Talk:Judas Priest/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Downing's retirement and Farewell Epitaph World Tour"

I think this part should be "1.8" rather than "1.7.3" a sub-part of the reunion. It's been a fair amount of time since they reunited with Halford and I think the Epitaph World Tour and Downing's retirement is a rather big part of the band history.Ximmerman (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Power Metal????

Who the hell added power metal?! Non of their songs is about kinghood stories, slaying mythological creatures, or about brave heroes. Judas's music in Rocka Rolla was Rock - Hard Rock. Then between Sad Wings of Destiny to Turbo it was pure Hard Rock / Heavy Metal and a little glam. Then Ram It Down - Painkiller was Heavy Metal / Speed Metal. Jugulator was thrash metal, and from Demolition to Nostradamus it was Hard Rock - Heavy Metal again. And no, the lyrics from Painkiller to present aren't power metal. Horror monsters that come to slay you or a messiah who comes to protect you isn't power metal.

"Painkiller is a power metal album." Read few interviews of Blind Guardian, Primal Fear, Helloween, Gamma Ray. Most of them have said Painkiller album is the turning point for power metal genre it has given power metal a whole new dimension. Few of them even said Painkiller is the best Power and speed Metal album ever created. To all those who thinks power metal is all about Lyrical themes, I would like to tell them It's Power 'metal' now when you think about word metal you more think about "Guitar riffs and solos", "Drum playing" and of course "high octave yet melodic and singing" not only the lyrics & this is how painkiller is a power metal album. Not to forget Most of the Priest songs are covered by Power Metal bands. I am sorry to say but who decides metal genre only by its lyrics need to work on there metal theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.237.141.114 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Example for Power Metal:

Hail And Kill / Manowar

Brothers I am calling from the valley of the kings

with nothing to atone

A dark march lies ahead, together we will ride like

thunder from the sky

May your sword stay wet like a young girl in her pride

Hold your hammers high

I can't think of any Judas Priest song that fits that genre and I think I made my point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 08:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Since when are genres defined by lyrics? I agree with you that Judas Priest isn't power metal, but your argument against it doesn't make much sense.99.250.16.16 (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sleaze Rock

Im adding Sleaze Rock since its a mix between Metal and Glam which is what they are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.254.143 (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Judas Priest has nothing to do with glam, studded black leather is typically heavy metal NOT glam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.169.193 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about...

Power metal? I mean they kinda fit the description of what early power metal was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.146.98 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed Haxxiy (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Power metal was a non-existant genre when they were formed. You are probably thinking of NWOBHM, which is similar when it comes to the music and lyrics. -Wolfinator-x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.126.254 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on October 25, 2007, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The "additional citations" tag was there before the nomination date. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 22:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'd like to add a few more images into this article. The cover for British Steel, maybe. The Priest Cross. Just to help make the huge blocks of text more bearable. What does Wiki think? Howa0082 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The NWOBHM error

NWOBHM is a music era that went from 1979-1981. An era when several notable new bands began their recording careers. Iron Maiden, Def Leppard, Saxon... etc. The tag keeps being added, incorrectly, to the this article by users who are unfamiliar with either the NWOBHM scene... or simply unfamiliar with Judas Priest. JP started as a band in 1968-69... a full decade ahead of NWOBHM. Their recording career began in 1974... 6 years prior to the peak of NWOBHM. They had a large following in Europe, Japan and Canada... and were selling a very respectable number of albums in the U.S. prior to the NWOBHM surge. It is an error that likely stems from British Steel becoming a huge hit for the band at the same time that bands like Iron Maiden and Def Leppard were starting to get some international recognition. British Steel was a hit... but it was also the band's 6th studio release... and their 7th release total (counting the live album). So the tag doesn't, and hasn't ever applied to them. They actually fall in the the "Second wave of British Heavy metal"... along with bands like Thin Lizzy, Wishbone Ash... etc.... bands that got their start prior to 1975... but after the "first wave" bands like Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. 156.34.233.42 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Judas Priest was still a big part of the NWOBHM movement. Iron Maiden started in 1975 btw, to which you are going to point "but they didn't release their first album till 1980!"...so what? They were at least influential to a huge degree to the movement. 1979-1981 refers to the peak era, does that mean any band outside of that is not NWOBHM? Navnløs 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The British Steel album was caught up in the NWOBHM movement. But the band already had a very respectable career globally (including the U.S.) several years prior to the NWOBHM era. Yes, Iron Maiden started in 1975. But they didn't have a recording career or any notability outside of London until 1979. Motorhead recorded their first album in 1976. But their label refused to release it. It wasn't until the release of Overkill, Bomber, Ace of Spades... that they truly had a career beyond their local English following. So they end being one of the premier NWOBHM bands because they were completely unknown prior to 1979-1980. Saxon, Def Leppard... all pretty much the same. Excluding Motorhead, many of those bands ended up as opening acts for JP when things startedto roll for them... why?... because Judas Priest already had an established career. Pretty hard to be a part of the "new Wave" when you've already had 6 years of "waves" crashing against the world's shores. 156.34.227.140 22:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly definitive, but the documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, which seems well-researched and such, lists Judas Priest as a band from the previous generation to NWoBHM. Howa0082 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That point was brought up earlier (although I do not hold any stock in the Headbanger's Journey doc as a ref... it does shade compliance with wp:rs)... that JP fall in with Thin Lizzy and Wishbone Ash and Uriah Heep(who themselves actually fall in between "wave 1" and "wave 2").. etc. By 1978 I had seen Judas Priest 3 times in concert and had all but the original Gull albums in my record box. 156.34.219.132 (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, even though AMG and some other sites say so, Judas Priest aren't NWOBHM. Not just because of the debuting and forming well beforehand, but also their impact, original attitude, and estbalishment as a whole. They were clearly part of a heavy metal "wave" before the "new wave", the one after the proto/very origin wave roughly from '70/'71-'78. NWOBHM actually started around '77, it's just that most albums of it debuted in '79, peaked in '80/'81, faded from mainstream in '84/'85, and was gone by '86/'87. Movements and genres ALWAYS start before the first albums of it are released. That goes for pretty much any music genre you could think of. Motorhead... is just right on the line of being in JP's wave and in the NWOBHM.

Line breaks vs commas

Ok, here's the thing. This page has historically had linebreaks between musical genres in the infobox. However, the template for said box has changed to commas. Navnlos, you want linebreaks. You seem to be the only one. We need to resolve this immediately. Personally, I think linebreaks look better. However, the community's template says commas, therefor, I believe that's how we should format it. I would like a good, honest discussion here on this topic. Navnlos, why are you so opposed to commas? It hardly benefits the article to have an edit war over three bytes of data. I urge you to just ignore that one part of the infobox if it's so offensive to you. And I'm not picking on you at all, you're just the last bastion of linebreaks. So please, tell me. What's up? Howa0082 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The template example shows commas and the article was corrected to match the example. It's an ongoing correction which spans across multiple Wiki-projects... not just the music project. Consensus being based ... mostly... on the neatness factor... the infobox size factor... and just plain consistency across the entire Wikipedia project. Consistency is a key formatting feature in any encyclopedia structure... Wiki is no different. Community and consensus always wins out over personal agendas on Wikipedia. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency? Look around and see that most widely used infoboxes use line breaks. The example on the template page is just an example, other examples on the page, the guidelines and many featured articles have line breaks. Line breaks were used on most band articles long before this edit war started. I see no reason to change it and I know no guideline/policy that backs up the changes. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The example shown for editors to follow backs it up. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Other examples show a different lay out. There is no correct lay out so I prefer the original one. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in regards to the template saying so. And Kameejl, this article falls under WP:Music. I don't give a damn if Microsoft uses linebreaks in the infobox, because this isn't Computer stuff. If our infobox reads for commas, then we should jolly well use commas, yes? The talk page for that template is absolutely useless, and all it has is people constantly complaining about how one looks better, but no it doesn't, and blah blah blah, circular bitching, etc. Perhaps we could stay away from those idiotic arguments here? I don't care one iota about other wikiprojects, and will defend Wikiproject: Novels' ability to use linebreaks so long as that's what is in the template, if that's the standard of THAT project. But there's no edit war on the novels I watch, just here in music. If all else fails, I will hunt down an admin to arbitrate this, because I want this article to make it to at least GA, and having people screaming and freaking over THREE BYTES OF DATA is not helping. Howa0082 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't overeact. I'm not the one who is using consistency as an argument to justify these kind of changes. Other infoboxes, whatever content they show, can be reviewed to see what most other wikipedians think about line breaks, commas, infobox length, etc.. It only seems to be a problem in music related articles and just the last few months people start to change articles without consensus. It might be three bite of data, but those bites are probably the most viewed bites of any band article. If you don't care about those three bites, you're a lucky person; I care and I really get tired of people who make up their own rules. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost willing to bet that the only people who care about this issue are editors. Jackie Q probably doesn't even notice, quite frankly, when she's browsing music articles and one has linebreaks and another commas. I'm just mainly sick of seeing (+3) or (-3) on my watchlist every day, sometimes repeatedly throughout the day. All I want is for people to just agree to some standard, be it the commas in the template, or the linebreaks, or god, even semicolons. I've excused myself from this tiny thing, edit-wise, to concentrate on the content of the article, because that's why we're here, right? To make good articles. If nothing else, perhaps that whole "truce" thing can be declared on that issue until something can be worked out. Like, perhaps, the Metal Wikiproject's template could have linebreaks, to keep continuity, while WP:Music can keep it's commas. I just want the edit war to cease, that's all. Then, maybe, we can go back to maintaining and improving the articles, instead of fighting over whose format is more sweet? Howa0082 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One overlooked observation on this debate... I can count the number of "speed metal" songs that Judas Priest actually recorded on one hand. The infobox genre suggestion is 'aim for generality'... and somehow... repeatedly... speed metal has been added and re-added to a band who have done les than a half dozen songs that narrowly fit that description. "Speed metal" and "heavy metal played fast" are 2 different things. Want to find a consensus for commas vs linebreaks on this article? Simple... "aim for generality"... rm speed metal... and go with the one genre that describes 99% of what the band actually plays. Just a thought. 156.34.223.191 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. Even on Painkiller, the alleged "speed" album, there's very few songs that match the description. A speed metal drummer does not a speed metal band make. I support removing the speed metal genre from the infobox altogether, eliminating this battle on this page, at least. Perhaps more music pages could stand for a trim on genres, too. *coughSystemOfADowncough* Howa0082 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia made the huge mistake of not distinguishing between genre and style... right from the get go... so now we're stuck with infoboxes that are polluted with 'style' and not actual 'genre'. I've read some musically impaired comment somewhere that style=subgenre. Did I say misically impaired? :D . I can go ahead and rm the superfluity from the box. You can lay a wager as to how much time it will take before some peabrain will add it back in. And yes... it will be a peabrain... mark my words :D 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PS... another common Wiki gaff... "members" vs. "session musicians" or "temporary tour support staff". Simon Phillips was a hired hand session musician... something he's done for hundreds of artists... why is he listed as a band member? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would first like to say to Howa0082 that I am obviously not the only person supporting line breaks, and to suggest otherwise would be plain silly. On another note, I fully support the "heavy metal" label that Priest now has. Cheers to everyone for making that happen. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

When I said what I said, you were the only one I saw constantly reflex-reverting that to linebreaks, so my original comment stands as correct. The issue is settled on this article now, so please do not post under this topic again. Howa0082 (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the earlier comment that Simon Phillips was not a member of Judas Priest. He was just a session musician. I have removed him from the member list in the past but it has been put back in. He shouldn't be there. And just having heavy metal is a good idea. Fair Deal (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

LINE BREAKS 4EVA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sadly, though, all articles about famous or even moderately famous bands get assholicly patroled for commas, so don't add breaks there. Which is stupid and in reality, somewhat incorrect. I'm going to start a huge section debate in the WP guide to make at least both acceptable... as I have a good, convincing, civil argument for it. LINE BREAK SUPPORTERS, JOIN ME!!! Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC) (I'm serious)

Which guide would that be? The only forum that covers the content of the musician infobox is WP:MUSICIAN. And the consensus throughout all of the discussions that I have plowed through, and there are many, show that using standard punctuation(comma or dash) is preferred over using code. It is the consensus throughout most projects on Wikipedia including several music related projects. Both the album and song projects have a clear consensus over style. It is only within the Musician Project where an ongoing, and very unproductive, adolescent edit war has been carried on by a very vocal minority who choose not to accept the consensus. And for this article the consensus was to remove the edit war by choosing to list only one genre in the genre field. All the other fields use commas as standard. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Originally just WP:Album, but it's really everything and is a major thing for the musicians, so I'll put the argument in WP:Musician and the singles/song one too. The latter isn't as important as just a song is usually just one or two genres, while albums and musicians are more diverse based on the diversity of songs. A song/single is pretty much a unit of a genre or diversity for a band, in a way. And the so called "minority" is quite large, it's just that many hang around either the musician or album areas, not both, or aren't vocal about it. Lastly, the consensus to only have one genre is somewhat ok for JP has heavy metal is definately more prominant than other genres and is pretty much their uttermost "main", but FYI this consensus SHOULD NOT be used pretty much anywhere else, as many bands and even albums have equally prominant genres and/or simply just can't be categorized as a single genre. Besides, the comma/linebreak war is happening in pretty much all famous or semi-famous musician articles, and yet they just change, not keep one genre. I'd rather have commas w/ lower case over a single genre myself, despite their stupidity and ugliness.

Opening line

Gramatically, should it be "Judas Priest are", or "Judas Priest is"? The word "priest" is singular, so it seems like it should be "is". Zchris87v 08:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:ENGVAR. A quick way to better understand proper grammar is to simply substitute any band name for the word they. A band is a group of people so "they" are a "they". And does it sound right to say They is a British band??? The United States is the only English speaking country that uses the singular to describe a group. All other countries use the plurual. On Wikipedia, as per WP:ENGVAR if the subject of the article is American... use American English form. For subjects originating from anywhere else... or subjects that are international (not just in music)... then use the internal form of English for both spelling and grammar. 156.34.208.51 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this discussion on numerous band pages. I'm a Flemish Belgian myself, so English is not my mother tongue, but the fact that a band is a group of people doens't seem all that relevant to me, regardeless of the language used. A band name is still a NAME, even a brand name, just like Coca Cola. Does the number of people that hide behind that name really matter? Look at the word "band": that's also singular, making "the band is touring Europe" much more correct than "the band are touring Europe". Even when the band name looks like a plural, like "The Beatles" or "Guns 'n Roses" for exemple, a plural verb seems more logical indeed (also in Dutch) but whether it's grammatically correct is another thing. Would you say "The Sopranos start at 11" or "The Sopranos starts at 11"? I sure would use the singular form, both in English and in Dutch, because The Sopranos is the NAME of a tv-show... 81.88.110.49 (talk) 10:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. 156 IP man is right. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to think of it... for every band that isn't American.... replace the band name with the pronoun "they". And band is always a "they" and never never ever never an "it"... after all... we're talking about people not an inanimate object. If you were going to talk about Judas Priest and touring or recording you would NEVER say "They is going on tour in 2008 to support its new album" or "They has been recording its new album since early 2007". You would correctly say "They are going on tour in 2008 to support their new album" or "They have been in the studio recording their new album since early 2007". Judas Priest are a band. Every country in the world, minus the United States, uses this pluralisation of group pronouns. Annihilator are a band, AC/DC are a band, Scorpions are a band, Celtic Frost are a band, WarCry are a band, In Flames are a band, Dimmu Borgir are a band... pick any country other than the U.S. and "X are a band". If the band is American... then... say... Metallica is a band would be correct because the U.S. has its own "Dan Quail" version of English that the rest of the planet doesn't use. Hope that helps. 156.34.231.56 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a band is and it. The comprising memebers are a they. It's quite simple. American English isn't the fucked-up version. A group is, after all, a singular object. That said, 156 is correct -- it is general practice on Wikipedia to go by the grammar of each band's nationality.

Calmness, Yankee Doodle. I speak a butchered version of English, too, but you don't see me get all wound up when people express their dislike for it. Howa0082 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's derived from a sort of metonymy that the British choose to syntactically disregard while the Americans choose to syntactically respect. Which, honestly, has always been a good enough explanation for me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Link

For anyone who missed it the first time it was eliminated see December 18. 156.34.226.197 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That other Priest

Looking at the article, we have the band listed as beginning in '68, which it did not. If we want to claim this incarnation as beginning two years before it did, we should put in a blurb about Al Atkins' old band, from whence the name came. But since that's an entirely different band, we shouldn't do that at all. So I'm changing the dates to reflect 1970 as the start date. Howa0082 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact is KK and Ian founded the band with Pattridge in '68. They are the core members till today. If you want to start from the point they took their current name, it's '71. If from the first release it's '74. Atkins' old band is mentioned in the article, BTW.

Hard rock and Speed metal

Though other styles, such as Glam and Power metal, have been played by Judas Priest, they were only really there for 1-2 albums, so we can't classify them as so. However, most of JP's material could be described as Hard rock, and a good portion Speed metal. Pretty much all their material from their formation to Ram it Down/Painkiller has many hard rock characteristics and songs. Speed metal, though not as prominant, is officially on Painkiller (as described by critics and many websites, even many fans), which means Ram it Down is mostly that, and same with their material afterward. Plus they were a large influence to the genre and had several singles and songs of it in their 1977-84 material. We should add these two genres to the info box as they're prominant enough, even if plain Heavy metal is their main genre. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you "play" glam? A band can look glam. But it isn't a style of music. Power metal??? where? From the previous discussion and consensus the band is a heavy metal band. Speed metal and "fast heavy metal" are 2 completely different styles of music. The band may have 6 or 7 songs that may be lumped correctly or incorrectly as speed metal songs. But 6 or 7 songs over a 38 year career is pretty small and can be eliminated. The previous consensus agreed to go with the single genre for several reasons. The main rule of the genre field according to the infobox guidelines is "aim for generality". Judas Priest are a heavy metal band. Anything else is just unneeded fluff. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you play something? That question doesn't make any sense- anybody could "play" anything, whether it's a New Wave band playing black metal or a hip hop artist playing avant-garde jazz. Glam metal (don't use hair metal) isn't just image, it's music-based too. Turbo is widely considered by everyone as glam, and even Ram it Down had some glam stuff. Painkiller is JP's single power metal release, as it's lyrics are highly fantasy-based and the song structures had that "epic feel with traditional and speed or thrash mix etc.". In addition, Jugulator and Demolition were semi-thrash. Hence, "other styles were only really there for 1-2 albums". Arguing that doesn't really help your point, as I said those SHOULDN'T be stated.

DID I SAY THEY WEREN'T GENERIC HEAVY METAL!? OF COURSE they are, that's by definition and I even said it's their main genre and didn't argue that. You must be blind for thinking I said all these things you thought I said. Also, infoboxes pretty much state the genres that were prominant throughout a band's/artist's carreer, not just the "highly general ones". And what about Hard rock? Dead obvious throughout most of their 70s and 80s work- even THAT is inarguable for songs such as "Living after Midnight", "Heading out on the Highway", and "Some Heads are Gonna Roll", to name a few out of many (including whole albums like British Steel). Lastly, Painkiller is regarded by critics, many websites, and many fans as "speed metal", which makes Ram it Down speed metal too, and if Motorhead are speed metal (which they ARE), then Defenders of the Faith and Angel of Retribution are speed too. Being an influence to a genre and having 4/14 studio albums to it = a "prominant enough" genre for the infobox. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are flat-out silly. "if Motorhead are speed metal (which they ARE), then Defenders of the Faith and Angel of Retribution are speed too." What does Motorhead have to do with PRIEST? "Painkiller is regarded by critics, many websites, and many fans as "speed metal", which makes Ram it Down speed metal too" You've utterly lost me now. If your logic is "Because this is such, what proceeds it is also such," you've just catagorized their entire catalogue as speed metal. Howa0082 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ArgumentS? You're pretty much referring to the above response, in which you didn't comment on most at all, of which are completely or almost completely right (saying anybody could play anything, of course they're HM, infoboxes show any prominant genre, etc.). Anyways, if a band of a similar style (which would be Motorhead here, despite many bands such as them having a distinct sound) could be described as one thing, then bands of a similar style could possibly or maybe be described as so too. Now, I wouldn't always call Motorhead speed metal myself, but they officially are that (look everywhere online- too lazy to explain further), which would make certain Priest material speed metal too because of the characteristics. Also, how did I lose you on Painkiller? That album is OFFICIALLY speed metal, and as correctly stated before, "critics, many websites, and many fans" describe the album as so. Look yourself online. Ram it Down had similar characteristics to Painkiller (speed metal being one of them), despite being similar to Turbo too. In addition, "because such is such, this is that" isn't my logic for everything at all- a lot of JP's catalogue still isn't speed metal just because of other bands. But it's still a "prominant enough for the infobox" genre. One important thing you have to keep in mind: Not every "speed" metal song has to be super fast or even plain fast. Lastly, again, what about hard rock (read my response argument below- I realize you're the same person)? Angry Shoplifter (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We got rid of the genres originally to cease an edit war over linebreaks vs. commas. As well, I'd have to say some of those things are kind of subjective. I, personally, would not say Priest truly did "speed metal" until Ram it Down. They may have dabbled with fast music beforehand, but regardless, 14 years is far too large a window on that. Do you see what I mean? Priest is inarguably Heavy Metal. Adding any subgenres of a band that has ranged as widely as Priest has will lead to issues with people who think differently on someones' classification. It's just easier to go with Heavy Metal here, especially as Wiki's own definition of Hard Rock has it as the supergenre that Heavy Metal belongs to, so putting both is redundant. That's my two bits, anyway. Howa0082 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But, linebreaks vs. commas had wars everywhere and are still ongoing, yet most bands simply just warred/changed, not deleted the other genres. I guess that's because most bands HAVE to be classified as several genres as they're all equally prominant, wheras Judas Priest has plain Heavy metal as the topmost one regardless of the prominance of other ones. Also, just cuz Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's right, speaking of hard rock/heavy metal. Regardless, the hard rock article even has a section on the difference between them and why HM is NOT a subgenre of it. Besides, that's only when comparing traditional, glam, power, alternative, or somethimes thrash, not subgenres that would NEVER be close to hard rock (like extreme metal- you can't call a death metal band a hard rock band). As stated with Anger22, Hard Rock is pretty much dead obvious and clear for most of their 70s and 80s work, even entire albums. Lastly, also stated with Anger 22, JP would have at least 4 speed metal albums (which is enough to list in the infobox) if you consider that they influenced the genre AND that Motorhead are speed metal, which they ARE as critics and websites consider them that. Even just 3 is enough. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm confused? When did Judas Priest release four albums of complete speed metal. Where are these albums and where can I download them? I know they have a speed metal song on Stained Class. Whoop, there's another speed metal song on Screaming for Vengeance. Another on Defenders of the Faith. They take a break and then pop one onto Ram it Down and a couple on Painkiller. Maybe one or 2 more since. That's a pretty sporadic output of speed metal songs from a band with a catalog as extensive as theirs. Not sure where hard rock is dead obvious on their 70s and 80s work either? They were a heavy metal band originating in the second wave of heavy metal bands. A few songs on Rocka Rolla are not quite as heavy metal as the output from their heavy metal contemporaries of the day like Thin Lizzy, Wishbone Ash, Uriah Heep, Scorpions, UFO or Rush. But they're still heavy metal. Are you sure you understand the difference between the musical styles? You seem to have a few mixed up. Judas Priest are a heavy metal band. Led Zeppelin might have invented it. But it was Judas Priest who "stereotyped" it. And without ever being a power metal band themselves they are the mold on which the entire European power metal movement has cloned and copycatted itself on. Not too many bands can claim that. Libs (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not 4, but they had 3 albums with a lot of speed metal. Painkiller, Ram it Down, and Angel of Retribution (or if you don't consider the lattera true one, at least JP's 1997-present work is largely semi-speed/thrash) (Painkiller was explained by me in the above argument, and Ram it Down is somewhat because of that). In addition, as you said, they had several goodies in between their 1977-84 work, which if clumped together, could be described as an album, sorta. So at least 3/14 of their albums in a way could be described as speed metal, coupled with influencing the genre itself, make it a prominant enough genre for the infobox.

I didn't argue or disagree with many of the things you'e saying about the second wave metal bands (as in, after the '66-'73 proto wave and before the NWOBHM), especially saying that Judas Priest aren't heavy metal, which I've said 4-5 times that that's their MAIN genre above the rest. But, take a look at Scorpions. They're definately heavy metal, but could be equally or almost equally described as hard rock too, characteristicly and by critics, websites, and many fans. Just because JP pioneered modern metal and were really influencial with many of their albums, that does not mean a lot of their work can't be described as hard rock, similar to Scorpions or Motorhead. IT'S NOT JUST ROCKA ROLLA, it's pretty much all their material until Painkiller. British Steel is a good example. It may be one of the most influencial metal albums, but it sounds just like and has characteristics similar to many other hard rock songs- including all of their singles (Living after midnight, anyone?). Other good examples are Sad Wings of Destiny, Killing Machine/HBFL, Point of Entry, Defenders of the Faith, and Turbo. So speaking of that, yes, I'm aware that a band playing heavy metal (bar extreme metal and some other styles) doesn't mean they're hard rock (Iron Maiden being the best example), but many bands, Judas Priest one of them, DO have similar characteristics to hard rock, enough to be described as so. Lastly, despite them and Maiden being a main power metal influence (mostly the latter), Painkiller was a "true" power metal album as explained earlier. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody please contest my most recent arguments if possible. WP:CON says "silence implies consensus", and nobody has responded since those arguments, but I feel that making a change to the infobox still wouldn't be stable. If nobody replies for another two weeks from now... well I guess the consensus would favor me then, as nobody would've posted any disagreements. Thanks. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to contest. It's a dead subject. And the already, actually discussed, consensus... not a silent one... was to just go with heavy metal. Don't beat a horse that's already dead. Libs (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I cant see why the infobox doesnt consist Hard rock and Speed metal (or power metal) yet.Caus the discussion above doesnt show any dissagreement.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC):::

The consensus is just heavy metal because that constitutes over 90% of the band's output. The band has less than 6 speed metal songs in their entire discography. Not wothry enough to mention when the rule for the infobox field is to aim for generality. That is why the consensus has always been to just stick with heavy metal. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Harmonica?

What songs/albums feature Halford on the harmonica? Anybody know? Or is this just a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.37.104 (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rob uses an harmonica in the song Cheater on Rocka Rolla. That's the only occasion of which I am aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.75.91 (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there might be a couple more on that album. Unless my memory fails, Rocka Rolla has a few songs with a harmonica.Ximmerman (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

album sales

Judas Priest have certainly NOT sold 78 million albums! this is absolutely false!

in an interview last year rob halford himself said they´ve sold 35 million albums! i can´t find this interview on the web, it was published in German RockHard magazine!!

so again: they have not sold 78 million albums although one website gives this information! so please change! this is a wrong information!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.61.120 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Formed when?

According to the introduction, the band was formed in 1969. According to the "origins" section it was 1968. According to the Ian Hill article 1970. Which is it? 82.1.63.98 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

isp masking?

when i went to an unrelated wikipedia site i was told that I had a message waiting for me. I checked the message, it said that I edited this page, and purported to identify me by my isp number. I did not edit this page. I have no interest in this subject matter. I don't know what is going on.

71.176.163.92 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)falsely accused isp

Hell Bent For Leather album not listed

Just wondering why its not listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray from texas (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Never mind...I see it only listed as the UK title...my bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray from texas (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Updating status of 2008 - 2009 tour; maybe deleting details?

I just edited the Nostradamus tour info which was presented in future tense (obviously written before the tour started). However, I don't actually know if all of the listed concerts were played, and I also wonder whether the detailed itinerary list is now irrelevant (and whether it should be cut down to feature only the highlights of the tour). I decided NOT to edit a sentence relating to the planned itinerary for the 2008 tour (which has since been completed) since again I have no idea whether the tour in fact followed this schedule. If someone else knows, it would be worth updating the tense of the sentence.

Tigger-ibby (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dates of 2009 "Priest Feast" tour (February 2009)

I edited the first part of the 2009 tour section to reflect that the dates have now already been played (written before the concerts; all dates said "will play" or similar wording). But I just noticed (on re-reading) that the first Feb 2009 date actually given is 2/21/09, and then the next sentence said (before I edited it to "continued") that the tour "will continue" with a concert somewhere else on 2/10/09. This is of course a contradiction -- but I don't know whether the 2/21 date was incorrect, or whether the itinerary was mixed up during the writing of this section. Also, as I noted in yesterday's post to this discussion page, I think that listing the whole tour itinerary (now that the dates have passed) is trivial clutter with respect to this section. The section is VERY hard to read, and there are multiple incomplete sentences consisting only of lists of "place, date". If others agree, perhaps the section could be edited to only include the highlights? At that point, the question of whether the 2/21/09 date is accurate or not would be rendered moot.

Tigger-ibby (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Clive Burr?

This must be someone having fun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.140.179 (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How Many the sold world wide?

i'm confused... in the wikipedia page its written that >> They have sold over 80 million albums worldwide.[3] but if you see the [3] link : http://www.ticketluck.com/concert-tickets/Judas-Priest/index.php in line 4,its written >> They have sold over 35 million albums worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahandpedia (talk • contribs) 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Power Metal????

Who the hell added power metal?! Non of their songs is about kinghood stories, slaying mythological creatures, or about brave heroes. Judas's music in Rocka Rolla was Rock - Hard Rock. Then between Sad Wings of Destiny to Turbo it was pure Hard Rock / Heavy Metal and a little glam. Then Ram It Down - Painkiller was Heavy Metal / Speed Metal. Jugulator was thrash metal, and from Demolition to Nostradamus it was Hard Rock - Heavy Metal again. And no, the lyrics from Painkiller to present aren't power metal. Horror monsters that come to slay you or a messiah who comes to protect you isn't power metal. Example for Power Metal:

Hail And Kill / Manowar Brothers I am calling from the valley of the kings with nothing to atone A dark march lies ahead, together we will ride like thunder from the sky May your sword stay wet like a young girl in her pride Hold your hammers high —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 08:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Power metal refers to more a more metallic and heavy yet melodic version of Traditional Heavy Metal. I does NOT have to contain fantasy lyrics although frequently does. Jamcad01 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, there is an unlimited supply of people who will come around and add or delete genres from any music-related article. In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think; the genres listed should be those backed up by reliable sources. If a reliable source has called Judas Priest power metal, then it could be added here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Added it with a published source. --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus

Stained Class: wanted to report experiences similar as Nostradamus, visions and practices that can become quite fatiguing. There are definately reasons why Nostradamus was also an Apothecary, and kept gardens with herbs, spices, and various plants. Attempting to release these types of informations are difficult, just as Nostradamus was tried in court for sorcery. If this seems to be unrelateable material...? Educator69.96.7.119 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The influence of Judas Priest is greatly exaggerated

This article greatly exaggerates the influence of Judas Priest as a heavy metal band. One such reference was to a list by MTV.com that ranked Priest as second only to Black Sabbath as a heavy metal band. Sounds like the blind leading the blind, or simply put, MTV trying to make money. The fact is that, many other bands should be listed before Judas Priest, but many of those bands had deaths in the band (such as, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and AC/DC) before MTV was the powerhouse it once was. Meaning that, MTV had a financial interest in elevating the image of Judas Priest in order to make money.

Basically, Judas Priest was grandfathered-in, because they didn't die from the rock-life.

Anyone with two brain cells knows that punk and metal bands are just as susceptible to corporate whims as say, a star like Madonna or Britney Spears. Just ask Metallica. And both Madonna and Judas Priest influenced fashion after all. Yet, to suggest that Judas Priest cultivated the glam, leather, S&M, biker image is BS. They did not start doing that until the late 1970s - after the success of musicians like David Bowie, KISS, Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, The Doors, Queen, The Beatles, and even Johnny Cash. I would even add the most notable omission, Steppenwolf. The song "Born to Be Wild" coined the term "heavy metal" when they sang "heavy metal thunder." And of course, the song "Born to Be Wild" is still the all-time anthem for bikers, S&M, and leather enthusiasts.

Simply put, the only thing that Judas Priest was the first to do, was to put the heavy metal image on MTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.112.30 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum to express your pov. Judaispriest (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I simply stated facts. I also added this section, because it is clear to me that the Discussion section, by and large, has become a forum for points-of-view about Judas Priest's musical style and image.67.169.25.132 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean this page up

Someone with terrible grammar has attacked this page and made it almost unreadable. Can someone else with time and patience please attend to cleaning up all the typos and make sure that it all makes sense. We don't want people to think that all Judas Priest fans are retards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.172.223 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'd love to help with that. Will have a look in a few days. Judaispriest (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Record labels

I'd like to point out a couple of things about the record labels listed in the infobox. The inclusion of RCA and Koch is somewhat erroneous; Judas Priest has never had a contract with them, but instead their former label Gull Records has licensed their first two albums to be released by the aforementioned labels (as well as many, many others). The only labels to which Judas Priest has signed for are: Gull Records (1974-76), Columbia/CBS/Sony/Legacy/Epic (1976-94, 2003-present), SPV/Steamhammer (European distribution, 1996-2003), CMC International (American distribution, 1996-99), Atlantic (American distribution, 1999-2002). I'm going to make those changes now. Nuppiz (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeline

Am I the only one to notice that the timeline goes from 2011 to 2039. This doesn't seem to be a recent change either. 91.153.142.40 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting for 3 days and genre additions

There have been several additions of 'hard rock' to the opening sentence over the past two days. The article has a 'Musical style and influence' section that may be a more appropriate area for detailing (with sources) other styles. The page has semiprotected for a period of 3 days, feel free to begin a discussion to change the opening sentence. J04n(talk page) 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)