Talk:Lacuna Coil/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Lacuna Coil. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Symbol

It was pointed out to me that the symbol Lacuna Coil uses is chinese in appearance. Does anyone know where they got that symbol and what it stands for? An example of what I'm talking about can be found by searching for "Lacuna Coil Symbol" on an image search in google. Shadow fox7321 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC) The symbol is not actually chinese. It's just a stylized "L" and "C". Look carefully, and you'll see it. Ahhh... I see it. Thanks. Shadow fox7321 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions

Was the band formed in 1996 or 1994? These kinds of things make WikiPedia look unreliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gopherbassist (talk • contribs) . Lacuna Coil was formed in 1994, under the name Sleep of Right. Lalophobia 19:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence

Is it just me or does the start of Heaven's a Lie sound exactly like the start of the Iron Maiden song Wasted Years? --Eagle5 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Is it just me, or does Lacuna Coil look eactly like an Italian version of Spinal Tap? Smell that glove! ElectricRay 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Albums and Singles List

I see there's a different format used to list the albums and the singles-the additions being the thumbnail images. I personally like this new format. How about updating all other music band-related articles with the same format? Or has it been done already?222.165.173.90 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected the page. I have seen it go from alternative to plain metal. What is the correct? -- ReyBrujo 05:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't the change in genre as much as who is making the change. The change was being made by Leyasu socks, therefore I reverted as I usually do. --Wildnox (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Since I saw many reverts after my last contribution, all about genre, I took it as if you were not able to decide the genre. I have changed protection to semi protection, that should be enough to prevent these sockpuppets from working on this article. -- ReyBrujo 06:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

For the most part that should handle the problem, thank you. --Wildnox (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Punk

I have one question. Is Lacuna Coil goth punk rock? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lacunacoilfan (talk • contribs) .

Punk? Not at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.162.21 (talk • contribs) .

Not at all???? It's obvious that Lacuna Coil is not punk. It's gothic metal/alternative metal and/or metal. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

To quote the Wikipedia page about punk rock:

Punk bands, eschewing the perceived excesses of mainstream 1970s rock, created short, fast music, featuring basic instrumentation and often political or nihilistic lyrics. The associated punk subculture expresses youthful aggression, distinctive clothing styles, a variety of usually left-wing ideologies, and a DIY (do it yourself) attitude.

Lacuna Coil is nothing like this type of music. More or less, I agree that they are an alternative band. XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Catherine Slaughter

Cristina's love life

Does it honestly belong on the wiki for the band? She has her own wiki, so why not leave it there...Shatterzer0 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with the rationale. -- ReyBrujo 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Influences

Cristina likes Linkin Park, but the rest of the band isn't too bothered. I'm removing that. Meshuggah is a band who they have seen live, and the downtuned sound on their recent albums is just as much a nod towards them as to Korn. I removed My Dying Bride from the influences. I've never seen or heard LC mentioned MDB as their influences, in any interview nor in the own page. Etos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.156.250 (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comalies as best-selling CD in Century Media's History?

I believe that it held this title for only a short period of time (about a year?), before Shadows Fall's "War Within" album surpassed it. Should the wording be changed to indicate that it is no longer the holder of this title currently? If I can find the articles that support this (its been ~2 years since I read them initially), I will modify the sentence to indicate that it was only temporarily the best selling CD in CM history. Thedividingline 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cristina's guest vocals

Does there really need to be set or parentheses next to Cristina's name saying what guest vocals she has done? It's failry irrelevant to Lacuna Coil, she has her own page. -90.208.221.118 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

QQ more, irrelevant? i found it useful so stop crying about nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.132.1 (talk)

It is a matter of understanding that the article should have information about the topic. Specific information about parts of the topic should go in those articles. You may mention that Cristina was coupled with another member here, but you would not mention that (fictional example) Cristina has a daughter, or that Andrea likes to swim, because that information is too specific. You may mention guest singers here, since those singers worked for the band, but you should not mention guest vocals from Cristina here, since this article is about the band and not herself. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Halo music

I think that Lacuna Coil using some music from the Halo video games should be put in the article http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6252493544911120482&q=lacuna+coil&ei=9iGKSKSJIZ_sqwPLxaW0CA&hl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.177.74 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lacuna Coil does not associate with Marty O'Donnell. Y B K

Evanescence

I've heard many Coil fans disparage Evanescence as an inferior copy who somehow became more successful. Any truth in this? 84.69.97.30 13:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's all a matter of opinion. Personally, I would tend to agree that yes, Lacuna Coil produces better music, while the music of Evanescence appeals to a more widespread audience, which attracted mainstream attention. The two bands formed at around the same time, but in different parts of the world, so it would be difficult to determine if one band influenced another. However, Lacuna Coil has certainly been more productive. Rishodi 05:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, that's your opinion. I love both bands, but Evanescence hasn't sold near 20 million albums because of nothing. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss about that. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 01:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I really, really, really, really hate it when people bring this comparison up. They have female fronted vocalists, and that is all that they have in common. Both are really good, but LC falls in the "progressive metal" category, and EV falls in the "alternative metal" category in my opinion. But enough with the comparisons. I'm tired of Ev receiving crap just because LC are the greatest band in the world. Poor Amy. User: Borr29 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

Edit War

Prophaniti and Ada Ataki, may I ask you to stop this childish and sterile edit war? You both know how it will end...So please try to be sensible.

Prophanati, I don't agree with Ada Ataki's general uncivil and agressive attitude. But I tend to agree with him on this issue. :See my views in the previous discussion. However unlike him I respect sourced claims even though I think they're not reliable.

But can you explain me why you reintroduced Garry Sharpe Young's sources(regardless it is Rock Detector or Metal guide since it is the same article anyway). I thought we agreed these sources weren't relevant enought to be used there. Sharp Young sources just do not claim LC is a gothic rock band. GSY just mentions the term "post-gothic rock" about them in this passage: "the single 'Heaven's A Lie', did much to entrench the band as one of the leading lights on the post Gothic Rock scene.

1. this passage is ambiguous and subject to personnal interpretation. This is not like it is explicitely said something like "LC is a gothic rock band"

2 I don't see anywhere something specifying that post-gothic rock = gothic rock

3. the term "postgothic" is an unformal term, it may be used but such a term doesn't refer to any official genre for the moment.

As for my weaker points, I would add

4. As Ada Kataki pointed out, GSY is a metal reviewer, he is not a specialist of gothic rock

5. Even concerning metal, GSY is not always reliable. As previously said, if you read the metal guide, you'll notice he doesn't seem to be capable to make differences between progressive metal, gothic metal and symphonic metal(As you have probably noticed in his book he mixed the three genres in one global chapter as if they were about the same).

Concerning the last two points, I know you will argue it doesn't matter what I think of him and of his reliability. You will argue this is a published book anyway. That's true, but still this book doesn't claim explicitely that this band is a gothic rock band. That's it.

So sorry, But I have to support Ada Ataki concerning the removal of this specific source. On the other hand, if you have other sourcesthat explicitely LC is a gothic rock band, then I won't remove it even if I think this is only crapFred D.Hunter (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have pointedly stopped before it could escalate, precisely so it would not turn into some kind of edit war. Do not accuse me of being "chidlish" for restoring sourced material again, thank you.

Ada Karaki continues to remove this material becuase, it would seem, of some kind of personal bias. Regardless of what you or he or anyone may think, GSY is a metal/rock journalist, and the book is a published source. It's reliable, end of discussion. I'm not going to get into some kind of pointless discussion of how "GSY isn't reliable", because whatever points you may make are, as you yourself seem to note, irrevelevant. A published source on the subject matter is a published source on the subject matter. It doesn't have to specifically be on just "gothic rock" to make genre classifications.

Sharpe-Young pointedly uses the term "post-gothic rock". Granted, this isn't the same as "gothic rock", but given that there seems to be no such thing as "post-gothic rock", the nearest approximation would thus be simply "gothic rock", in just the same way as post-hardcore is a form of hardcore punk, post-metal is a form of heavy metal music, post-rock is a form of rock music, etc. If those genres didn't (as far as wikipedia was concerned) exist, such terms would simply be used as their more general roots (hardcore/metal/rock, etc). Until some kind of "post-gothic rock" genre is truly recognised, the more general term of "gothic rock" is what fits. Prophaniti (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in reasoning. Post-Hardcore is perhaps another variant of Hardcore punk, because it cames from Hardcore punk. But if Lacuna Coil was a Gothic METAL band, they cannot be a Post-Gothic ROCK band, because they never played Gothic ROCK. Thus they're a Post-Gothic-METAL band. That's a big stylistical difference. Lacuna Coil's music shows no roots in Post-Punk music (the true origin of Gothic Rock). Their music is a simple variant of "Alternative Heavy Metal Rock". --Ada Kataki (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

However, your reasoning is mostly based on your own personal viewpoint, and that has no place in the discussion. You're saying "I think Lacuna Coil is this". Note that no one is saying "Lacuna Coil is a gothic rock band". That's why the lead of the article says "Lacuna Coil is a gothic metal band". But gothic metal and gothic rock are by no means exclusive. A band can have elements of both, or change between styles over their career. No one is saying "Lacuna Coil is a gothic rock band". Simply that "There is a source which terms them a gothic rock band". Prophaniti (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have pointedly stopped before it could escalate, precisely so it would not turn into some kind of edit war. Do not accuse me of being "chidlish" for restoring sourced material again, thank you.

Sorry, for using this term, I didn't mean to sound offensive. But come on, Prophaniti, don't be that touchy I didn't said that you personally were "childish". Anyway regardeless how you feel entitled in your attitude, this conflict seemed to escalate to an edit war. And I just tried to stop it as I can, that's it. Don't take my comment personaly.

Sorry then if I took it to personally. I just react badly when it appears both sides of an argument get blamed regardless of circumstances. Apologies if any offense was caused. Prophaniti (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ada Karaki continues to remove this material becuase, it would seem, of some kind of personal bias. Regardless of what you or he or anyone may think, GSY is a metal/rock journalist, and the book is a published source. It's reliable, end of discussion. I'm not going to get into some kind of pointless discussion of how "GSY isn't reliable", because whatever points you may make are, as you yourself seem to note, irrevelevant. A published source on the subject matter is a published source on the subject matter. It doesn't have to specifically be on just "gothic rock" to make genre classifications.I'm not going to get into some kind of pointless discussion of how "GSY isn't reliable", because whatever points you may make are, as you yourself seem to note, irrevelevant.

I already knew your point on this, as you noticed by yourself I even mentioned it in my previous message. I don't intend to challenge your agurment on this. I think it's absurd but that's the way Wikipedia works; so i'm not going to contest that.(Oh, by the way, don't misunderstand me. I didn't say YOU are absurd, I just implied I find the situation is). But unfortunately I'm afraid this is not the "end of the discussion" as you agressively put it. Because these two points are not my main objections, they are only two weaker points, as I said.

For what it's worth, I don't particularly like that wikipedia works this way either. But I tried arguing against it, and it didn't get me anywhere, so I just decided "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.". I'm not a particular fan of it either. Prophaniti (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sharpe-Young pointedly uses the term "post-gothic rock". Granted, this isn't the same as "gothic rock", but given that there seems to be no such thing as "post-gothic rock", the nearest approximation would thus be simply "gothic rock", in just the same way as post-hardcore is a form of hardcore punk, post-metal is a form of heavy metal music, post-rock is a form of rock music, etc. If those genres didn't (as far as wikipedia was concerned) exist, such terms would simply be used as their more general roots (hardcore/metal/rock, etc). Until some kind of "post-gothic rock" genre is truly recognised, the more general term of "gothic rock" is what fits.

No it doesn't. No offense, but i'm afraid this is your own interpretation of this ambiguous passage. You are making personal deduction and conjecture on this passage, and I regard this as an Original Research. You just can't prove post-gothic rock = gothic rock or something like a " nearest approximation". Because "postgothic" is an unformal term. Besides it is not explictely said that LC is a post-gothic rock band or a gothic rock band. Frankely speaking " an approximation" is not sufficient to call them gothic rock. On a side note, You'll notice that Sharpe young only mentions the gothic metal genre in the genre classification box of the front of his rockdetector page. I don't mind if you provide others sources, but this one isn't relevant because it is too ambiguous. Anyway, I'm surprised you reintroduced this source when we seemed to agree last summer to remove it for the same reasons.

But please note, regardeless what my opinions are, I'm perfectly disposed to keep the gothic rock tag as long as you can provide relevant and verifiable sources to it. but in the present case, GSY is by far too ambiguous and too irrelevant to be used here as a strong reliable source. I can understand you are irritated because I know how uncivil Ada Kataki can be when he gets involved in a conflict. But don't take anything I say as a personal charge against you. I disagree with your position but I have nothing against you personaly. I know you're a respectable and reasonable user. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not original research. There's a difference between a small logical jump and outright OR. Original Research would be if he said "They are a rock band" and later said "They look quite gothic in style" or some such, and I thus said "Therefore they're gothic rock". That's original research. This is just a case where we don't actually recnogise the precise term applied, but we have one that is much the same. Say we have a source that calls a band "War metal". We don't have a genre like that, so the logical thing to do would be to count it as simply a source for "heavy metal", because war metal would be, by definition, heavy metal. Likewise, if we have "post-gothic rock", but we don't recognise that as a genre, the sensible thing would be to simply use it as a source for "gothic rock", which post-gothic rock would be a derivitive form of. True, he isn't overall calling them a gothic rock band, but neither is the edit I'm making: it's just noting that part of their music/career.

We could, if it would be more acceptable for everyone, add in the more general "rock" tag, because we also have a source calling them "hard rock": NME [1] "Italian hard rock outfit", you can't get much clearer than that. So the two sources together could be used simply for a general "rock" genre tag. Prophaniti (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Error in reasoning. Post-Hardcore is perhaps another variant of Hardcore punk, because it cames from Hardcore punk. But if Lacuna Coil was a Gothic METAL band, they cannot be a Post-Gothic ROCK band, because they never played Gothic ROCK. Thus they're a Post-Gothic-METAL band. That's a big stylistical difference. Lacuna Coil's music shows no roots in Post-Punk music (the true origin of Gothic Rock). Their music is a simple variant of "Alternative Heavy Metal Rock". --Ada Kataki (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ada Ataki, I agree with you, but you're wasting your time here trying to argue like this. Because Prophaniti's argumentation doesn't lie there. He just doesn't care that gothic rock may descend from post-punk or whatever as long as he thinks he has a source which states LC is a gothic rock band. Besides you're also making personal interpretations and conjecture concerning the sense the post-gothic term that can't be proven either.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not original research. There's a difference between a small logical jump and outright OR.

I understand your point. But the inference of your "small logical jump" is unfortunately not so obvious to me. Sorry, but your point sounds like a conjecture or an extrapolation but unfortunately not like a falsifiable logical demonstration. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying that you're illogical. No, conjectures and extrapolations are most often logical, but they're not necessarilly falsifiable or verifiable. This is precisely the problem. Sure I agree with you this is not a blattent OR, but it tends to OR anyway as long as the conclusion of your deduction can't be verified. Your interpretation is possible, yes, but not verifiable or falsifiable like a logical demonstration, a calculation or a scientific admited claim.

Furthermore genre definition is mostly a culture conditonned process, and cultural and artistic phenomena are not always determined by logical reasoning just like mathematic, science or rational rhetorics. And genre definition is not an exact science. In consequence a "logical jump" doesn't necessarilly grants the validity of a claim when dealing with cultural or artistic aspects.

In genre definition, the suffixe "Post-" doesn't necessarilly grant a genre is part of the style it comes after. Take the musical movement known as Post-modern music: it has precisely emerged by opposition to Modernist music, and it just couldn't be regarded in anyway as a trend or a form of modern music. Ok, to avoid potential misunderstanding, I need to specify that by "modernist music", I'm refering to a stylistic tendency name musicology and music history generally use when refering to 20th century experimental/ avant-garde musical styles in contemporary classical music (such as serial music or concrete music), I'm not refering to the common sense of modern music. Post-modernism refers to styles of music that mostly reject experimental aspects of modernist music) and it would be clearly wrong to regard postmodern music as modernist music.

So it is not necessarilly granted that post-gothic rock is a part of gothic rock or something like an approximation.

Anyway the other problem is the passage concerning Post-gothic rock is vague and ambiguous, and subject to personal interpretation. As I say it doesn't explictely say LC is a gothic rock band or a post-gothic rock. This is why I regard this source as contestable. For the rest, I won't argue as long as you can provide a source with an explicit claim. I wouldn't contest anything about this, even though I disagreed. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But the comparison with modernist music is flawed: modern and post-modern represent not genres, but cultural movements, in which "post-" things can indeed be direct opposites, movements against what came before. Post-music genres aren't like that. Any post-genre must, by definition, have emerged from whatever came before. Post-metal comes from metal, post-hardcore from hardcore, post-grunge from grunge, post-rock from rock. And post-gothic rock from gothic rock. The source doesn't explicitly say "Lacuna Coil are gothic rock", but likewise, nor does my edit: it simply includes "gothic rock" (which, since we have no post-gothic rock article, it must be by definition, which is not original research) as part of their sound/career. The only way this would be open to debate is with the issue of whether post-gothic rock can be considered gothic rock, which by definition is must be.

Also, have you got a response to my suggestion of compromise with the "rock" tag and other source? Prophaniti (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gothic rock

I've just checked the two sources that should substantiate the genre Gothic rock for LC. The first one ([2]) does no longer exist and the second one ([3]) clearly states Gothic metal as a genre (perhaps updated?). I suggest Gothic rock to be removed from the article unless someone finds a new reliable source soon. -- Lacrimus (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been considered vandelism by an IP adress user for months now from the removal of it (even this article was protected for a month prior to those edits). The whole theory of gothic rock is technically valid, gothic metal shouldn't differ that much from its original base of being gothic rock. And it won't be that much of an issue to find a new source. - GunMetal Angel 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the discussions above, so I know the issue. I disagree with your point. Gothic rock is practically a dead genre since the late 80s/early 90s. I can't see any reason why LC should be considered a gothic rock band. A marginal influence of Gothic rock on Gothic metal doesn't make LC a gothic rock band. The current sources are no longer available or lack accuracy. I must insist on a proper and explicit source for this classification. Perhaps someone can find an archive cache for the first source, the second one is imho not suitable. -- Lacrimus (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, in the meantime above all, I guess I can frankly agree. At this moment gothic rock will be removed, and gothic metal will stay seeing how there is more than enough sources to verify that. However, your whole statement of "gothic rock is practically a dead genre since the late 80s/early 90s", if that's so, then what about Aenima? Well anyway, I will remove it for this period. • GunMetal Angel 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the initiative, I appreciate that. Concerning Aenima: I only know their EP Never Fragile which can imho be considered as shoegaze or Ethereal wave. -- Lacrimus (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

They are a band not a duo!

According to article photo Lacuna Coil are a duo consisting of Andrea and Cristina. Although there are other two pics, other band members are hardly visible. Encyclopedia craves for a proper band photo.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

genre

also, why are they alternative metal. all their album pages list gothic metal and nothing about alternative metal. alternative metal is more along the lines of mudvayne, or certain things like that.Shatterzer0 07:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to this, they are alternative metal too. -- ReyBrujo 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks alot like the MySpace things, where they force bands to pick out 3 styles of music they could be categorized as though. I mean, if you look at the band's run myspace it makes no mention to alternative.Shatterzer0 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I also dispute the "alternative metal" tag. Personally, I'd instead suggest "Gothic (or Goth) metal" and "Gothic rock", and/or possibly "Alternative rock". Essi Berelian's "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" backs that up, and never mentions "alternative metal" either. Garry Sharpe-Young's "Definitive Guide to Metal" calls their early work "Gothic metal" and the more recent work "post-gothic rock" (e.g. either alternative rock or just gothic rock). Prophaniti (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, well there aren't any sources as yet citing alternative metal, and two published sources I have never mention it, instead terming them gothic metal and later gothic rock (or post-gothic rock, but since we don't have an article on that I thought I'd just stick with gothic rock). Prophaniti (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the Definitive Guide to Metal", GSY indeed mentions the term "post-gothic rock" about them. But as far as I read I fail to see any mention of something like "post-gothic rock = either alternative rock or just gothic rock.It's seems that's your own personal interpretation

I'm sorry but LC has nothing common with gothic rock. Just compare LC with the Sisters of mercy (a true gothic rock band). This is just not the same thing!

Anyway the term "postgothic" is an unformal term, I know it is used but such a term doesn't refer to any official genre for the moment. So I doubt you can use it as something very relevant with respect to the band's style definition.

On the other hand, I clearly hear large influences of alternative in their last album Karma Code. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd quite happily agree with removing the "gothic rock" tag, replacing it with "alternative rock", or even a (for now) linkless "post-gothic rock" tag. Or even just plain "rock". My main point of objection is more the "alternative metal" tag, and both Definitive Guide and Berelian's Rough Guide term their later work "rock" of some sort or another. Prophaniti (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well considering GSY seems to be incapable to make differences between progressive metal, gothic metal and symphonic metal(As you have probably noticed in his book he mixed the three genres in one global chapter as if they were about the same), I doubt he is very reliable on this subject anyway. ::Anyway, these sources may use the term "rock" in their wording, The thing is LC is by no means gothic rock. If you don't know what gothic rock is, I strongly suggest you to listen to iconic bands of the genre such as the sisters of Mercy, Field of the Nephilim, Bauhaus, the cure (early), London After midnight. ANd you'll realise LC just has nothing similar to these bands.Seriously I got a book specialized in gothic (Carnets noirs) and they do'nt classify LC as gothic rock but only as gothic metal. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what we might personally think of GSY (some of his classifications are a little odd, but he's by -far- the most accurate of all the published sources on metal I've found), as a published book what he says is considered "reliable" by official wikipedia standards. But anyway, what would you suggest in place of gothic rock? As I say, I'm perfectly happy for it to change. Prophaniti (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Garry Sharpe Young is indeed by far the most accurate concerning biographies not concerning stylistic classification. Anyway you're right it doesn't matter what I think, because no matter how inaccurate a source is, it can be used anyway if we refer to Wikipedia's verifiability policy( "not truth, but verifibility"). So go on. But still I fail to see any passage in the book claiming that gothic rock = post-gothic rock. Such an association is only pure interpretation of yours not a claim of GSY. And the term post-gothic rock is an unformal term that doesn't refer to an official genre.

Anyway, for my part I still think sources that classify LC as gothic rock, just have no idea of what gothic rock really is. LC just has nothing to do with gothic rock bands like the Sisters of Mercy.

I'm not proposing any tag instead, but one thing is sure Karmacode album is far from being gothic metal or gothic rock. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie, well if you do wish to change it at any point, go right ahead. As I say, my only real complaint was the "alt. metal" tag for their later work. As long as that's out, I'm not fussed what they're given. Prophaniti (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, please, please change the genre to "progressive metal" or "progressive rock." No offense, but gothic rock? Not at all. Progressive is really unique music that displays an original, exotic sound that can't really be classified as anything specific. LC completely fit this category. Do I have your permission to change it to progressive metal? user:Borr29 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

I recommend something broad like "metal" or even "rock" in the lead-up, and have both goth and alt metal in the genre section.Ximmerman (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Progressive," "metal" and "rock" are a bit too wide to precisely measure what genre of music they play. They are generally considered gothic metal due to the darker imagery, ambient textures and male/female vocal combination they utilize. I maintain that Shallow Life is predominantly alternative rock, characterized by linear song structures and pop-rock songwriting conventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.57.167 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We can tag them "Alternative rock". They're surely aren't gothrock (nothing in common with The Sisters of Mercy, Red Lorry Yellow Lorry or Bauhaus) and alt-rock is a wider tag that can include the catchy sound of the last two releases and the goth-metal influenced sound (only an influence, also here they have very few elements in common with, for example, Tristania) of their earlier releases. --94.37.179.120 (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

>.> um symphonic black metal, power metal?? really?? i mean i know nothing about symphonic black metal, but im pretty sure that LC isnt neither symphonic nor black metal, and nightwish is power metal not LC! i mean really, AMG is not always such a good source, why not just tag em as alternative metal, gothic metal, and proggressive metal?? its waaay better and there are more references on those three than in any other genre 24.139.117.90 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? O_o

Lacuna Coil are symphonic black metal and power metal? LMAO OMG that is hilarious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.95.169 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, indeed this is grotesque... But unfortunately this is sourced. The fair principles of Wikipedia can be pushed to the absurd sometimes, as long as it is sourced... And since Allmusic is considered as reliable source no matter the frequent absurdities featured in their pages... there's nothing we can do...Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably should dump Heavy Metal and Power Metal. Heavy Metal should be associated with late 60's and 70's bands such as Judas Priest and Iron Maiden. Power Metal almost fits, but is a Fusion genre for Symphonic Metal and Progressive Metal.Knofbath (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Lacuna Coil isn't listed on the top artist pages for either Heavy Metal or Power Metal:

http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/heavy-metal-d655/artists

http://www.allmusic.com/explore/style/power-metal-d11959/artists Knofbath (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, to me Allmusic.com isn't a reliable source... but whatever...

Judas Priest and Iron Maiden are not the most relevant examples you could take to make your point. Yes, they were respectively born in the 60's and 70's, but they met widespread popularity in the 80's. Anyway heavy metal isn't a chronological category, but a stylistic category including more recent bands... don't mistake birth date, period of popularity and stylistic identity. Power metal almost fits? Seriously? Power metal a Fusion genre for Symphonic Metal and Progressive Metal? Are you kidding me? We certainly don't have the same definition of what Power metal is... Come on let's be serious. There's a serious confusion: actually certain Symphonic and progressive branches include power metal style but not the contrary. Power metal isn't the result of their fusion. This is a nonsense.

Anyway ,let's refer to this grotesque source, if we are to observe wikipedia rules, but if you ask me, you really shouldn't try to rationalize or justify them with your personnal opinions, especially if you're not familliar with what you're talking about. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Just passing through, updating my collection's genres. Don't get all huffy when I stare at the scene of the accident.Knofbath (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree here. Lacuna Coil playing symphonic black metal, power metal or even gothic rock... that's ludicrous! These genres are not suitable in any way. I removed the latter as the given source was in no way reliable (see also my remarks above). I also second Alpha Ursae Minoris' opinion on Allmusic.com not being a reliable source and would like to see the respective genres in doubt being removed from the article (btw: Allmusic.com is not considered a reliable source on de.WP; that makes things a lot easier over there ;-). After all, the infobox should only specify the primary genres of a band and not minor musical influences that some author claims to have identified... -- Lacrimus (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No longer gothic metal

According to several music reviews, their myspace page, and even Lacuna Coil themselves, they are no longer gothic metal as of this year with their release, Shallow Life. They now consider themselves a "modern rock" and alternative band. Their myspace genre was changed from "gothic" to "alternative". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coiler fan (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

MySpace is never reliable, if you or someone else can find a reliable source to this it can be stated. • GunMetal Angel 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

They may not be gothic metal now but some of the music is so it needs to be kept as gothic metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.0.75 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dark adrenaline platinum?

I am pretty sure that this album has not achieved platinum in the united states and the referance given for this dose not show it has so it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.69.18 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Name?

Is there any story behind the name? I just had the crazy idea that it might be a reference to a Tesla coil in that lacuna means "missing", "empty", or "gap", and that a Tesla coil is notable in that it is an air-core (ironless) transformer. That is, its coil is empty. That crazy theory could easily be wrong, but is the etimology of the band's name public knowledge? —BenFrantzDale 15:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not certain because it is a while ago I heard about Lacuna Coil. But I remember this being mentioned a lot and it certainly fits with the music.

I'd say yes, and anyway, it is the official meaning so I don't see why Lacuna's name should mean anything different.

I think it's maybe worth being added. =) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papa leaf (talk • contribs) .

Lacuna Coils name has a literal translation of "Empty Spiral", reflecting their views on life... check the Biography on the offical fan club —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.110.220 (talk • contribs) .

"Lacuna" could also be seen as a corruption of "Laocoon", a mythical serpent. Coiled Snake. Note that their name does not mean that, but before I heard the translation, I assumed as much... means empty spiral Inuxshinedown 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed "which in English translates as", because "lacuna" and "coil" are both English words already.217.33.154.66 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151106212158/http://www.rasputinmusic.com/reviews.cfm/?genre=mt&page_type=review&review_number=120 to http://www.rasputinmusic.com/reviews.cfm?genre=mt&page_type=review&review_number=120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325121422/http://www.lacunacoil.it/biography/ to http://www.lacunacoil.it/biography/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927122948/http://www.emptyspiral.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=95 to http://www.emptyspiral.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=95

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lacuna Coil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325124723/http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/11535/tempidx/4/menuid/2 to http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/11535/tempidx/4/menuid/2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Factual mistakes

Hello, I just found a video in which Cristina Scabbia describes how much and which of the information here is right, and how much and which is wrong. I don't have time to edit now so if someone can get onto this, it would be nice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVtcI8SSfmo Georgipeev03 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

Text and references copied from Lacuna Coil and Melissa VanFleet, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed Lacuna Coil logo svg

The logo posted was only used for their Karmacode album cycle from 2006-2009. If anyone can find the svg logo used from 2014 onwards, please upload that instead. MisfitGhoul (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)