinion they can link to each other. For example, Strapping Yound Lad is not Rock at all, but has strong Industrial influences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.87.27.178 (talk) 4:50, 19 April, 2008 (UTC)

Neue Deutsche Härte

Rammstein, Oomph!, Megaherz etc. they're not really Industrial metal. They're german bands and they're entitled with the german term NDH - Neue Deutsche Härte ("new german roughness"), which is influenced by industrial rock. Nothing more. --87.122.41.187 18:24, March 7 2006

yeah, the article could do with a mention of this term. eventually, if it's enthusiasts add enough information, it could even warrent it's own article --MilkMiruku 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

note i'm not arguing that's it's related more to industrial rock or industrial metal; i don't know enough about it's origins or general sound to make that desicion :) --MilkMiruku 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as Rammstein go, that term may well be applicable, but it does not prevent them being classed as Industrial metal. Rammstein are largely considered one of the very defining bands of the genre. Just because they are German does not put them in an entirely new genre, merely a part of the greater one. Prophaniti 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

artist section layout

i like the new artist section layout. it's a style i've seen a lot in the german wikipedia and on a couple of other genre articles on the english wikipedia, and is a sensible idea to keep things looking neat on the article. i'll mention it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres to see if there's enough concensus to use it on other genre artlcies that list a fair few artists --MilkMiruku 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Trench Coat??

Huh? Can someone explain to me why there is a link to trench coat (yes, yes, the clothing item) under Other topics in the template?? Thanks --IronChris 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Apparently because some anon wanted it there. It's been removed. - Rynne 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) --IronChris 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Angry Me

I'm getting angry with the constant vandalism now, taking off bands who "they" think do not suit this page. look, HALF of these bands are not industrial metal but use certain elements of it. example: unheilig, l'ame immortelle, eisbrecher, megaherz, ASP, all of them have industrial metal influences. why are people taking them off? keeping them here will help people with industrial tastes expand their library of music. i'm not saying we should add britney spears or jessica simpson here, but these bands are pretty damn close to industrial metal, and technically NO band is pure industrial metal, so why are people taking these bands off? LEAVE THEM ON. because taking them off is depriving people of quality artists that deserve more recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sic one (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what LastFM and other sites are for. If you genuinely think NO band is pure industrial Metal you've clearly never listened to anything (then again neither have 99% of the contributors to this page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.57.126 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Young Gods

They're included in the later developments section, but they'd been incorporating metal elements into their sound since 1986. Any suggestions on how to properly reflect this without screwing up the flow? Donnacha 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I saw/heard them, they were Ambiant. Rsm99833 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They're back to the classic sound, I saw them a couple of months ago in London. Anyway, the point is that their early stuff is as much industrial metal as their later stuff. Just listen to Envoyé! from '86. Donnacha 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

TYG aren't Industrial Metal. They didn't use guitars, but samplers and sequencers. --Menorrhea 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They used samples of heavy metal guitars, thus pioneering elements of the style. I never said they were Industrial Metal, just that their metal-influenced work preceded IM and is thus not a later development. Donnacha 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-Punk

I recognize how important Killing Joke are both to industrial metal and to postpunk; I just don't see IM as a genre having much to do with postpunk, despite KJ's having been important in both. I feel like Pandemonium was a near total disconnect from something like Love Like Blood.

But I am neither educated enough nor invested enough in this topic to make a big deal out of it. Just my thoughts.

Amber388 01:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that "Pandemonium" would seem to be a total disconnect if you're jumping straight from "Nightime". However, if you listen to "Extremities, Dirt And Various Repressed Emotions", it makes a lot more sense and there's a clear progression. Donnacha 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Even further back, their first two albums contained a lot of the industrial metal-esque elements that later reemerged around Extremities. It's worth noting that Justin Broadrick's pre-Godflesh band, Fall of Because, took its name from a track on KJ's What's THIS For…! -- Rynne 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And they sounded very like Killing Joke (in fact, Fall of Because wasn't the band before, it was Godflesh (Justin Broadrick, GC Green & Paul Neville)) they just changed their name when Justin left Head of David and returned to the band full-time. Donnacha 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Classification of metal bands in general

I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band if wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another.

If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Grindcore

On what account is grindcore a fusion genre of industrial metal? - Quirk 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not, at least as far as I'm aware. I've removed it from the fusion genres part until someone can give some genuine reasoning. Grindcore is a more extreme branch of death metal (itself with strong thrash metal influences), with a mix of hard punk. The article on grindcore does not once mention industrial metal. Prophaniti 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So why not? At least, some part of the grindcore genre falls into Industrial classition. For example. Napalm Death used drum machnies and bass samplers sometimes, Nasum too has Industrial works such an EBM structured guitar-sampler parts and sometimes even drum machines, Godflesh tryed to make an grindcore and both Industrial, Aggrophobic Nosebleed are an Industrial grind band, Cephalic Carnage has sampled their drums, Terrorizer and Repulsion has mechanical rythms and samplers too and Pitchshifter is short of an percussive mechanical grindcore band.

Influential Artists

In my opinion, a list of influential artists (without epigones such as Static-X or Deathstars) is a better list. Most influential artists were Ministry, KMFDM, Pitchshifter etc. --Menorrhea 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pitchshifter? They didn't release the album "Industrial" (which isn't actually very industrial) until 1991, a year after "Extremities, Dirt And Various Repressed Emotions" by Killing Joke (who you removed from the list). Donnacha 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, but I can't say I agree with your choice. First of all, this isn't an article about what bands you personally think are "influential" or bands you don't think fit the category. Your obviously have a more liberal definition of what is or is not industrial metal -- one that simply doesn't fit the description given by the article. Sure, the bands you mentioned are industrial metal, but by no means are they the most influential, or are they the only industrial metal bands.

Enfestid 02:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They're the founders of industrial metal! The list is completely useless. --Menorrhea 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In YOUR mind they are. Please do not delete the list for no reason, as it's defined as vandalism.

Enfestid 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, maybe you dislike facts, but this is YOUR problem. --Menorrhea 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts? That's absolutely absurd. Your opinion of influential artists is not factual in the least! Hell, the very title "influential artists" indicates it isn't a factual piece as it's subject to debate. Please stop changing to page to fit your personal vendetta. This is why we have talk pages on Wikipedia -- to discuss the issue before making drastic changes.

Enfestid 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ministry, Godflesh, KMFDM etc. are definitely the founders of Industrial Metal. This is not my POV. This is a fact! They're the most important artists. If you need a list of every kiddy pop combo, then create a List of industrial metal artists. The list in this article is ugly and unclear. --Menorrhea 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why most of them are listed in the article! And, yes, it is your opinion of who is influential and who is not. A band that you contest may have an influence over others I may disagree with, as may many critics of Industrial Metal. It's not fact.

Enfestid 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is a fact that Ministry, Godflesh and KMFDM are the founders of Industrial Metal, then you should be able to cite a reliable and verifiable sources. Personaly I think the article should not have a comprehensive list of Industrial Metal bands and List of industrial metal artists should be created for that.
—Asatruer 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that last part, I think there should be a separate article for the list. There are lists of other genres, some with fewer artists than this. Recently I merged the list of Viking Metal artists into the main article, and in that case I just pasted it in full-size font and all, and it was fine. The fact that you have to keep this list small illustrates the need for a separate one. Prophaniti 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a separate article for a list, but I do have a problem with an influential articles list. I say make a separate page for the list of industrial metal bands, not influential industrial metal bands (not sure which kind of list you two were stating).

Enfestid 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)