Talk:Metalcore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Melodic Metalcore

I googled this and found nothing but speculation at best. It seems like another useless genre invented to keep bands like Trivium from being considered metalcore. I don't understand the negative connotations surrounding the genre. No one is offended at the terms "hardcore" or "metal" (within the community at least), but if you label a band as metalcore, then BLAM! IMPEDING DEATH AND SPAM! So yeah, if anyone plans on adding melodic metalcore again, properly source it. By properly, I mean no Amazon, MA, and the like. Thank you. --Wick3dd 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Melodic metalcore is not an existing genre, i though i had asserted this in my edit. The purpose pleaof the term is to explain that the later metalcore bands have rooted away from hardcore and more into the melodic death metal (Scandinavian metal) influence, but with breakdowns (wich refers to metalcore). We don't need any sources to state that fact. Only auditive skills.

The problem is that bands like Trivium , Killswitch engage and As i lay dying are labeled Metalcore, but in reality, if you compare the sound of these bands to the early metalcore bands, you will notice that they sound nothing alike. The sound is more melodic and sophisticated.

So if Melodic metalcore is not the appropriate term, wich one is? "New wave of american metal", "Modern Metalcore" "Melodic Death Metalcore"? --Joe83420 3:32, 3 December 2007

Though you may be right, we need sources to add this to the article. The same goes with auditive skills. However, the issue we are dealing with is not a new one. Take grindcore for example. How do you compare what most people consider grindcore now (Waking the Cadaver type of thing) with Napalm Death? You don't. I think we are better off leaving out subgenres completely if they cannot be sourced. I am going to find sources for deathcore and the like, or attempt to do so. If none are to be found, I am simply going to remove the subsections in question. --Wick3dd 21:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

THE TRUTH: Lets get to it. I am an expert on most things metal, including crappy genres like metalcore (sadly). Melodic metalcore is a non-existent genre, period. Before I get to more, let me just state that hardcore (scremo) is an even worse genre, unless you are talking about the original hardcore punk movement in the 80s. Anyways, melodic metalcore can't be sourced (reliably) because it is not a real genre. There is some truth, though, that the metalcore bands nowadays are more melodic (wimpier) sounding than the original metalcore bands (though all are bad). This can easily be stated somewhere in the article if you source it. Also, the "new wave of american metal" is a misnomer, but is ually applied to all of the metalcore genre (the real NWOAM would actually be thrash bands like Slayer and the like, but the term is never applied to them). That's pretty much all I have to say for now. PS If you like metalcore then listen to swedish melodeath (sometimes called Gothenburg) bands like At the Gates, or early In Flames. Those are the bands that inspired/ influenced the metalcore movement in America, but the swedish melodeath bands were way better and didn't dilute their metal as much. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Minus the POV, I agree with your points. --Wick3dd 03:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, thank you. I may be opinionated, but I know my metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we are going to have to notify an admin of the melodic metalcore IP's behavior. He refuses to take part in this discussion and keeps adding his paragraph into the page. He tried to sneak it into deathcore just now. This is almost outright vandalism. --Wick3dd 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Once I read Navnløs' reply, I decided against taking part. Why would I want to waste my time? When a user claims to be "an expert on most things metal, including crappy genres like metalcore," how can I take them seriously? 68.47.81.164 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ignore any POV, just focus on finding sources for melodic metalcore. --Wick3dd (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a whole new arcticle should be added on the new wave of American metal rather than trying to put the whole genre inside metalcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.156.35 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the "new wave of American metal"? Face it, most new metal acts are nothing original. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

By NWOAHM I meant all the bands who apply to the "melodic metalcore" genre, if it even is one. If you can think of somthing better to call it be my guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.156.35 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, metalcore works just fine. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be opinionated, but im not instituting pov when I say melodic metalcore doesn't exist. It doesn't and no sources for it can be found. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, its simple, theres no such thing as "melodic" metalcore. Metalcore in its very nature is MELODIC, so the added prefix is nothing but ridiculous. SilverOrion 30 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added melodic metalcore, with a description and a source (this month's Revolver), which I think is reliable and verifiable. Furthermore, metalcore is certainly not "by its very nature" melodic. Integrity, Converge, Earth Crisis, Botch, Cable -- none of these bands emphasize melody. Aryder779 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you haven't actually made any distinction between "melodic metalcore" and the other sub-genres (or metalcore in general).--SilverOrion (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See my response at the bottom of the page, under "What is Metalcore?" Aryder779 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moshcore

Does anyone have a citation saying that this is a subgenre of metalcore? I would have thought is was more accurately described as a subgenre of hardcore. Unless metalcore is defined as any fusion of hardcore and metal, in which case Groove Metal would also be a subgenre. --Bmbch (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have placed moshcore under Articles for Deletion as per WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it should have been deleted just that it isn't a subgenre of metalcore. I've heard people use the term for years to describe bands like Hatebreed and Throwdown, ie hardcore with metal influences. --Bmbch (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

NWOAHM

Can I just say that I think this is a terrible term as not all metalcore bands are from the USA or The Americas. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 10:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, we should not be coining new terms here. --Wick3dd (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrible or not it is how many refer to the metalcore movement. It was started in America, even though bands of the genre have sprouted up in other parts of the world...sadly. I agree that we shouldn't be coining new terms here, but that term is also not new. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's too new to be using here, I believe. Simply google the term, there are not near enough sources. I also do not agree that it started in America. It was mainly America, but Europe has some key players as well. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I suppose. Europe's "key players" were mostly melodeath bands, though. I hope you're not talking about At the Gates or In Flames or any of that...because they would be influential to the development to metalcore but they were not metalcore. They were responsible for the swedish melodeath sound aka gothenburg (not the city). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't referring to them. Hey you seem knowledgeable on melodeath, so I want some opinions. If you read the melodeath page, Carcass is mentioned as a minor role, so I added them along in the first paragraph along with In Flames and the like, with a source. Their Heartwork album is arguably the first, or close to the first, melodeath album. Do you think it is accurate to at least add them with the other key players?--Wick3dd (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. I haven't really looked at the melodeath page extrensively, but I'll tak e a look now. But yeah, Carcass was one of the first of the genre. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw "you seem knowledgeable on melodeath"....oh I am. I'm knowledgeable on all things metal duh! Although I admit when it comes to the death metal genre my knowledge is not as extensive as others, but on most other things incl. melodeath...I is smart, boa'h. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand, I agree that Metalcore should not be synonymous with NWOAHM. NWOAHM should be considered a subgenre of Metalcore, specifically the new wave of AMERICAN heavy metal bands...obviously. Like Lamb of God. They could be called NWOAHM. The first time I heard the term NWOAHM was in a book I saw at Barnes and Noble. Something to do with the history of rock, I can't remember the name of it, I wish I could it would be a great reference. I looked up Lamb of God (my favorite band) and it listed it under NWOAHM which if my memory serves me correct was a new subgenre of Metalcore. I guess I should go find that book! Feral Mind (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

NWoAHM is still not a genre (or subgenre). Just as NWoBHM isn't. NWoBHM refers to a particular movement of bands during the late 70's from the UK. I think NWoAHM is an inane, ridiculous and retarded term. Only few use it and to compare metalcore to real and awesome classic heavy metal is STUPID. Metalcore isn't metal. But anyways even if you do find a source and add it in (which is unneccesary) you can't refer to NWoAHM as a genre or subgenre of anything. It's a movement (I don't even think it's that but w/e) just as NWoBHM was a movement and not a genre. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

List Of Metalcore Bands

Someone really needs to put one up. Seriously. This article doesn't have MUCH infomation about Metalcore at all, if there was a list at least their would be a reason to come to this page. 222.154.65.213 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I think the article is not up to standards. It features loads of OR and desperately needs sources. I have read the German article [1], the French article [2] and thinks they make more sense (although they needs sources too).

I translated the German article (at least, I tried, I'm not German) Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Metalcore is a fusion genre that incorporates elements from thrash metal, melodic death metal and hardcore punk. The term is a portmanteau of heavy metal and hardcore punk. Due to the rise in popularity in the United States during the early 2000s the genre is also described as the New Wave of American Heavy Metal (as an allusion to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal of the late 1970s). Some notable bands in modern metalcore are As I Lay Dying, Caliban, Chimaira, Heaven Shall Burn and Killswitch Engage. Metalcore emerged as a commercial force in 2002–2003. It is rooted in the crossover thrash style developed by bands such as Suicidal Tendencies, Dirty Rotten Imbeciles, and Stormtroopers of Death in the mid-1980s. Through the 1990s, metalcore was mostly an underground phenomenon, but by 2004 it had become popular enough that Killswitch Engage's The End of Heartache and Shadows Fall's The War Within debuted at numbers 21 and 20, respectively, on the Billboard album chart. Bullet for My Valentine, from Wales, reached similar heights on the British album chart with The Poison (2005). Lamb of God broke into the Billboard top 10 with Sacrament (2006). In recent years, metalcore bands have received prominent slots at Ozzfest and Download Festival. Music and attitude Metalcore has evolved from hardcore punk bands who incorporated (not translated yet) Origin and development The origin of metalcore can be traced back to the 1980s where bands such as Suicidal Tendencies, Dirty Rotten Imbeciles, Stormtroopers of Death. and Crumbsuckers were the first hardcore punk bands to combine hardcore punk and heavy metal, a fusion genre known as crossover. The first incarnations of crossover in the New York hardcore scene were bands like Cro-Mags, Agnostic Front and Madball who took elements from heavy metal in the 1990s. Another band from the New York scene, Biohazard also incorporated hip hop elements into their crossover style. Bands like Pro-Pain and Merauder played a highly energetic hardcore/metal crossover, which was labelled metalcore by the press in the early 1990. The next development was the division of hardcore punk into old school (f.e. Agnostic Front, Sick of It All, Slapshot) and new school (f.e. Earth Crisis, Snapcase, Refused) hardcore. The old school was more focused on a positive critical attitude, simple riffs and fast paced rhythms, whereas the new school played more complex songs with more negative and dark lyrical content. The more experimental new school movement moved away from the old school movement, which kept being true to the hardcore punk origins of the 1980s. In Scandinavia, parallel to the 1990s development in hardcore punk, melodic death metal would arise. This thrash metal and death metal influenced style would incorporate melodic guitar hooks, polyphonic melodies and typical high pitched guttural vocals. Bands like At the Gates, Dark Tranquillity, thrash metal icons Slayer and black metal band Emperor are considered influences on the melodic death metal genre. The new school hardcore style and melodic death metal came together in the late 1990s to form a new fusion genre metalcore. Although the term metalcore is not entirely new, nowadays, it is used to describe bands like Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, Shadows Fall and Unearth. In 2004, major labels have signed metalcore bands. Heaven Shall Burn and Maroon are signed to Century Media, Caliban to Roadrunner Records (not translated) Way better than the arcticle right now, put it on

Punk metal redirect for discussion

I'd like to make readers aware of this Redirect for discussion. Punk metal now links to the metalcore article. I think the redirect should be removed as it is misleading. Punk metal is a far broader genre than metalcore, it's like redirecting food to spaghetti. Please post your comment here. Thanks! Kameejl ^(Talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's been fixed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's true, the redirect was a crap idea. Thanks for reading, Thundermaster^TRUC 10:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think some more discussion on the early years of Crossover Thrash should be made

I think some discussion on the early years of crossover thrash should be made clear that there were two distinct forks in the following generation of music, e.g. groove metal and metalcore, and their differences in style and approach and relationship with each other... or possibly could someone start an article for crossover thrash and include these details? So far the crossover thrash article is just an overlooked stub under thrash metal. I think some elaboration should be done on the history of crossover thrash because it spawned two unique genres, while being closely related, are also now quite different in approach, where metalcore usually favors a more punk aesthetic and groove metal favors a more metal aesthetic. (A good comparison would be like, a pizza to a calzone. While simular, and containing simular ingredients, they are quite different, because the way its made is different) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarrelClemmons (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Genre is criticized by the metal community...shouldn't that be added.

I've heard it several times. Just like with nu metal, metalcore has been attacked by the metal community as being a "metal" genre. If there's a source that mentions this, it should be added into the articleMaplejet (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree, but it won't be added. just as the nu metal article states nothing about it's criticism by "real" metal fans, so it will be with this article. Someone will explain it to you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Its true, 'real metal' fans hate metalcore. They say its no different to all this emo screamo post hardcore crap that everyone is listening to. Portillo (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh but it is different; if you listen to any Australian metalcore you'll hear some very decent guitar work and some downright heavy stuff that puts "real" metal to shame... To compare metalcore to those abominations we know as "emo" or "screamo" is ridiculous, they're totally different. Agreed, there are a lot of crap metalcore bands out there, but to stereotype all the hard working, technically proficient bands based on the boring "mainstream" metalcore acts is just stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.117.66 (talk) 02:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY like the guy said in the Nu Metal discussion, "one day Metalcore will be looked down on by Metal fans" Popularity=bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.215 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, popularity doesn't have to be bad. Many real metal bands that are popular have a ton of fans and few dissenters (Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, etc.). It just happens that in most real metal fans' eyes, nu metal and metalcore suck. They are repetitive sounding genres mixing metal with horrible genres like rap and post-hardcore. Most metal fans don't care when metal is mixed with something like funk, classical music or folk music, but when you start mixing metal with newer, more mainstream genres (like rap and post-hardcore) then yeah, you'll get some grumbles. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's stupid, "real metal" doesn't exist, it just metal, all those "real" metalheads are just elitists whores. If by some reason Death metal gets mainstream attention, they would say "that genre is not real metal." There's no such thing as "real metal" or "true metal", it's just music.--Kmaster (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right and you're also wrong. Metalcore and nu metal is hardly metal. And you're wrong about mainstream attention. Read what I said before. Iron Maiden is really fuckin' popular but almost all metalheads still love them. It's hardly stupid. Most "true" metalheads don't care much about popularity and they like what they like. As I said, most of them just get pissed and don't like it when bands try to mix metal with newer genres that are in the extreme mainstream. Mixing pop/rap/screamo/etc. with metal is never a good idea. If you disagree with that then idk what to say. Glam metal sucked when it was popular, too. We're not "elitist whores," we just like good music and usually are against mainstream newer shit. That crap doesn't mix with metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"That's crap" Are u saying that hardcore is crap or metalcore is crap? "Metalcore and nu metal is hardly metal" Metalcore is not metal, is a hardcore fusion genre. Same thing with metal I guess, "true" metalcore is hardcore punk with heavy metal ('90s Underground metalcore), nowadays is post hardcore/screamo/mainstreamo with metal. Btw, is funny to se how u guys vandalize my user page, that's really mature. --Kmaster (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a really long response and wikipedia decided to delete it because it was being slow. I'm not going to write all that again, so bear with me. This has gone way off topic and I just wanted to also point out I was not one of the people who vandalized your page and I wouldn't do that. "That crap" was referring to "mainstream newer shit" such as rap, pop, screamo, etc. You are right about metalcore. I don't even understand why they call it metalcore or hardcore nowadays. The metalcore and hardcore now has nothing to do with the original metalcore movement and the original hardcore punk movement. They don't sound anything alike. They should stop calling the metalcore and hardcore now metalcore or hardcore. They should call it "wannabe-cool-melodic-whining-and-screaming-badly-about-the-world-and--playing-our-instruments-all-wrong-and-untalented-like-and-being-really-stupid-and-gay-sounding-core" or something. Cuz shit like As I Lay Dying, Killswitch Engage and Bullet For My Valentine is not metalcore, it's just bad and whiny and horrible. I'm not even that big of a fan of the original metalcore as it is. Some of the original hardcore punk bands from the 80's I like, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some 'real metal' fans even hate death metal. I knew a thrash metal nut, who hated death metal, he was also involved in the local thrash metal scene and they hated it too. So its kinda weird. Portillo (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A honorable mention

D9ont you think you should add the names of bands like Atreyu to a list on this topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.173 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't provide an example of every metalcore band just a select few is fine. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 03:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Honorable? Atreyu? Sorry but, atreyu is nothing. A real honorable mention should be Shai Hulud. This band should... MUST be named in this article, they were the first band that labeled their music as metalcore. In fact, they invented the term metalcore in the 90's (Guitarist Matt Fox did) before those crappy pseudo-mainstremo bands appear in the metalcore scene. Madball, Judge, Hatebreed and Biohazard sound more like NY Hardcore to me, I would say that Converge was the first mordern metalcore band.

"Fox says proudly of the days before the term “metalcore” even existed. He admits the up the ante, refusing to adhere to trends or to cash in on some musical renaissance."

— Metal Blade Records (interview with Matt Fox) 2008 [3]

--Jpkmaster (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sylistic Origins Genre(s)

As per the constant unneccesary edits (and edit wars) to the genres in the infobox to the stylistic origins section, there will be no more changes to the stylistic origins genres of Metalcore. I have added a message in the music infobox in the "stylistic origins" section (you will see this if you edit the page) that states any changes to the genres of said section will be reverted if not supported on this talk page. So hopefully less people will edit the page and instead talk on here. It has already been decided that the stylistic origins include: hardcore punk, thrash metal, melodic death metal and heavy metal. I really don't think there are any more additions to this needed, or any taken out on that note. If you disagree, state your case here. Know that these above genres are well supported and widely regarded as the right ones by the editors of this page. If you think another genre needs to be included/ taken out, expect to have to argue your point and prove it, too. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Metalcore was started in the late 80's and Melodic death metal was started in early 90's so if the latter should be present in the stylistic origins, it should be accompanied by 'recently' or something to that effect. Munci (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually melo-death started at the end of the 80's with the earliest being Dark Tranquillity's demo Enfeebled Earth in 1989 so I think you're right about that. Metalcore started in the mid-80's but was underground at the time, although, it sure influenced many modern metalcore bands nowadays which is where "melodicized" metalcore could of come from. Maybe a small bit about melodic death metal as an influence to modern metalcore? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree and if you want to say that, put it in the article, but not in the stylistic origins box. Doesn't belong there. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify , what exactly is it you're agreeing to? Would you agree that melodic death metal should be removed from the stylistic origins? Munci (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No I think it should be kept in, but perhaps you could mention in the article somewhere, shortly, that melodeath was a later influence. It already talks about that in the article, I think, but you could add a sentence or something to make it clearer. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One fact...

alternative metal was very important in the creation of the metalcore, so, KEEP the alternative metal in the "stylistic origins" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.100.203.129 (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

are you serious? alt metal has nothing to do with metalcore, metalcore sounds different and came about long before most of those horrible alt "metal" bands.

Attention to all: New Wave of American Heavy Metal

1

NWOAHM was a redirect to metalcore for the longest time, as it was decided that it was hardly a real movement or anything and only a handful of people had dubbed it thus. However, recently User:Lykantrop has been working on a NWOAHM page as you will see if you click on the link above. I keep reverting him and restoring it to a redirect but he has two references and is adamant that the article be made. If, when you click on the above link and he has not reverted me yet, you can see what I'm talking about here. I bring this up to get some consensus and opinion on the subject. I have already made it clear that I feel it is a ridculous term and not a movement as the NWoBHM was. As evidenced by that you can see that on the NWOAHM page there is no semblance of a movement. It is just random American bands from many varying newer genres (groove metal, metalcore, death metal, nu metal, thrash metal, etc. [mostly crappy post hardcore/screamo/metalcore bands]) all thrown together. He only seems to have two sources (which he thinks is enough) that are not even slightly accurate, though both come from supposedly reputable sites by wikipedia standards. The sites would be Stylus and Blabbermouth. They stylus source, which is here only has one sentence mentioning, "In the so-called New Wave of American Heavy Metal (NWOAHM), Lamb of God has emerged as one of the four most popular acts (among Shadows Fall, Killswitch Engage, and Trivium). " Which I think is total bullshit. I know Lamb Of God has been on a personal crusade to legitamize the term, "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." They seem to be the only opnes saying it. Hell, they even have it on their myspace picture (it says "new wave of american heavy metal" no joke). The blabbermouth source, found here is equally ridiculous. It's an article talking about some idiot from Rockdetector who is making a book about the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." It also crams a bunch of genres together (thrash, nu, groove, etc.) and there only connection is that they are all from America. It's a joke. Get it through your heads, these shitty metalcore/groove metal/nu metal bands are not the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." There never was one. And if there was it was Slayer, Megadeth, Possessed, Anthrax, Metallica, etc. (some metalhead fans do argue that that was the "NWOAHM," which I can agree with more than this shit now). Man, people piss me off. Thoughts? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2

(Without reading the above) I have fully protected the article/redirect for 48 hours. Hopefully that'll give you guys enough time to come to a consensus about your disputes. Thanks and message me if any of you need anything. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3

Could you please (instead of apparent POV speech) give me at least 1 reason why I should not create the NWOAHM article? Please leave out your-opinion-arguments. Write it short and clear please. Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

4

My speech makes plenty of good points, pov-laden though it may be. One of my points is that it is not a notable movement (or a movement at all) like the NWOBHM was. You also never apologized to me for assuming horribly bad faith by saying I was vandalizing, page blanking, and making bad faith edits (none of which I did). I don't really need you to apologize to me, but I just wanted to make a point. You need to watch yourself. You've been warned before for assuming bad faith and calling people vandals when they weren't. If you had reported me to an admin, you may have very well ended up in trouble, not me. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

5

Ho hum. Another edit war that need to be chilled. I've taken a look at the page you've created, Lykantrop. I've noticed that you have rip off a reference you cite word for word. If you're going to copy almost an entire sentence, you should put it in quotation marks so as to avoid violating WP:Copyvio. I see five distinct sources on the page. The urbandictionary, last.fm and roadrunner sources should all be discarded. They are not reliable sources. That leave two. You've got a review on Stylus that mentions NWoAHM in passing and you've got a blabbermouth news article on a book from Garry Sharpe-Young entitled New Wave of American Heavy Metal. I noticed that the same news article also mentions that there's more to come, too. A mammoth two-volume "Scandinavian Rock & Metal" is on its way for early 2006. Of course, there is no article on wikipedia for "Scandinavian Rock & Metal." We do not go around creating articles just because someone has used the term for the title of a book.

Now a casual search on google reveals 25,900 hits for the term "Scandinavian Rock" in quotes. I get only 12,800 hits for "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" in quotes. I also get 25,500 hits for "pirate metal" while "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" gets over a quarter million hits. You're creating an article for a term that's not exactly well known or established. Google search is something that one should always take with a pinch of salt but I find it curious that something as absurd as "pirate metal" gets more hits than "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." It would certainly appear then that NWoAHM is very much a neologism. Now according to wikipedia's guidelines, new terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. If you want to create an article on this subject and obviously you do, you're going to need more reliable sources to verify that this movement is real and legitimate. If this is going to take some time, then I suggest you create your own sandbox to work on it. You can then avoid engaging in any further edit war and can instead build up the article at a leisurely pace. When you feel that your article has enough reliable sources for verifiability, you can then make the transfer to its proper location. You can also drop a line at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal to get some feedback from other interested editors. Right now, all you've got is something close to a stub: just a few sentences and a few sources, most of which are not reliable.

As for you, Blizzard Beast, I can understand why you feel the need to revert the article back into the redirect. The term is obviously a neologism and we are all quite used to removing neologism on wikipedia including such other dubious terms as pirate metal, troll metal, circus metal and so on. This NWoAHM does not seem to be a widely used term but there is a bit of a difference between it and those other neologism. You've got one reliable source named Garry Sharpe-Young who have used the term. You might think he's an idiot - I would not go that far myself - but regardless, he does qualify as a reliable source and so we simply should not dismiss this NWoAHM in haste. What Lykantrop obviously need is more reliable sources that are more substantial than a news article on a book. There is a distinct possibility that those reliable sources can actually be supplied though, especially if someone can get a hold of the book and actually take a look at what's inside it. As an aside, a movement is not the same thing as a genre and there's no reason why a movement cannot encompass many different styles. Def Leppard and Venom were two very different NWOBHM acts. --Bardin (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

6

Thanks for this contribution. You told me some good tips (to Bardin). But note, that I don't use Last FM and Roadrunner as sources. They are tagged as External links. That is a difference. Last FM is a radio playing NWOAHM songs - an external link (reader can listen to NWOAHM. The poll on Roadruner is just another external link (the reader can vote about NWOAHM artists). I see you compare some musical genres and NWOBHM to NWOAHM. Of course NWOBHM has so many hits in google. That is because NWOBHM is more than 30 years old term. I know that there are not tons of information about NWOAHM, but I still have total freedom to create articles (even as stubs if necessary). I understand and respect your opinion that you just don't want any NWOAHM article, but there is no policy that forbids the creation of a new article. You probably ask about notability, but there are sources (not many, but are), there is a radio on Last FM, there is pretty big book aboout it. That is more than enough (for me and for natability and I am sorry if not for you ). (to Navnlos:) Calling the author an "idiot" statements such as "Which I think is total bullshit" is a nice example how you discuss (if it can be called a discussion) and work (if it can be called work) on Wikipedia. You also talk about about consensus. That consensus above is based on totally non-neutral POVs. What do you think- if some editors make a consensus that Qur'an should be redirected to David Beckham - do you think that it means anything? Consensus does not mean this is the way it will be. I don't see any accurate arguments on that consensus - the consensus is nothing. I have the freedom to create articles. Only thing what you did was redirecting it to metalcore with no arguments. Tell me WHAT forbids to make new articles or stubs, that are notable and sourced. But don't tell me that I have too little sources. (and please stay WP:CIVIL)  LYKANTROP  14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

7

I don't think "pirate metal" is any older than than NWoAHM and yet it double the hits of the latter. I daresay that you have misread my comments given that I did not expressed any opinion one way or the other about whether there should be any article on NWoAHM. I merely explained to you wikipedia's policy on neologism (which is what NWoAHM is) and what you should do if you want to avoid running into more problems like this. Contrary to what you assert, you do not have the total freedom to create any article you fancy. We do have a policy on this and it is called notability. Other relevant policies include verifiability and original research as well as the aforementioned neologism that applies to this particular issue. Various editors in the past have created articles on circus metal, pirate metal, troll metal and many other ridiculous neologism. These articles were all struck down and deleted. There's a reason why they were deleted and you would be wise to familiarise yourself with all those guidelines and policies on wikipedia if you want to avoid seeing any articles you create similarly deleted. I suspect both you and Blizzard Beast are completely unaware that an article for NWoAHM had already been created years ago before being deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave of American Heavy Metal. I have no idea what Blizzard Beast is referring to when he mentions consensus but every single vote in that nomination were for delete. Quite the consensus there. Blizzard Beast is perfectly entitled then to revert your attempts to recreate an article that has been deleted before. His choice of words might not have been the best but that's a moot point. There's really no need to refer to consensus at all when you're trying to resurrect a deleted article. Quite frankly, you are treading on very thin grounds and if you think that the sources you have on the article now is enough (one news advert for a book and a passing mention in a review), then I'm sorry to say but you are completely mistaken. --Bardin (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

8

You say that the problem would be in notability, verifiability, original research and neologism. The consensus on AFD is largely based on NWOAHM as neologism. But now it is 2 and 1/2 years later. They also use argument about the NWOAHM book "many of the bands that it lists are bands from other genres, namely thrash metal, speed metal, hardcore, nu metal, and others." And this is the point. That is a mistake because NWOAHM is not a metal subgenre. That is a heavy metal music movement that includes metalcore bands, neo-thrash bands, alternative metal, math metal etc. (here and here). If Metalcore was NWOAHM, I could have said "metalcore is a heavy metal movement (not a genre) that includes metalcore bands, neo-thrash bands, alternative metal, math metal...". But that is not truth. Metalcore and NWOAHM are thwo different things (so NWOAHM should rather be deleted entirely than redirected and called metalcore). My several sources make the text I wrote verifiable, I used no original research and it is notable. There is still one thing - neologism. So I cite from WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined,(several years ago is not recently) generally do not appear in any dictionary (what is this and this?)...". The long and the short of it - if you say that NWOAHM is metalcore, you are also saying that metalcore is a musical movement that includes bands from many different genres. My NWOAHM text is verifiable and notable; it includes no original research and it is not a neologism as I explained above. If you think it is a stub, we can call it stub. I really appreciate that at least you are capable to have a pragmatic discussion instead of headless reverting of edits and swearing.  LYKANTROP  10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

9

I assume that English is not your native language so I'm going to be patient here even though you seem to have misread my comments as something to be argued over. I'm not interested to know what NWoAHM is or is not. I'm just telling you what you have to do if you want to resurrect an article from the dead and avoid running into problems like this. You say that your several sources provide verifiability but all I see are three references, one of which can be instantly dismissed as wholly unreliable (urban dictionary), another of which has little weight as it only provides a passing mention of the term, the third of which is somewhat suspect since it appears to be nothing more than an advertisement masquerading as news.

The two dictionaries you refer to are both websites that rely on anonymous user submissions. Like wikipedia, anyone can contribute to those sites and consequently, they do not meet our standards of a reliable source. When something gets less google hits than the absurd "pirate metal," it is clearly a neologism. Please do not waste my time by trying to argue this point especially since you do not have to. WP:NEO clearly states that new terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. In other words, you can in fact have articles on neologism here on wikipedia as long as there are reliable sources just like any other article. Throw out the urban dictionary and all you have right now are two fairly flimsy sources. You will need more than that if you want your recreated article to survive deletion. --Bardin (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

10

I'm saying that NWOAHM should remain as it was - a redirect to the metalcore article. As far as I've ever been aware, NWOAHM has only ever been another term for metalcore, and the article that was created only seems to reword what was said on the metalcore article. Has anyone actually read the source provided at Blabbermouth? It's calling this not one genre, but more of an umbrella term, such as extreme metal. Now, I'm fine with that - except that this is just one person who has made just one book making this term known. It's alright for Lamb of God or whoever to say "we're New Wave of American Heavy Metal", but that doesn't really count as a reliable source, and one person making a book saying "all of these genres are part of this new wave of American heavy metal", but I don't think that's really good enough. Pretty much all the bands that the user in question added to the NWOAHM article are all metalcore; if not, groove metal. Metalcore did evolve from groove to an extent, but that doesn't mean they need to be given this term to bunch them all together. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

11

I understand you very well (and I agree with your annotations if the NWOAHM article should be a good article; and I am glad you told me so), but there is still another problem. As I explained above NWOAHM and metalcore are two different things. They even can't be called "two different genres". NWOAHM is not a musical genre, as NWOBHM is not. The article has been redirected to metalcore probably because metalcore is the "biggest" genre that emerged in NWOAHM or because of this mistake between those two terms. If there is not an article about NWOAHM, how do you want to solve that? The statement that NWOAHM = metalcore can't stay in the article, cause it is a nonsence. If we don't want to have an extra article we can make a section for NWOAHM and explain there what we know about it. But making this section in metalcore article is not logical. Let me explain you why: Motörhead is a NWOBHM band. One of the genres they play is speed metal. Lamb of God is NWOAHM band which plays metalcore. If we redirect NWOAHM to metalcore and put the section there, it is like if NWOBHM would redirected to speed metal. NWOAHM is a hypernym to metalcore. I think the way would be to mention it simply in heavy metal article, but in this form it must go out of metalcore in any case. What would you suggest?  LYKANTROP  16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

12

Since I am discinclined to verify anything you've just wrote, I would suggest you first find multiple reliable sources to back all that up so that it would not come across as original research. As long as you have the reliable sources for verifiability, you should be able to make edits to the heavy metal music article, this metalcore article and even recreate the NWoAHM article. If you really feel strongly about this issue, then you obviously should go google hunting to find more reliable sources. Perhaps even get a copy of the book in question to find out what it says on the inside. --Bardin (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

13

Yeah I know. Thanks for suggestion.--  LYKANTROP  11:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

14

First off, I would like to say I completely second what Bardin has said throughout this conversation. I also want to quickly say that I know my first speech up there was POV-laden and a bit incivil and I'm sorry about that. But that doesn't change the fact that I was right about the NWOAHM article. First of all, as Bardin said, you are going to need a lot more sources (reliable ones) to back up what you are saying. If a term like "pirate metal" (probably coined by Running Wild can get more hits than NWOAM, that should tell you something right away. It's also interesting to read the previous deletion discussion for NWOAHM (which I did not know about). I agree that both Bardin and Lykantrop are right about one thing as well. NWOAHM (just like the NWOBHM) are not genres and are, in fact, movements ("waves"). However, User:Weltanschaunng pointed out something to me on my talk page recently. All the sources that talk about this "NWOAHM" mention a few bands, but "a handful of bands don't make a splash, let alone a wave!" as Weltanschaunng pointed out. The NWOBHM had a huge number of notable bands to come out of it, but so far all the sources that talk about this "NWOAHM" only mention a few bands. And a "few bands" doesn't make a movement or "wave". It is therefore pointless to make an article about this "NWOAHM" without more sources that mention many more bands involved in the genre. You can't make a movement with only a handful of bands. Until you have more reliable sources I don't think NWOAHM deserves any mention on wikipedia, anywhere. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

15

I agree that the article should remain as a redirect to metalcore. As others have pointed above, the scene just doesn't have the kind of significance or impact that the NWOBHM scene did. The NWOBHM movement had a huge lasting impact on metal and even allmusic has an article on it. Also, I've rarely scene the term used by any reliable sources, except maybe Hitparader (and they suck anyway). Without enough sources, its impossible to write a proper article. Definitely doesn't deserve its own article.Bloodredchaos (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

16

Yeah, you all convinced me. I am not gonna make the article until I'll find more sources. But as I explained above, NWOAHM and metalcore are two different terms and the redirect to metalcore is totally absurd. That must be solved.  LYKANTROP  18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

17

Ok, so Lykantrop has created the NWOAHM page again. This time he has more sources, but they all consist of two different reviewers who keep spouting the NWOAHM nonsense. Then he has two or three other sources which are also reviews but with different authors and then, of course, that book called NWOAHM as a source. Well he's got more sources, but does that make it right? I still think it's a nonexistent "movement" which has only been said to consist of about 5 bands by the people who claim it exists. I'm starting to think. If you can find a few sources about anything (whether it's right or not) you can create an article about it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

18

The article's sources don't convince me that NWOAHM is not synonym to metalcore. In fact, all of the bands sourced as NWOAHM can be considered metalcore bands. I'm reinserting the content removed from the metalcore article. Kameejl ^(Talk) 09:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

19

I agree. But what are we going to do about the NWOAHM article? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

20

Lykantrop you are more than welcome to participate in the conversation but Kameejl is right. I just looked and all the bands on that list you have are metalcore or have or are heavily influenced by metalcore and have many metalcore elements. I see no reason to have a seperate article. The one sourced paragraph we have in the metalcore article about NWOAHM is more than enough about the subject. We don't need another article that just sits there talking about metalcore bands. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

21

Read above my explanation why metalcore and NWOAHM are not synonyms (both from 20th April) and answer them please. NWOAHM does not include only Metalcore bands. For example this mentions Mastodon as one of the most important NWOAHM band. Mastodon has nothing to do with metalcore as big part of here mentioned significant and not so significant bands don't.  LYKANTROP  23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

22

I think it's arguable as to whether Mastodon has metalcore elements in it or not (not unlike it being arguable whether or not SOAD is nu metal) but what about the other bands? All I see is metalcore bands. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

23

The most notable bands that are not metalcore would be Mastodon, Strapping Young Lad, Byzantine, or Black Label Society and actually also DevilDriver (as I remember now). They say "spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between." You also probably didn't read all the sources. They are talking about NWOAHM and they exactly know what they talk about. To say that NWOAHM and metalcore are synonyms is original research. I added clear reliable sources for NWOAHM and the article is now verifiable. To say that something is arguable about Mastodon is also original research. Wikipedia is about verifiability. I can't explain why you see only metalcore bands in a list that includes also non-metalcore bands (which I listed above). The point is that it is explained in the source(s). You just need to read them. And also my explanations from 20th April (above) are also clear. What is also notable - you don't need any lists of bands. Every american metal band that was formed in late 90s or later is NWOAHM. But not every metal band that was formed after late 90s is metalcore.--  LYKANTROP  20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

24

....NO! No, no ,no, no! There are so many things wrong with what you just said. First off you have no reliable sources saying that any of those bands on your list are NWOAHM, except All That Remains, Chimaira, Hatebreed, God Forbid, Lamb of God, Mastodon, Killswitch Engage, Shadows Fall and Trivium. All of which are certainly metalcore except Mastodon (which has some metalcore elements arguably). DevilDriver is also pretty much metalcore. Black Label Society would not want to be placed with any of those bands. So you only have ONE source that claims ONE band that is not metalcore (but arguably has metalcore elements) is part of this "NWOAHM." I don't think one source is enough. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

25

Ok. As I see you are really serious. Let me give you some examples. I'll start with bands I mentioned above:

• Mastodon:
  • "hard-to-categorize blend of metal, grindcore, and hardcore" Biography (allmusic)
  • "bastardized amalgam of several other styles","Picture (...) more technically demanding school of Relapse-style hardcore/metalcore (...) Then add in detours into countryish rock (...) almost jazz-like drumming style" Lifesblood (allmusic)
  • "very aggressive stoner rock hybrid that at times reminds of the non-death metal excursions by Entombed, but with a complex slant that nears prog rock proportions. The jazzy drumming" Remission (allmusic)
  • "hardcore punk's intensity and angular chops; death metal's squealing, complex guitars; a heaviness usually the province of sludge and doom metal; and drumming that risked its integrity and ventured into the territory of wank by courting progressive rock and jazz.(...)Other bands have flirted with this territory, most notably Dillinger Escape Plan, but their attack always had one foot firmly planted in punk's messy metalcore backyard. Mastodon, however, are leveraging with all hooves staked in the murky underworld swamp of extreme metal.""angular post-hardcore to chugging boogie thrash" Leviathan (allmusic)
  • "Metallica-meets-grindcore mayhem."Call of the Mastodon (allmusic)
  • "deeper in its foray into prog metal" "willingness to indulge in hardcore punk, doom, and death metal.""their dark thrash metal hearts.""thrashcore metal""a plodding power metal riff", several times "Prog metal", "extreme thrash" "Mastodon completes its achievement and establish a new heavy metal." "it actually moves the style into brand new territory" Blood Mountain
  • There is 1 mention about metalcore-elements on 1 album. As you can see Mastodon is definitely not a metalcore band.
• Strapping Young Lad
  • "industrial-thrash outfit Strapping Young Lad""prog-influenced" City (allmusic)
  • "death metal soundscapes" SYL
  • "industrial metal" "groove" Alien (allmusic)
  • No mention about metalcore, nothing. Just industrial, thrash, death, even some goove etc.
• Black Label Society
  • If you think that BLS is metalcore, tell me, and I'll add sources that it is not.
• DevilDriver
  • "a rather more extreme band dedicated to the subsequent hardcore-meets-death metal trends."Bio (allmusic)
  • "modernized death metal" "frequently unchecked tenets of thrash" "seem lifted from one or another of the post-grunge" DevilDriver (allmusic)
  • "Its nods to post-grunge melodic accessibility" "(...)grind" "traditionalist thrash workout" The Fury of Our Maker's Hand (allmusic)
  • "thrash/extreme metal""just an extreme metal roar" The Last Kind Words (allmusic)
  • This band has oviously nothing with metalcore too. Just no mention.
• Byzantine
  • see this, this, this, this, this, this
  • mostly technical modern thrash, groove, prog. Never something about metalcore.
• So as you can see none of these NWOAHM bands is metalcore.
• Next to all of those above and all of those that are already in the article, these two (1, 2) mention that bands I chose as an example. Number two is talking about the movement all along. It would have no sence if "NWOAHM" would be replaced by "metalcore" exactly as in nuber 1 - I cite "Garry Sharpe-Young of Rockdetector has just published "New Wave of American Heavy Metal", a 376-page book with over 90 photos, featuring over 600 U.S. and Canadian alternative metal, emocore, hardcore, math metal, metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands." How can metalcore feature alternative metal, emocore, hardcore, math metal, metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands???. Another: "new generation of offshoots as screamo, emocore and metalcore." Here is metalcore one of those genres. Another: "I've included some of the older bands to show the real roots of metalcore, like AGNOSTIC FRONT and the whole NYHC, plus the group's that broke the metal scene into new territory after grunge — PANTERA, BIOHAZARD and MACHINE HEAD. From there it gets really diverse, crossing the spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between." That is clear. Spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between... But not only this proffesional website (Roadrunner/blabbermouth) says that: Here for example are comments by different professionals like:
• "Making sense of the various modern American metal scenes" (Joel McIver, RECORD COLLECTOR Magazine) - that does not sound like a pure metalcore.
• an indispensable register for the ever-diversifying modern extreme music universe." Andrew Bonazelli, decibel Magazine - the same thing.

And I would like to include also this source: PopMatters - BLOOD AND THUNDER: Regeneration. Read with attention:

• by the way - "Mastodon's lavishly packaged, progressive metal masterpiece Leviathan."
• the important thing "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement (with Shadows Fall and God Forbid hot on its heels) (...) the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk." - Here it is also pretty clear. (Do not take it as an offence - it is not me who said it this way, I do not think you are a wide-ass) - Metalcore dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal" - This is what you are doing in the metalcore article. You dub metalcore as "The New Wave of American Metal". Adrien Begrand explained that it is wrong to dub metalcore as "The New Wave of American Metal". Because it is wrong. Metalcore is not NWOAHM.

So can you please finally cite at least one source that would say that your statements are not original research?--  LYKANTROP  22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

26

I don't need to prove anything, you do. And you didn't. Yes, you proved that the above bands have more than metalcore in their repitoire. However, you got all that "proof" and NONE of it mentions those bands in conjunction with this "NOWAHM." What I say still stands. The ONLY band you have a source for, connecting it with NWOAHM, that is not metalcore (supposedly) is Mastodon. And the sources your provided mentioned Mastodon in conjunction with metalcore more than once. This includes comparisons to metalcore bands. Therefore, all the bands that you have sources for, actually connecting them with this "NWOAHM," are indeed blatant metalcore. Except Mastodon. Which sources still show to have much metalcore in their sound. Therefore, what we said before has not changed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

27

If you need any more proof, I looked up "Mastodon metalcore" on google which got me 135,000 hits here many of which are talking about Mastodon and metalcore in conjunction with each other as you can see from the google link. Would you like me to find a reliable source for Mastodon being metalcore or having metalcore elements? I can. Not to mention if you look on many reliable sites (incl. All Music Guide) they compare Mastodon to the likes of Lamb of God, Shadows Fall and Killswitch Engage (all of which are metalcore). This review on AMG even says, "Picture In the Eyes of God-era Today Is the Day (Mastodon members Brian Dailor and Bill Kellihor were in that band, after all) butting heads with the more technically demanding school of Relapse-style hardcore/metalcore (e.g., Dillinger Escape Plan or Burnt by the Sun, although Mastodon is much less hyper)." THen of course there is the constant mention of "hardcore" in conjunction with Mastodon which is fair. Notice the "-core." I also see a lot of mentions of "grindcore" in conjunction with Mastodon (even on AMG) which sounds utterly ridiculous to me. I don't think Mastodon has done anything in the grindcore vein (I wouldn't know as I have only heard little by them; though I know what I heard was not grindcore) but i point it out again because of the "-core" association. Give it up Lykantrop. This is a losing battle you're fighting. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

28

Show me reliable sources which openly say that NWOAHM is metalcore please. Otherwise is all of your speech an WO:OR. Your argument "I don't need to prove anything, you do" seems to me very ridiculous. You are ignoring my sources in the discussion and you are showing no sources, so please show me complex reliable sources about NWOAHM=metalcore now please.  LYKANTROP  06:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

29

See how is your google search reliable: "Mastodon metalcore" as you said gives about 133000 hits. Ok. Lets see "Metallica metalcore". Hmm 1 120 000 hits. Interesting. Metallica os oviously 8 times more metalcore than Mastodon.

30

I show lots of sources about the common usage of NWOAHM. I show sources ([4] [5]) which openly say that NWOAHM includes several musical genres in the clearest way. I show sources ([6] [7] [8]) that include NWOAHM bands, which are not metalcore (do not forget that deathcore or grindcore are also not metalcore). I show a source ([9]) which says that it is wrong to call metalcore the NWOAHM. The history and the origin and formation of metalcore and NWOAHM are very diverse.

I am adding brand new sources now as well. I am also sorry for a small error I did. I is now repaired. I forgot to include some bands such as Slipknot, Machine Head, Pantera, Biohazard and so on. --  LYKANTROP  16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

31

Okay, sorry to have to do this but anyone who changes the article from now on with incur an edit warring block in order to protect that specific article. That's the deal. Essentially, this is WP:1RR except you'll be blocked at 1 revert. This goes to User:Navnløs and User:Lykantrop: If the article in question is changed again (no matter what state it is in) then you will be blocked for edit warring. I do not want to hear any excuses, "But that's the way it's supposed to be", or "He's edit warring, I'm not" - I don't want to read anything like that, so don't bother. Either of you change it again and you will be blocked. That's it. End of. Meanwhile, consider WP:MEDIATION, seeing as this has gone on for long enough. I will post this on both of your talk pages. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

32

Ok, I am not edit warring anymore. But I still want to add facts, sources and information to the article.--  LYKANTROP  16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

33

No, what you did was just revert, again. You just blatantly edit warred. What did you not get about Scarian's warning? "add[ing] facts, soucres and information to the article" is edit warring. What did you not get about no reverts? Not to mention I looked at some of your sources and they are total crap. The biggest sources you use say Pantera is a part of this NWOAHM...a full ten or more years before any of the other NWOAHM bands?? I thought you said any American metal band formed in the mid 90's or later was NWOAHM. Your sources are totally unreliable. Not to mention I can come up with a bunch of sources that say the "NWOAHM" is a stupid term and doesn't exist. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

34

Your first sentence is not truth. A revert is this or this. Not what I did. Tell me please which websites exactly do you think are "crap". I used only proffesional websites and texts written by music-critics.

Pantera started NWOAHM in mid 90s. As the movement emerged. There was NWOAHM before. They just stared the movement later after their formation - what is not logical about it? They also played very different musical genre at the beginning of their career and later. --  LYKANTROP  11:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

35

Well, apparently it is truth as you have now been blocked. You reverted to your version of the article. You don't have to click undo for it to be considered a revert. It seems that you still have a little to learn about wikipedia rules, etc. Yes, I realize Pantera started as a glam metal band. Some of the sources you use (like Blabbermouth and that one site where it promotes the same book Blabbermouth is talking about) are completely ridiculous. You just don't seem to realize there is no movement known as "NWOAHM." Not to mention those Blabbermouth and BWOAHM book sources are comeplete piles of crap. They list bands from so many different styles (metalcore, screamo, groove metal, nu metal) and that does not constitute a movement! The NWOBHM bands all sounded somewhat the same. Sure, you can point out a band like Venom and say, "that doesn't exactly sound like Iron Maiden and yet they were a part of the NWOBHM," and that's true, but Venom is just a slight exception. Venom still played speed metal, just like most of the NWOBHM bands played a precursor mix of speed and power metal, even if it was rawer and on the heavier, more brutal side of the NWOBHM spectrum. It was still speed metal, and yeah they created black metal, but they're still a part of the NWOBHM because they were in that time period, they were from Britain and they played speed metal. There's no "NWOAHM." It's a made-up term promoted by a few magazines whose subject matter deals with metalcore/newer "metal" bands. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

36

I was blocked because of changing the article generally, not because of reverting your edit. But now back to the topic. I am glad that you understood that there are many musical styles in NWOAHM. And I also appreciate that you also see that NWOBHM varied between several genres like heavy metal, speed metal, early black metal and others. Yes there is such a similarity between NWOAHM and NWOBHM but that is not usable as a source for me, cause it is unsourced. But thanks anyway.

Well, now your arguments are very clear (thank you for that)

You say: There is no movement known as "NWOAHM." and Blabbermouth and BWOAHM book sources are comeplete piles of crap.

My response: It is a very interesting claim that there is no existence of NWOAHM. How do you support the non-existence of NWOAHM if music magazine such as Decibel Magazine, by WP:ALBUM#Review sites recommended Stylus Magazine and many others professional music sources concern whole articles about NWOAHM including a whole book by the world's largest rock and metal datebase Rockdetector. (see this and here the book itself for sources). The book itself can hardly be decribed as an unreliable source (see WP:RS WP:VER). Blabbermouth (alos supported by Zondabooks) is a database hosted by music professionals from Roadrunner Records. I honestly do not know how do you want to prove a non-reliability or the "piles of crap being" of those two sources. And do not forget that those two are only two out of many others. Thanks for reading.--  LYKANTROP  18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

37

This is the second sentence from the book that was so abundantly used on the NWOAHM-page: "Although its usage has increased, its definition has never been nailed down nor is ever likely to be".[10] Kameejl ^(Talk) 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

38

Well thanks for that reference. That seals it. Neologism. If the definition can't even be "pinned down" by the people who are writing about it then there shouldn't be an article about it. It's like going to google and looking up something random like, "monkey sadism worshipping," and then finding a few "reliable" sources talking about it and saying, "Well, hey, it exists, right? So let's make an article about it! And if anyone should stand in my way I shall show them my sources and say why the hell not?" Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

39

Read please WP:NEO before you start to talk about WP:NEO. NWOAHM does not pass even the first sentence of the definition of a neologism. Sources? Here they are: For generally do not appear in any dictionary: one, two and recently been coined: Mid 90's is not recently. I am opened for discussion, but I must ask you to use proper, legitimate arguments. Not such ones, which tell me a mile off that they just are not truthful or that they are original research or just your opinion. And please do not repeat old, above already cleared arguments please. Thank you very much.--  LYKANTROP  21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

40

You, Kameejl, are the person, who knows how to find sources. Well done. Thanks--  LYKANTROP  18:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

41

If you missed it, I did provide a couple sources before (above), which you may have missed. Okay, the urbandictionary cannot be used as a source, period. I don't know about the freedictionary (though its reliability looks questionable) but as you said, a neologism "generally do[es] not appear in any dictionary." Which you just proved for me. Thanks. One, or even two, dictionaries is still not general. As for the mid 90's being, "recently," or not, I think that's honestly open to debate. How exactly do you define recent? I would consider it to be recent. Also, all the sources you have provided that talk about this "NWOAHM" say it began in the mid 90's, right? But when were these sources written? Recently, perhaps? I went through your sources rather quickly I admit, but it seems they are all from the last few years. I think that counts as recent. Case closed. I'm opinionated and determined (just like you) so there's no bad feelings, but I'm just sure that this "movement" doesn't exist. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

42

Ok. I, Lykantrop, am now proving the existence of NWOHM by the twenty-four sources on User:Lykantrop/Sandbox2 - is that what you want? I mean, I showed most of them pretty long time ago - professionals saying that bands are in NWOAHM or talking all along about NWOAHM and history of NWOAHM - that is it. That is the proof of the existence. Or do you think that the book "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" is about a subject that does not exist? How can music critics and reviers talk about a non-existing subject? I mean, I am honestly not sure if you are serious or not. I mean - just how can you say that something, what we talk about does not exist? And here is the problem I was talking about - the usage of propper, legitimate arguments.

The other thing is that you did not give me sources I asked you to give me. I do not have sources about non-existence of NWOAHM and all the arguments you talk all along. Almost every agument you say should be sourced. Something like "NWOAHM does not exist" or "there is no NWOAHM". But I mean not just 1. Something like 24+ totally reliable, complex, one supporting the each other and so on (as I have).

Tell me please - why do you say that you gave me sources? You did not give me even a SINGLE ONE source all along the WHOLE discussion about NWOAHM. So why don't you tell the truth? I am still waiting until now for some sources.

My statements are all sourced, not opinionated. --  LYKANTROP  22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

43

What do you not get!?!?! I told you! I already gave some sources earlier on! Try looking above! Secondly I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on you! Lastly, there is no argument anymore. Did you not read my last comment??? That's it! This argument is over. It's done. It's dead. I don't need to provide sources for everything. All I need to do is disprove you. And I did. Did you not read all my above comments? I cited wikipedia rules. You cannnot make the article per my arguments above. It seems to me like you're not even reading anything I write. You keep repeating yourself over and over again. Read what I said. I already totally disproved you by my last post before this one. Which you did not even address. You keep saying I use my opinions and not sources. That's not true. I use wikipedia rules as a source. Not to mention you use a lot of opinion yourself. Move on to something else. I know you put a lot of work into the article and everyone gets defensive of their own articles, but deal with it. It's over. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

44

Let me make it clearer for you. NWOAHM is in direct violation of WP:NEO. One, all your sources are recent ones. They've all been written with in the last few years. Two, it does not appear in any reliable dictionaries (except, possibly, one, which is not enough to make the term "general"). Any other arguments? You posted a whole speech but you never even addressed the fact that I already proved your "NWOAHM" violates WP:NEO. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

45

I am glad you talk so brief and to the point. So the only thing is WP:NEO. The Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms policy says: Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. We want it to be clear, so we use also (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms links to Neologism) Neologism, which gives even more detailed definition.

First thing is that it does appear in a dictionary (so it can't be a neologism enymore)

As you said it is hard to say what exactly means "recently been coined".

From Neologism:Neologisms are especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas that have taken on a new cultural context.NWOAHM itself is more than 10 years old...even more 15 than 10. This is also not recently.

One point could be dicussed, but it already does not pass at least other criteria for a neologism. So it can't be one, because it does not pass a fundamental criteria for neologism.

And EVEN if it WOULD not be in the dictionary: WP:NEO - Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability.(...)Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. What I wrote is totally sourced with totally reliable sources. Only pure professional music-critics sources. The most reliable form for music. So of it would be a neologism, it could stay there.

As you can see it does not pass neologism criteria and in theory it would be a perfectly sourced neologism.

Please mind all the things I already said above when you answer--  LYKANTROP  23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

46

I don't mean this as insulting, but I understand that English is not your main language, which is why you may be slightly confused. But you have to understand something. Thus far I have rebutted all of your arguments and disproved all of them. Nevermind WP:NEO. The book you sourced cannot be used per Kameejl's comment. Therefore, you only have reviews. But those reviews you used that mention NWOAHM are all for metalcore bands. Except one. Mastodon. That is your only golden moment. Except the review for Mastodon that you provided compares them to metalcore. So that's out as well. Therefore, you have no arguments left. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

47

Thus far you did not rebut even my single argument. I do not see even one your arguments that could endanger my one. I am sorry but you did not disprove even a single one. As you can see you are just jumping from one argument to the other one and I always disprove every one you have.

I see Kameejl's comment and it does not say that the book can't be used as a source. So the book can be used as a source. The sentence Kameejl mentioned can be included in NWOAHM article too. What does it have to do with non-usableness of the book? Do you think that you alone can make a whole book non-reliable by one statement, which is just your opinion? (NOW I disproved another your argument) And even if I leave out the reliable book, there are still sources left, which mention non-metalcore bands (thereby support the book - like for example this review).

As I said the discussion is running in circles. You are AGAIN trying to disprove the reliability of some of my sources, but they are all reliable. You think that the book is pile of crap, but that is your own opinion. It is totally reliable source. I already explained the reliability of my sources.

In your comment right before te last one your only and final argument was "NWOAHM is in direct violation of WP:NEO". Do you remember how sure you was about it? I explained how are you wrong and DISPROVED that argument. But you are again coming back to old disproved arguments - the non-reliability of my sources. But I am again diproving that argument, cause my sources ARE reliable. They are all written by music-critics-professionals from music magazines, a huge record label-hosted web, world's biggest rock database founder's book etc. All are totally reliable. (I AGAIN disproved your personal, unsourced claim "the book can't be used as a source" and "non-reliability" of my sources.)

What will be the next? "NWOAHM does not exist" again? Or just "I gave you sources" although you did not give me a single one again? (those +-3 sources you used in your speech were ALL given by ME to YOU before. So you gave me exactly 0 sources. Or are you gonna tell me "Look above, there are perfect several sources I gave to you" even though there are no ones?). Or "your sources are not reliable" again? Or "NWOAHM=metalcore" again? Or "it is a neologism" again? - this were your arguments and I disproved ALL of them SEVERAL times. And you always pick them again and I disprove them again and again = running in circles.

You are only SAYING "I rebutted all your arguments" and "I gave you sources" but you rebutted NONE of my aguments and showed me NO sources yet. So why do you say that when it is not true?  LYKANTROP  09:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

48

Dude, I am so sick of this. You seem to have an average mastery of the english language that is quite efficient enough and yet you seem to not be understanding a single thing I am saying. I disproved you. And it's over. Your article violates WP:NEO. All your sources are recent and were written within the last few years. The term "NWOAHM" is found in no reliable dictionaries, except possibly one, but WP:NEO still states, "generally do not appear in any dictionary," so your point is moot. Plus NWOAHM is not only a neologism but it borders on being a protologism. Plus, you haven't proved that any of the bands you said were NWOAHM were not metalcore. The only band you tried to prove was not metalcore with a source was Mastodon. But that same source compared them to metalcore so that shit is out. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. It's over. You act as if there is still an argument or that this is up for debate. It's not. The issue is done. We already proved our point. The NWOAHM article will not be made. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

49

Yes Navnløs, I understand you very well. I do not know why you do not understand my. I see that you've chosen some of the selection of the already disproved arguments again... I'll try it more transparent this time for you:

• Your argument: Neologism (according to WP:NEO)
  • Disprovement: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary."(from WP:NEO). NWOAHM appears in this and this reliable dictionaries (first neologism-criterion not passed). There is not an exact definiton of what "recently been coined" means (second neologism criteria - pass/fail unknown). Altogether - criterion 1 of neologism not passed, criterion 1 of neologism unknown - Altogether not passed the criteria of a neologism.
  • Note: According to WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms - even if NWOAHM was a neologism, the article could stay there, because it is supported by reliable sources about the term (1-2, 3), so I did not use any original research. Everything is verifiable. (so you do not need to tell me if you think that NWOAHM is a neologism, because it would pass even if it would be a neologism according to WP:NEO)
• Your argument: NWOAHM = metalcore (original research)
  • Disprovement:
    • Non-metalcore bands like Pantera, Slipknot, Machine Head, Biohazard, Life of Agony, Prong, 3 Inches of Blood, Black Label Society, Byzantine, Mastodon, Strapping Young Lad, etc. are in NWOAHM (1, 2, 3 4)
    • (...) "crossing the spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between" (1) "NWoAHM features (...) Alternative Metal, Emocore, Hardcore, Math Metal, Metal, Metalcore, Neo-Thrash and Screamo heavy metal music bands."(1 2)
    • There is even a source, which explains how is it wrong to call the NWOAHM metalcore.

The selection you had was 1.:"NWOAHM does not exist", 2.:"your sources are not reliable", 3.:"NWOAHM=metalcore", 4.:"it is a neologism". Number 3 and 4 are out, 1 and 2 are left. Should I explain number 1 and 2 one more time? You can save my time and look for number 1 on my comment from 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC), and number 2 on 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC). Are you gonna repat the rebuted arguments many times again? --  LYKANTROP  21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

50

No. This source that you provided argues that NWOAHM does not exist, for one. And all your other sources besides one or two are to that same ridiculous book. "NWOAHM" is still a neologism. It "generally" does not appear in dictionaries. And not to mention one of those dictionaries is just an acronym finder and does not define NWOAHM and the other's reliability is in question. And there is no question that all your source were written recently. All the reviews and books, etc. that you cite were written only within the last few years. You have nothing written about NWOAHM from more than a few years ago. And you keep citing that one source (that book) for everything. The first sentence of that book already makes it a neologism as Kameejl pointed out. It clearly states in the first sentence of that book that "NWOAHM" is not a term that can ever be clearly defined. So why should it be on wikipedia if it can't even be defined? Besides per WP:NEO wikipedia is not here to define terms, which is what you would have to do with NWOAHM as it is not in wide use. Not to mention creating such a protologism article would be mainly to increase usage of said term, which again violates WP:NEO. I've already disproved your whole argument. This is getting downright annoying. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

51

To claim that this source says that NOWAHM does not exist is original research. It does not say that.

I accept your arguments about the neologism. Not all of them, but some have a point. That concrete thing could be discussed, cause I see there argumens on both sides.

What I wanted to mention about the neologism: You are overlooking some things in WP:NEO intentionally and twisting some definitions as you like - WP:NEO does not say It "generally" does not appear in dictionaries. It says generally do not appear in any dictionary and that is a difference.

I had a look and those sources are up to 4-5 years old. You do not know if that is "recently been coined" or not.

WP:NEO - "Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability." - It does not say that they should not be created or that they should be blanked and redirected. My article is all no original research and verifiable.

WP:NEO - "Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources." (Supporting, not blanking and redirecting)- My content is supported by reliable sources. "Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth." That article is verifiable, I do not say that it contains the truth.

WP:NEO - "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." - I have treatments in secondary sources for NWOAHM = it is ready for coverage in Wikipedia.

If you want, we can have a debate about NWOAHM - neologism or not. But because the article is 100% supported by totally reliable sources and contains no original research, it can be on Wikipedia according to WP:NEO, if it is neologism or not. That are the rules. Thanks. Cheers. --  LYKANTROP  22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

52

The source in question does imply that NWOAHM does not exist. It clearly states, "dubbed by some wise-asses 'The New Wave of American Metal'". And not to mention that same source is talking about, " the American metalcore movement," when it even mentions NWOAHM. So it basically says that the American metalcore "movement" has been called the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" by some "wise-asses". Hmmm, that doesn't exactly sound like they think its a real term. And even if they do, they think it refers to American metalcore. I'm aware of what WP:NEO says. It statesthat neologisms, "generally do not appear in any dictionary" just as you said. My emphasis is on "generally". Besides, it only appears in one dictionary and its reliability is in question. Besides I noticed that those two dictionaries you cited aren't exactly dictionaries. They never define "NWOAHM", do they? They just say, "New Wave of American Heavy Metal (music genre)," which is not a definition. Which is utterly retarded anyways. Because even if this "NWOAHM" does exist, it wouldn't be a music genre. Like the very real NWOBHM, it would just be a movement of bands that played during a certain time period and in a similar style. Not to mention you can't even definitively tell me when the NOWAHM era is, can you? You say that ANY American metal band from the mid-90's to present time is NWOAHM? That sounds ridiculous. Can you back it up? I'm sure that book says it. The NWOBHM era bands are all defined as starting between the late 70's to early 80's which is probably around 8 years at the most. However, here you are saying that the NWOAHM era lasts all the way from the mid-90's to present time!? That would make it last about 13 years at least! Not to mention you are saying it is still continuing. That's ridiculous. Any British metal band that was formed before or after that late 80's to early 90's is considered not NWOBHM. Only during those 8 years (at the most) if they released an initial album can they be considered NWOBHM. However you're saying any American metal bands formed from the mid 90's all the way to now is NWOAHM?! In fact you even call Pantera NWOAHM even though they formed in the mid 80's. You say they changed their style which is true. However, for NWOBHM standards for a band to be NWOBHM they would have had to release their FIRST album during that time era which I mentioned before. Which is why Judas Priest is considered not NWOBHM. They were around (just like Pantera was around during the mid 90's) and they played a similar style but they're still not considered NWOBHM purely because they were already around before the movement (even if they were one of the ones who influenced it). Your "NWOAHM" does not follow those rules. Otherwise Pantera would not be "NWOAHM". I really don't wanna talk about this anymore. It's been settled. That page cannot exist. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

53

I've red the source we are talking about properly now. And I figured out a TOTALLY NEW THING in the source for the discussion. (by the way the source does not say that NWOAHM does not exist.) It is talking about the changes in metal in last years. It is about the "burgeoning metal movement" as the author calls it.

In the second paragraph it starts with Mastodon's "lavishly packaged, progressive metal masterpiece Leviathan."

Then he starts to explain the "burgeoning metal movement" including: "the more classic form of heavy metal might have exploded sooner.", "and today, after 15 years, metal in the truest sense has risen from the grave,"

And now ATTENTION - he is talking about the bands from this "burgeoning metal movement" this way: "At one end of the spectrum, you have the traditionalists, the bands who choose to remain within the rigid confines of whatever style they play; and at the other, the innovators who, despite equally strong contributions from the traditionalists, are providing the most thrills these days, taking metal's sound in daring new directions."

Still talking about the "burgeoning metal movement": "The more experimental side of metal" He is talking about "recent albums by Isis, Neurosis, Sunn O))), and Pelican", he includes "Often more post rock and improvisational jazz than pure, simple metal, the artsier side of the genre (call it "art metal", "post metal", or "NeurIsis")"

All this above is a PERFECT source that the "burgeoning metal movement" (as the author calls it until now) includes all those genres.

And now this is the HIGH POINT: After explaining that so called "burgeoning metal movement" includes all those genres I cited above, he says: "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement, hybrid of muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive tendencies, the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk." While LOG spread their metalcore movement, the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene ((the scene with all the genres he talks about above) dubbed as NWOAHM) has been, ironically, punk. ! ! ! He openly separates the metalcore and the burgeoning scene (NWOAHM) as two independent things, both with DIFFERENT origins - metalcore has its origin in "muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive tendencies" and "burgeoning metal movement"(NWOAHM) IRONICALLY in punk. That SO CLEAR and completely logical.

As you interpet it, it has no sence and it is not logical. He openly consideres "the American metalcore movement" and "the burgeoning scene ("The New Wave of American Metal")" as two independent things.

And afterwards he goes on about the burgeoning scene like "contemporary American metal", "elements of jazz fusion, hardcore punk, and strong vocal melodies to its inimitable brand of "math metal", the Dillinger Escape Plan"... And there are again tons of things supporting my statements about the "burgeoning metal movement" (which is dubbed by some people as NWOAHM). He also mentions that even The New York Times and The New Yorker write about it.

It is so clear now as it never was. I was about to inlude your wrong interpretation in the article. But I figured out that you tried to confuse me. But now ALL sources speak for me. Now there is no dilemma. Now ALL sources about NWOAHM support each other.

I do not know why you are discussing so un-honestly. I did not have anything personal in the whole thing. I just collected totally reliable information about the matter and wrote them down. That is all.

Now, when it is ready, we can discuss about WP:NEO(which does not influence the article anymore as I explained 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Your last comment is not verifiable. I am sorry, but all those comparisons with NWOBHM are original research. So you don't need to make extra work for yourself by inventing things, which are useless because they are original research.

Now after all, before we will discuss whether NWOAHM is neologism or not, please wait with that discuccion for a moment. Tell me if you still see some problem in here: User:Lykantrop/Sandbox2 (if yes - what exactly) and leave out the neologism for a moment please. Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  18:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

54

So this seems to be cleared. I will also correct the mistake on the metalcore page of course. If you have some question, ask me. --  LYKANTROP  08:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

55

No, it is not cleared and you are still wrong for the reasons I have already stated. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

56

Which reasons? I do not see any reasons you stated, which were not disproved by me subsequently. Cite those reasons in short points exactly and briefly please. Thanks--  LYKANTROP  09:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

57

Blizzard Beast, and others who are edit warring here with Lykantrop, you're juvenile.

I don't know who the hell searched "NWOAHM" in google, but if you try the full phrase, you get a pretty damn sizable number of hits. 537,000 to be exact. You might not think half a million is a lot, but take into consideration, the movement began in the mid-late 80's. This is basically saying the movement in modern american metal which began with thrash and hardcore, evolved into Groove/Nu Metal/Metalcore, I mean yeah maybe you think you're a self-proclaimed expert or something Blizzardbeast, but I'd love to see your degree in musicology. Until then I would appreciate it if you stopped blanking a page someone is trying to make because to me: The New Wave of American Heavy Metal isn't just Metalcore. It began with American Thrash Metal. Evolved into Crossover Thrash and (early) Metalcore (Metalcore isn't new, you know? Have you ever listened to early Crossover? Nuclear Assault perhaps? That is early Metalcore. Its not all just fag bands like you're trying to propagandize) Evolved into Groove Metal, into (unfortunately) Nu Metal and... old Metalcore (first movement) gave way to this second movement which is more inspired by swedish melodeath and groove metal. I don't know man, you guys seem to be hellbent on thinking everything is a neologism, anything that isn't deemed worthy or metal enough is going to be buried under propoganda and arguments of "legitimacy" - well what the hell makes anything legitimate? What the hell makes anyone an expert at anything? Years of studying and a piece of paper saying "You're an expert, you have a degree in asshole-ology!" If thats the case then damn you may as well deletee 99% of wikipedia in bad faith because damn, not every single word can be cited or copied from a "legitimate source" without being a little something called "plagiarism" which goes against wikipedia policy as well. What gets me is the fact that all of the wikipedia policies conflict with each other. So people who disagree can get in fucking year long endless fucking debates over the most asinine, infinitesimally absurdly small phrase, word, or hell, anything. I think its absurd to think a "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" didn't happen between 1982 - 2008. Hell! Its going on NOW! Can't you see the darker approach of modern metal as opposed to how it was in the 70's and early 80's? I don't know. I guess I'm just a voice of reason screaming from the abysmal fucking pit of closed mindedness and stupidity. I've been a heavy metal fan since fucking 1986. I should know metal inside and out. And as much as I hate Nu Metal, I will admit there was (and still is) a New Wave of American Heavy Metal that happened. And no, its not a sub-genre, its an umbrella term for the regional scene of metal in the united states. So it could apply to American Death Metal as well. In my fucking eyes. Anyway thats my two cents. DarrelClemmons (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

59

Also, I would like to say to deny that an American movement of metal happened from the 80's to now would be to deny heavy metal history. To deny that would be to deny the influence of NWOBHM on American Heavy Metal. I beg you to divulge my argument based on my knowledge of the subject:

NWOBHM hits the scene, late 70's. Inspires a new movement in the states, known as American Thrash Metal. Well, in my eyes, Thrash Metal was the father of this whole new explosion of music, because in the early 80's, I'm talking EARLY, like 1982, you had two camps to choose from in the states as far as metal went: glam or thrash. This is a few years before we even had extreme metal (as far as most people knew, of course you had Doom, but that falls more along the lines of being influenced by Sabbath). Thrash gave birth to a whole slew of subgenres. Death Metal, Black Metal, Crossover (early Metalcore aka Hardcore-Heavy Metal), Groove Metal, Nu Metal, etc. Had it not been for NWOBHM, there would have never been a NWOAHM, thus there would have been no extreme metal as we know it today. I consider NWOAHM an umbrella term for all forms of extreme metal in the united states inspired by the first "extreme" metal movement... NWOBHM. This is my argument. Its pretty damn accurate. You might think I'm stupid or that I'm full of fallacies in my argument, but how can you prove me wrong? The movement happened, and is still happening. How do you think Metal music got so dark over the past 20 years? It didn't just spontaneously happen. The heavier, more aggressive approach first inspired by NWOBHM inspired the NWOAHM which just took things from dark to even darker, from Metallica to Pantera to Cannibal Corpse to Chimaira to Lamb of God today, I mean you might disagree with my arguments, but how could you? How is there fallacy in what I'm saying? And another thing that disappoints me: The fact that any American band that comes out nowadays that has a mesh of different styles and influences gets branded as "Metalcore" and is lambasted by the oldschool metal community. Why? Is it because they fear change or something? I don't get it. Its like about as stupid as Norwegian Black Metal fans fighting with Swedish Death Metal bands. What the fuck? I thought we were a fucking metal community fighting for one cause, but ever since the cancer of Nu Metal we've been at each others throats over what is "true" and "not true" metal. Its fucking stupid, man. Again, sorry if I seem a bit blunt but I guess I'm tired of seeing metal fans argue with each other over trivial things when we should strive for a greater cause, not be strangling each other. DarrelClemmons (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

60

It still doesn't exist. It's pure neologism. Only a handful of critics have even mentioned it. Then there's the fact that Lykantrop hasn't been able to prove one huge thing. All the bands that he has reliable sources for as being part of this "NWOAHM" are metalcore, so it's the same thing. The one band he found a reliable source for as being part of this "NWOAHM" that was NOT metalcore was Mastodon. And guess what? In that same source it compares Mastodon's music to metalcore. Get it through your heads. NWOAHM does not exist. I understand that there are some people who REALLY want it to exist, due to patriotism and the fact that so many other countries have had metal movements. So some patriotic Americans want the same thing, as if to say, "Hey, you're not the only ones...American has a metal movement, too." But the thing is...we don't. IF (big if), if there ever was an American heavy metal movement, it was in the eighties. I mean, what are you people thinking? America had WAY WAY WAY more popular metal bands in the 80's (a good many of them that were ACTUALLY metal, too, and not punk crap like you guys suggest). Anyone can call something a movement. I mean, didn't America have a nu metal movment?? For a few years it was really popular. How come we don't call that a movement? Anyways, like I said, there is no American metal movement, and if there ever was, it was in the 80's with the likes of Slayer, Exodus, Metallica, Megadeth and all those other thrash bands and possibly glam bands. I mean, come on! In America, during the 80's there was a TON of popular thrash bands, yes? Well how many bands are in this "NWOAHM"??? A paltry FEW compared to how many thrash bands there were. I'm not even talking about how many glam metal bands there were. My point is, you have THIRTY TWO bands that you say were in the NWOAHM, right? Now compare that to the hundreds of popular glam and thrash metal bands during the 80's. Movement, my ass. It's like comparing a leaf to a whole tree. A goldfish to a shark. A shot glass to a pitcher. A piece of hay to hay bale. A sink to a fire hose. A scooter to a tank. You get my drift??? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

61

So what you're saying is there was no metal movement in America. I follow here. I mean I know, I know, many "metalcore" bands seem to have taken up this "flag" or some crap, which I agree seems kind of clique-ish and trendy, but my point is this: There was a significant heavy metal movement in the U.S. - I'm not trying to say it to be patriotic by any means. I'm saying it because heck, if there wasn't the big four of thrash, if there hadn't been the extreme movement, there wouldn't have been black, death, groove, or any of the thrash subgenres, because thrash wouldn't have existed. What defines a movement? NWOBHM lasted from roughly 1978ish to roughly 1984ish (don't quote me on dates, lol) it was short lived, but made a major impact on the heavy metal scene in the USA. So there was a regional inner conflict - two factions, the thrash camp, and the glam camp, basically, in the early 80's. The thrash camp (and all its offspring) basically are this movement. Thats what I'm saying. If it hadn't been for extreme bands like Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, Megadeth, Testament, Exodus who were all initially inspired by the NWOBHM and hardcore punk mentality, there would have never been black metal (at least as we know it) or death metal (death metal wouldn't even have been created had it not been for thrash metal) nor would there have been the follow up crossover thrash (aka hardcore-heavy metal aka early metalcore e.g. Nuclear Assault, Bad Brains, Stormtroopers of Death, Cro-Mags, etc) or the followup in the second wave of that, "Groove Metal" or "Post Thrash" or the follow up to that (ugh, Nu Metal) or the third wave of Metalcore (which is currently whats being labeled as such, even though its a misnomer)

But mostly all of the most extreme forms except for speed metal and, well, black metal, have its roots in the American Thrash bands that started this whole thing up. Had it not been for say, Exodus, Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax, Testament, etc, there wouldn't have been a Death, there wouldn't be Necrophagia, there wouldn't have been a Cannibal Corpse, There wouldn't be an Entombed, there wouldn't have been Exhorders or Panteras or Sepulturas or White Zombies or Prongs or Machine Heads, there wouldn't have been Mayhems or Carpathian Forests or Naglfars or ANYTHING like that. So even European bands were inspired by the thrash movement. To me, in my eyes and mind, the way American bands were inspired by NWOBHM inspired an even darker movement, be it out of something raw, new, unexplored, dangerous, or what have you, it basically shaped metal as it is known today, a very diverse and rich genre (yes, I know, many metalheads are way too quick to brand something with a stupid neologism, which I find dumb myself, say one band writes a song about whales, what, is that band now "Whale Metal?" so yes, I do see your point, but you have to understand: There was a definitive movement that happened within the states. Sure, many metal heads may be like "damn, I want to distance myself from that name!!" But a lot of thrash bands back in the day used to say it as a joke, seriously, and now, its turned up all in the media with tons of metalcore bands just brandishing it as their flag which I think is weird but whatever. The thing is, There was a significant movement in the states and without it there wouldn't be any extreme metal whatsoever, if I'm making any sense. So yeah, now in retrospect, since many metalcore bands have brandished it as their new "flag" to carry, the old school people distance themselves from it and think "oh shit thats gay" I cannot deny the movement that happened in the United States during the 80's and 90's, even though a lot of people try to distance themselves from this word now that its been claimed by these newer bands - anyway, yeah, I see it differently than the both of you. I don't see a point in arguing about it though because there clearly was a movement and without it there wouldn't be any extreme styles whatsoever at all period point blank, no death metal, no black metal, no groove metal, nothing like that. So yeah, there was a movement in the states had it not been for it we sure as hell wouldn't be sitting here wasting our time arguing about it because heavy metal wouldn't even be the same. Glam probably would have stayed until grunge, then grunge probably would have just stuck around and never went out. We probably wouldn't even be the same people mentally if it wasn't for the extreme metal movement that happened in the USA. Me, you, Lykantrop, nobody, not your favorite european bands, nothing, none of it would be the same. To deny it would be like denying gravity or denying entropy in the laws of thermodynamics or whatever. Its just there, it happened, its still going on, metal is getting heavier and heavier and heavier. 70.152.130.57 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

62

But that's happening in every single country. Are they all having movments? No. There are no sources that talk about any metal movment in America called the "New Wave of Anmerican Heavy Metal," except (apparently) a few critics and they're talking exclusively about metalcore, not the older shit. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

63

Your claims are original research and your own opinion (because you do not show any sources and ignore reliable sources that disprove your statements). You are removing information with correct sources and do not say anything more than your opinion. Can you provide some sources to prove your claims?--  LYKANTROP  20:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

64

I already provided sources a long time ago in this conversation and I don't feel like getting any more. I already prove you wrong using your own sources and pure logic. I don't need to show you a source that your sources contradict each other. It should be enough to just point to your sources and say, "wow, look at that, it's definitely wron because when you read it you see x, y and z and they contradict each other/don't make any sense." I already disproved your sources. It wasn't that hard. As I said before almost every single one of your sources comes from the last few years. Neologism/protologism. Before a few years ago not one single person had even heard of the term, "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." You are using wikipedia as a primary source by making an article about something that doesn't exist but making it exist through wikipedia so that others will read it and it eventually will become true, which is strictyl against WP:NEO. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

65

You did not give me sources that supply your statements. I asked for them already on number 28, again on 42, again on 47 and you did not show me any sources anyway. I do not see where you prove I am wrong. See Talk:New Wave of American Heavy Metal number 4 why is your usage of how you call it "logic" not allowed on Wikipedia. You have also never explained anything about how my sources contradict each other. I also hope that you start to discuss without original research and your opinion.

Please stop saying that you did something when you did not and just simply do it at least once instead. And please stop to make the discussion run in circles: I asked you for it already on number 47. Thank you.--  LYKANTROP  10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

66

This whole "mass debate" has turned into a "masturbate" of insults and triviality. I know wikipedia isn't a "soapbox" for personal opinions (on the articles) but I think the discussion pages allow for opinions as long as its for a common good. This all seems like its going nowhere to me.

Blizzard Beast, and other detractors who hate anything that seems to be popular: Look, new isn't always bad. Change doesn't always suck. At least not entirely. Damn man, if it could be the 80's or 90's all over again, guess what, I'd go back in time too, but shit, Metalcore ain't that bad. At least most of the bands involved in modern Metalcore aren't that bad man. Who gives a fuck if you think it sucks, or you think its not Metal. Its still considered Metal, because METAL IS THE MELTING POT OF MUSIC - I can understand hatred of Nu-Metal bands that were strictly 1000% commercial, but several so called "Metalcore" bands out there now days aren't commercial. You have several that are, several (probably half that exist!!!) that aren't. I see what you're saying about the "attitude" and the way they carry theirself. I agree some of them are gay, but Blizz man, you seem like you're in absolute fucking pure livid hatred over Metalcore or something and you shouldn't hate it (at least not all of it), I mean, at least not the early shit man. The fusion of hardcore and metal isn't bad if the proper aesthetic and attitude is applied (doing it for the art/doing it for yourself/bust your ass/do it yourself, not for record companies/don't let producers or ghost writers write your music material, etc) however yes I agree if anybody sells out, turns into a compromiser (or as I like to call, a codependent enabler, or a rug, or a pushover, or a music industry whore who only tries to impress people with record sells and not talent and heart) then yeah, it would suck. But man you seem so upset over Metalcore - not all of it sucks. Most early stuff that I consider the first wave of Metalcore was really good METAL, yes I said METAL. But its all personal opinion and you have to realize its still considered Metal because its influenced riff wise from the roots of Metal, and hell, at least its not Korn and Limp Dicksuck and all those crappy shitty gay bands, at least these bands involved in Metalcore use scales and are influenced by Swedish Death Metal, maybe its not as cool sounding as In Flames, At the Gates or Dark Tranquility,, but fuck it man its not as bad as Korn, at least - so damn don't be so hellbent on hating it, its not out to destroy metal - I think of it more as a "gateway drug" to get people into the more brutal stuff. Let the kids have their scene man. We have our own too, you know? We're from the 80's, let the kids from the 90's and up enjoy their own thing - as long as it isn't Korn or Shitknot we shouldn't care - as long as it sounds kind of influenced by shit we like we should feel proud of these kids man. Maybe its a watered down version of the earlier stuff, but whatever man. Sorry for my rant I guess I'm just really tired I've been up all night and I'm tired of seeing you guys so bitterly angry over this whole thing. *sigh* Sorry if I'm POVish but I had to let that stuff out - you guys are making my brain hurt with all the bickering lol Not all Metalcore is bad, Blizz. 70.152.130.57 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre origins

I don't understand why this page is so confident about the ostensible origins of "metalcore" (hardcore punk, thrash metal, melodic death metal, and heavy metal). For one thing, "heavy metal" is so vague as a descriptor that I hardly see that it has much value, particularly because no metalcore band borrows much from classic "heavy metal" as such (Deep Purple, Judas Priest). Though I suppose Coalesce and Converge do draw something from Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. The page in general overemphasizes the influence of Scandinavian melodic death metal and the latest, most commercial and watered-down metalcore groups. I've tried to revise the page to some degree in order to better address the early, youth crew-derived groups, and the mid-period noisier groups. I hope that the community agrees with these additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryder779 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Melodeath

It seems to me that the pre-eminence of Scandinavian melodic death metal only takes place around 1993-1994 (this is at least when their music began being recorded and widely exported). Metalcore, conversely, begins by at least '91 or so, with the early work by Converge and Earth Crisis. Why is melodic death metal discussed so prominently? Aryder779 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because during the rise to prominence that Metalcore has, many bands are labeled melodeath as well, due to the fact that many of those bands follow the wide spread trend of incorporating the gothenburg sound from around 1995, moreso the band At the Gates' album Slaughter of the Soul which is often refered to, or the band is as being influential to more modern day metalcore. -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This claim would match for melodic metalcore like As I Lay Dying or Shadows Fall stylistic origins. Not classical metalcore. Metalcore has its roots in bands like Madball in late 80s. Melodic death metal had no impact on formation of metalcore. There was no melodeath when metalcore emerged. Melodeath influenced metalcore (probably) in late 90s as these "melodic metalcore" bands came. But that is my original research. Until somebody finds sources about melodeath-influence on metalcore, it can be deleted from the Stylistic origins. Or at least add "(late 1990s)" behind Melodeath.--  LYKANTROP  08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

trancecore

man, you people are hilarious.--122.106.224.149 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Trancecore at the moment redirects to freeform hardcore so of course it's a neologism for a metalcore/trance fusion. People sometimes... −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 04:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision of genre origins, with source

Okay, I've added "youth crew" and "crossover thrash" to stylistic origins. I have a source (this week's Alternative Press), which I have cited. I've also clarified the contributions of Integrity and Earth Crisis and the mileu from which they emerged. Please do not revert this. I'd be glad to discuss the revisions I've made to the early '90s period of metalcore, but I think it's very important to clarify the contribution of the early Victory Records groups before we get fixated on today's chart-toppers.

Next order of business: Why is melodic death metal mentioned so prominently? My source does indeed indicate At the Gates as having a "monumental impact" comparable to that of Integrity. However, there are a few years of important metalcore before the melodic death metal influence ever showed up. Karl Buechner of Earth Crisis discusses death metal as an influence in the book Choosing Death, and Converge cites Entombed as an important early inspiration. So I propose that the "stylistic origin" be changed to simply "death metal", rather than melodic death metal. Or that melodic death metal be tagged as only becoming influential around '95 or so.

If you disagree with me, please cite some countering source. Aryder779 (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed "Melodic death metal" to "Death metal", and cited Mudrian's book Choosing Death, which includes an interview of Buechner of Earth Crisis acknowledging his debt to classic death metal. Do not revert this unless you have a counter-argument. If you'd like to add "Melodic death metal", please include a source specifying when this influence on metalcore took place. If you disagree with me, please discuss it here. Aryder779 (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

I added a new section to deal with ideological and conceptual elements -- I mention Earth Crisis and vegetarianism, Dwid Hellion and Satanism, One Life Crew and nativism, and Underoath and Christianity. I don't know if any of what I've added is controversial, but please note that I have sources for each of my examples. If you disagree with the way that I've characterized something, please mention it here or let me know. I think it's important to address the wide variety of opinions expressed in metalcore -- many of the bands involved, like all hardcore punk bands, have very definite views to express with their music. Aryder779 (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Death metal origins, wtf?

I think I'm gonna delete that. I understand that some people get pissy when they see "melodic death metal" in the origins as they don't think that was an influence on metalcore till later on. I don't really care whether this is true or not. I don't care if it's listed or not, either. But death metal should not be listed in the origins. It doesn't matter if one metalcore band or person was influenced by death metal, to put that in the origins is completely wrong. Death metal had no influence on the sound of metalcore, at all. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of metalcore? Mudrian directly discusses Earth Crisis, Converge, and Bloodlet, and interviews Karl Büchner as to the relevance of death metal, in Choosing Death. All the Victory groups borrow from death metal. What you are saying here is just your opinion. Metalcore has borrowed from death metal since at least 1991. Aryder779 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

NWOAHM in this article

Response to this User:Kameejl's edit (it is about this source):

Well, I shouldn't have used the word "argument". I is not an argument. Sorry. Talk:Metalcore#53 is an explanation of what that source says. Can you tell me how can it be an original research if I reproduce what the source says? And can you please tell me where does the source support your statement "your definition of metalcore is too narrow. Metalcore is more than LoG and KsE" and the text in the metalcore article you added? Thanks--  LYKANTROP  22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of death metal in origins and removal of melodic metalcore

Aryder: Your the only one who seems to think that melodic metalcore exists and that death metal was an origin for metalcore. You cannot report me for vandalism just because you don't agree with my edit. It's not vandalism. Oh, and ONE person from an early metalcore band said HE, personally, was influenced by death metal. That's your source? That doesn't mean death metal was an origin for all metalcore. Give me a break. You can't just provide some sources and sprinkle them with your POV and make up shit. Same thing with melodic metalcore. Yes, there are sources that say metalcore has gotten more melodic over the years, but it's not a seperate genre. And to say so is a lie. Your sources do not support what you are trying to say. If anything I should report you if you keep adding in your own POV into the article. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Melodic metalcore is sometimes identified with the second wave of screamo.[46]" Straight from the article. Except source 46 is all about screamo and doesn't have a single mention of "melodic metalcore". And the other source you use (number 47) mentions "melodic metalcore" once, but does not call it a seperate genre. It sounds more like a description the way he's saying it, not a subgenre. Which leave one other source (44) which is a magzine and I can't say for certain since i haven't read it but seeing as how the other two sources you cited do not support the existence of "melodic metalcore," one source does not a subgenre make. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You should realy give the guy a chance to reply and to find more sufficent sources before removing anything from the article.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that and respect you, but this has been talked out before. Many times. Melodic metalcore is not a subgenre. At all. Everyone agrees, except, like, one person. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey - Source 47 (Revolver Magazine) does indeed discuss melodic metalcore, in a somewhat derisory manner, and it's clear from context that we're talking about something clearly distinct from "classic" metalcore (Integrity, Converge, Earth Crisis). Take it up with Christopher W. Weingarten of Revolver. Now, as for source 46, that was for connecting Avenged Sevenfold etc. to screamo, not for proving the existence of melodic metalcore. With that said, if these groups can be described as "screamo", doesn't this indicate that they're noticeably separate from deathcore groups (like the Red Chord) and mathcore groups (like DEP) and old-school groups (like Earth Crisis)? Surely you're not suggesting that the Red Chord and Dillinger and Earth Crisis could be described as screamo? To get to the real point of this argument -- why is it so important to you to disprove the existence of melodic metalcore? I mean, my whole life isn't about finding sources, but I have one magazine article in a reputable magazine and a separate source that strongly indicates that these groups can be grouped together (albeit under a different label, which I've discussed). So why would you be interested in negating these sources? I mean, what's it to you if its noted on Wikipedia that Underoath/Bullet for My Valentine ad nauseum get placed under a subgenre? You dislike metalcore anyway -- if the death metal -influenced groups get to be called deathcore (with sources), and the polyrhythmic groups get to be called mathcore (with sources), and we have sources to support the existence of a third genre which is notably more melodic -- let's include that in the article. These are commercially successful groups, they tour together, they have sonic similarities, they're *clearly* different from older metalcore groups -- let's make this clear, especially because we have sources that support this. Why would you have an axe to grind with this? Unless you have some need to prove that *all* metalcore is melodic, mainstream pablum, and you have some vested interest in eliminating the distinctions between Hatebreed and Atreyu. Which would be POV. P.S. For the record -- Buechner was speaking on behalf of Earth Crisis, it wasn't an avowal of personal affection for death metal, and Mudrian also discusses Converge and Bloodlet as death metal-inflected. Converge has prominently cited Entombed; so has Hatebreed. The sources on the matter are on the deathcore page. But as early metalcore didn't borrow from death metal, I've conceded this point. Aryder779 (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for melodic metalcore

Allmusic: "Atreyu's debut album, Suicide Notes and Butterfly Kisses, is an invigorating foray into melodic metalcore in the vein of Darkest Hour, Poison the Well, and Eighteen Visions. ... the band fuses Swedish metal riffs in the vein of At the Gates with the tremendous rhythm section that never ceases to amaze with its precision and intricate nod to detail." [11]

Also: Punknews.org -- "In my opinion, Stages is the last great 'melodic metalcore' album that will come out for a very long time, and I am perfectly okay with that." [12]

And: Metal Injection, August 28, 2007: "For you melodic metalcore kids still high on LAMB OF GOD and KILLSWITCH ENGAGE who thought the Swedish roots of their beloved genre only stretched back to IN FLAMES, SOILWORK, and ARCH ENEMY ..." [13]

- El Paisano, 9/12/07: "Once it comes out, Framework, will be something like 'melodic metal hardcore,' said Mike Trujillo (bass), 'or melodic metal-core, (as if further distinction made a difference) yeah, yeah, melodic metal core.'" [14]

Metalrage, 12/30/07: "... this record sounds nothing different from a blend of melodic metalcore (think Killswitch Engage) and the modern metal sound containing elements of thrash (think Trivium) with a vocal range from screaming till clean (backing) vocals." [15]

Revolver, Nov. 2004, also includes a cover article on Shadows Fall which doesn't explicitly name the subgenre (probably not coined yet), but describes the group as having combined "the aggression of hardcore with the precise dynamics of classic thrash, and highlighted the bands' insightful lyrics and memorably melodic hooks", which I think is a description of the components of the subgenre.

How many more sources do you think are necessary to establish that this is a reasonably widely acknowledged subgenre? Aryder779 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand a couple things. This has been discussed before, a few times. Each time consensus was that melodic metalcore does not exist as its own subgenre. Melodic in this case is just a description. Yes, it was agreed that metalcore has gotten more melodic over time, but it is not its own subgenre. I listen to black metal (among other things) and certain bands are described as depressive black metal, epic black metal, atmospheric black metal, etc. and they all have a specific sound that is different, but they are not their own subgenres. Rather, depressive/epic/atmpspheric/etc. is merely a description. Oh, and your one sources doesn't mean anything. You can find a lot of sources out there for ANYTHING with just one source talking about it (as in this case, supposedly, with that magazine). One source doesn't mean jack. Sorry. As for your other new "sources," I never said that melodic metalcore doesn't totally exist. Metalcore has just gotten more melodic over time, which you may put in the article, however, "melodic metalcore" is not its own subgenre (and I doubt it's widely recognized). This has been talked about before and each time came to the conclusion that melodic metalcore is not a subgenre. I can find plenty of sources for atmospheric black metal, but that does not mean it is a subgenre of black metal. It's a description of the music. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to previous discussions, I don't see how it matters what a few people decided in the past. Previously, no one bothered to look up verifiable sources. I have. As for your black metal analogy, you're not serving your case at all here, because the black metal page discusses melodic black metal, symphonic black metal, black ambient, black doom, and blackened death metal. If you want them to remove all those subgenres, take it up with them. It's normal to have a subsection on melodic black metal on the black metal page; likewise, it's acceptable to have a section on melodic metalcore on the metalcore page. I understand that you "doubt" that melodic metalcore is widely recognized, but your doubt is not important on Wikipedia. What is important is sources -- of which I've found several.
Also, please stop declaring, without a shred of evidence, that all metalcore is melodic. Converge, Botch, Hatebreed, earlier Dillinger Escape Plan, Rorschach, Deadguy -- these are all well-known metalcore groups that do not emphasize melody. If you can hum me the melody to "Phoenix in Flames" (or anything on the album, for that matter), by Converge, then I'll concede that metalcore is melodic "by definition". Metalcore also did not become "more melodic over time". Converge has not become increasingly melodic. Mathcore groups, like As the Sun Sets and Daughters, who formed recently, are not melodic at all. What did happen is that several melodic metalcore groups became very popular, and those are the ones of which you are aware.
I'm also growing tired of removing "melodic death metal" from the stylistic origins box, despite the fact that no one can find evidence for a melodic death metal inflence on mathcore or classic metalcore. There is a strong melodic death metal influence on melodic metalcore groups, to be sure, but there is no melodeath influence whatsoever on Integrity, Hatebreed, Converge, Coalesce, Candiria, Earth Crisis, Dillinger Escape Plan, Bloodlet, etc. etc., all of whom established the genre.
P.S. I don't want to be suspecting of fabricating sources. The Revolver article I cite (June 2008, p. 110) says: "This is the Rockstar Taste of Chaos Tour, a night when heavier melodic-metalcore bands like Atreyu and Avenged Sevenfold intend to position themselves as the next generation of bands to actually pack arenas [...]"
Note the hyphen. The article is not describing metalcore that happens to be melodic. The article is discussing a grouping of bands, under the name "melodic-metalcore", who make use of "'80s metal clichés", "pack arenas", "demand a rock-star reception and get it", "play the signifiers of '80s metal for laughs", sport "soaring choruses and lots of mascara" -- absolutely none of which are traits that have anything to do with the first metalcore groups, or any other subgenre of metalcore. Aryder779 (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like continuing to have an edit war over this, so I've reorganized the page to preserve my research while avoiding the "subgenre" claim. I sincerely hope that this resolves any remaining disagreement. Aryder779 (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Difference between metalcore and metallic hardcore.

Update: (I forgot to mention this is the reason why the statement "also known as metallic hardcore" on a previous edit of the metalcore page was changed.) I've noticed "metalcore" has been recently deemed as the same thing as "metallic hardcore" in this article. Although the "metallic hardcore" has a citation for Converge's Jane Doe review from Revolver, the article doesn't say "metalcore" and "metallic hardcore" are the same thing. "Metallic hardcore" is actually hardcore bands that have been influenced by metal such as Hatebreed, Madball, Rise and Fall, Pulling Teeth, Full Blown Chaos, and Terror. These bands are firmly rooted in hardcore but use metallic elements to add to the original style. Now "metalcore" is hardcore-influenced metal such as Shadows Fall, Trivium, God Forbid and Lamb of God (to some extent). Now it doesn't make sense to reference a band like Shadows Fall as "metallic hardcore" when the band has clearly melodic death and thrash metal roots with occasional hardcore embelishments like breakdowns for instance. I know many have gotten these two terms confused over the years but hopefully someone can look into it more. Also just by the name "metallic hardcore" we can see the word metallic is the adjective that describes the type of hardcore music and most people don't think Shadows Fall and God Forbid are foremost hardcore bands. Thanks. Bertrumredneck (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to complement Ardyer 779 for all the research and clearing up the "metallic hardcore" situation. The article makes a lot of sense and the melodic metalcore argument is convincing. Thanks - BertrumRedneck 69.177.40.12 (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the distinction with 'metallic hardcore', I appreciate it. Aryder779 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

thrash metal and metalcore ?

The thrash metal and metalcore sections have to be cleaned up in terms of clarity. For fan purposes, metalcore and thrash metal are easily distinguishable but since this in a wikipedia page and differences are describe in words there should be more detail. I am particularly referring to implied similarities between thrash metal and metalcore, for example metallica's kill em all is stated to have punk influences and many NWOBHM bands are stated to have punk influences. While this is very true, doesn't this imply that thrash metal and NWOBHM bands are simply " heavy metal + punk influences " ? Technically from reading wikipedia on this part of metal the common person would assume heavy metal and hardcore punk together is Metalcore and not thrash since on the metalcore page it states metalcore is " fusion genre that incorporates elements of the hardcore punk and heavy metal genres". So i think there should be more detail to how they are different despite both of them being heavy metal with clear punk influences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.132.71 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just added a sentence to the intro, on breakdowns, that I think helps clarify the difference between metalcore and other punk metal hybrids. Hope this helps. Aryder779 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

New archive?

I think this page should be archived. Does this happen automatically when it fills up? Aryder779 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the metallic hardcore section

I'm thinking of expanding the metallic hardcore section of this page by focusing on the four bands most widely discussed in sources: Integrity, Earth Crisis, Converge, and Hatebreed. This would also address Lyckantrop's concern about the "ideologies" section being too specific. Aryder779 (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3