Talk:Mudvayne/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Genre?

currently genres are listed as: alt metal, nu metal, heavy metal, and hard rock. I think these encompass anything mudvayne plays. I removed the statement in the intro paragraph claiming that mudvayne is mathcore. Mudvayane has some interesting time signutres but i don't think they are either hardcore enough to be mathcore or metal enough to be technical metal. Perhaps one day if enough bands that fall between hard rock and heavy metal in terms of style, and also use unique time signutres, some one will invent a new genre for them as a subgenre of alternative metal. I think a problem with naming that genre is going to be finding a catchy way of combining the words alternative, metal, technical and/or math. 76.253.125.123 (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Devin

1. Mudvayne is not progressive metal. They don't even have a keyboardist. 2. Mudvayne is nu-metal. LD 50 is nu-metal, as it features occasional rapcore vocals and funky basslines, although they have outgrown nu for a more alternative sound.

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.247.104 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Most progressive metal doesn't even have keyboards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.241.134 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Like what? Every single progressive rock or metal band Ive ever heard has a keyboardist. Dont confuse progressive metal with sounding different than everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.166.2 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about calling them a just a metal band instead of rock ? One thing is for certain they are metal.122.171.21.133 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Its Progressive Metal, Alt. Metal, Hard Rock, NOT Nu-Metal, and not all prog. bands have keys and not many rapcore vocals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.209.197 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay first off, progressive metal in no ways has to have keyboards. And second, Mudvayne is in no ways hard rock or groove metal. The genres that should be there are Alternative metal and nu metal. Anyone reply because I know some think the same... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Math metal

Looking at the Math Metal page is validation of that. Mudvayne have no musical similarities to Cryptopsy, Atheist, etc. Math metal is an off-shoot of technical metal ( which is a subgenre of death metal). They obviously fit as "alternative metal" or nu-metal (a more controversial pick, perhaps.) But a few fast basslines does not make a genre. --- Danteferno 15:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The drummer of MudVayne coined the term. They probably know what it means. MudVayne is not Nu Metal. They do not show the three characterisctics of Nu Metal. They are probably more largely classified as Alternative Metal. kjarvis86 13:43, 2 jan. 2005 (PST) Isn't most of this plagiarised from www.mudvayne.com? Mudvayne is both Math and Nu-Metal. Math Metal because the term doesn't just mean it has to be Death Metal, Math metal is about using Jazz like drum progessions, atonal guitar riffs, odd time signatures. Mudvayne has all of these. They are Nu-Metal, because this is what the definition of guitar is on the Nu-Metal page. Unlike traditional metal, the overall defining trait of nu metal guitar-playing is the emphasis on mood and texture over melody or complex instrumentation, achieved largely through performance or effect, that is definitely Greg. Here is the bassists In nu metal, the bass is often the main focus of the music, acting often as the lead instrument, setting the bands other instruments as acting as rhythm and also to bind the very diverse hip-hop, rock and electronic sounds. The nu metal bass is often slow and reminscent of hip hop or pop music, strutting a funky, loud sound that could arguably compete with the presence of the band's vocalist, that's Ryan for ya. Vocals, Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock (and in many cases punk and emo), guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal music and metalcore types, and rapping, that's Chad. The only part that doesn't fit is the drums, which is what helps make them Math Metal.

Why wouldn't Mudvayne be mathmetal in the song "Solve Et Coagula" it has undecipherable meanings so they should be included in the Mathmetal genre. Left Behind 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because such thing as math metal does not exist, aside from being a synonym for tech metal. Tech metal is technical metal, with leading acts like Meshuggah. Mudvayne does not have technical skill nor are their songs technical enough to be called tech metal and they do not even sound like it. Nu-metal or alternative it is.

Saying "Mudvayne does not have technical skill" doesn't exactly prove your point. In fact, most everyone (including their critics) agree that Mudvayne are in fact highly skilled musicians. Especially Ryan and Matt. -- Mattrixed ^Talk 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mudvayne may be skilled, but there not technical - except ryan martini (sp?), there totally imprecise, especially the guitar parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.166.2 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I listen to tech death as well, specifically Necrophagist, but Mudvayne has alot of technical skill in their rhythm section and LD 50 is definitely math metal. The other two aren't though. Anyone other than Victor Wooten who says Ryan's lines aren't technical just proves they haven't listened to Mudvayne. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Mudvayne are Math Metal but that doesn't make 'Math Metal' a genre, just as people labelling System of a Down as 'Armenian Metal' doesn't make it a genre either. It's something of note, though. Notsharon 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes no one is questioning that, there are other bands in the Math Metal genre now. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 07:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC) If the singer describes them as Math Metal, then they should be listed as such. To not include them would fall under WP:OR, but as this has been settled by generically saying they're hard rock and heavy metal, it no longer applies. -- Shatterzer0 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Groove Metal is Pantera, Machine Head,... Heavy Metal is some Metallica, Black Label Society... but NOT Mudvayne. Alternative Metal and Hard Rock fits best for them. 217.93.206.14 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal

About the edit that said Mudvayne are called nu-metal by fans of heavy and extreme metal: Fans of heavy and extreme metal can be fans of Mudvayne too. "Detractors" encompasses all those who dislike Mudvayne without classifying them as something else. I think "detractors" is a more accurate word to use. -- Mattrixed ^Talk 09:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mudvayne is Nu-Metal, I think it's inceredibly stupid that they are called Alternative Metal because people are afraid of the stigma that surrounds Nu-Metal. it's not a bad thing, and they are Nu-Metal.

no they are not. do they use turntables? no. do they rap? no. the only nu metal quality they have is the focus on the bass. thats it. they are not nu metal DragonDanceSL 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh funny you should say that. you see ive defended the fact that they are alt metal for a long time now but now that i think about it, the way that the vocals for Dig are set up are almost rap-ish. and the basslines are very complex. Have you ever seen the Death Blooms bass tabs? now i am a very new bassist myself, so i would have to say there pretty hard but others can prolly do it with no problem. but anyway the point is im a little torn between Alt Metal and Nu-metal. The juggreserection 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Go look at Alternative metal's wiki entry. It includes nu-metal as derivative of the genre. -- Shatterzer0 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chad Gray, the ing singer of the band specifically declared that they WERE NOT Nu-Metal in an interview, just because some of the music may sound like Nu-Metal at times doesn't officially qualify the band as Nu-Metal, so stop editing the damn page saying Mudvayne are a Nu-Metal band because they aren't.Justerbuster (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

this band is nu-metal.seeing as nu-metal and alt. metal are one and the same. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal and alt metal ARE NOT the same, if you read the articles. Nu metal came from Alt metal and carved it's own niche so to speak. Alt metal is bands like Earshot, Stone Sour, Seether and so on. Most of these bands tend to be categorized as well with Post-Grunge. The only reason this band is really classified as nu-metal ever is because when they became "well known" (i.e. L.D. 50) was during the height of the nu-metal wave so people (more or less editors and reviewers) decided to lump them all together. It's sad that 8 years after the fact that this band and several other bands who are called "nu metal" but don't deserve the tag are labeled as such because people automatically assume rather than open their ears and minds and absorb the music before they judge. -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal

They are Alternative Metal, not Nu Metal. Please stop ing around with the genres. Nickoladze 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Same shit. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to face it, Mudvayne plays alternative metal more than any other genre such as Nu Metal or Heavy Metal. Heavy metal refers generally to every kind of metal, but if we get strict, we should clear Heavy Metal from the genre tag, because this is not a Traditional Heavy Metal band, not a NWOBHM band, and not a Heavy Metal Revival band.

This band plays alternative metal, not only for being a vast mix of many genres, but because it even includes alternative rock in the influences...You want examples to argue by themselves? The song Forget To Remember, just to name one. It has riffs straight from alternative rock, and a complex structure which involves the alternative+metal and severe influences.

Now, let's go more complex...I'll name Death Blooms as another exmaple. Is it orthodox to start with acoustic riff and then quickly change to metal riff? No! The structure of both is alternative, so this is another point.

Dig...the alternative treasure. The structure of the song is so unorthodox, parts are not repeatedly played, and also the voice goes along with the riffs, in a groove way. Also through the song, the vocals are more "screaming with rythm" than singing, so that's another point of complexity. Is this a regular metal? No, this is alternative metal.

Enough said. More examples? Find them yourselves.

Progressive metal

In addition to the several news sources cited here that refer to Mudvayne as progressive metal, the band itself also uses this term on its MySpace. (65.10.87.94 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

However, a myspace page is not a reliable source. Indeed, the sources provided are questionable: MTV is not published, and is a somewhat biased source; the Boston Herald source is published, but it would depend on who exactly wrote it; Post-bulletin, as far as I know, isn't a reliable one. Prophaniti (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rochester Post-Bulletin is is the major newspaper for Rochester, Minnesota. (65.10.86.205 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

In which case, if it's published, it would come under the same scrutiny as the Boston Herald. Being published is a good sign, but being a newspapers media/music person does not inherently make them an expert on heavy metal music, as opposed to say a journalist in a dedicated music magazine or book. We do have three sources, but they're all somewhat questionable as reliable sources on this subject matter.

However, I'm not feeling strongly enough about it to remove it or anything. I'm just raising the issue. Prophaniti (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let’s clear something up: random newspapers are not the best of sources. They can be used, yes, but just look at all the different genres these papers give this band. It’s absurd. Newspapers are published, yes, but take a look at the reliable sources guidelines: they must be authoritative on the subject at hand.

Published music magazines like NME or Rolling Stone are authoritative. Much more so than random newspapers. These papers can be cited in the styles section, sure, but if the infobox tried to represent all of them, it would end up with about 10 or more different genres.

Instead, take a look at WP:undue weight. Sources should not be given more weight than they are worth. So, let’s take a look at the potential genres with this in mind:

• Progressive metal: the two papers are iffy, as is MTV, but all of them together probably works well enough to include this.
• Alt. metal: again, a possibility, because it does have billboard.
• Nu metal: a published book, the single best source of the lot. Backed up by NME [1], Rolling Stone [2] and Metal Observer [3], all more reliable on their own than any of the papers.
• Extreme metal: just a single paper, not enough.
• Hard rock: this one I’ll remove entirely, because it doesn’t even actually call them hard rock.
• Heavy metal: all just newspapers, and prog. Metal and/or alt. metal would cover this, so no need.
• Neo-prog rock: another random paper.
• Shock rock: same again
• Thrash metal: and again

So, we’re left with a lot of poorly sourced genres that can stay in the styles section, but nu metal is by far the best sourced of them all, and prog. Metal and alt. metal are probably worth including too. Prophaniti (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti, you are incorrect. The source given does refer to Mudvayne as a hard rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.201.118 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem here seems to be that you are trying to force your own POV upon the article, even when your opinion of a band's musical style directly contradicts what has been sourced. Removing genres, replacing sources and trying to force an opinion that only you share is not welcome on Wikipedia. (72.153.184.6 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Not quite. That's actually what you're doing: removing my sourced material. Read what I typed: it's all according to wikipedia's rules. It's nothing to do with my POV, and nothing I've suggested is "directly contradicting" sources. It's simply that there are lots of badly sourced genres. Source consensus is prog. metal, alt. metal and nu metal, with nu metal firmly in the lead. That's not POV, that's just the way it is by wikipedia's rules. Please understand such rules before trying to enforce them. Prophaniti (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources given for progressive metal are verified and published. The sources you give for nu metal are primarly online sources, with the last one being a fan review. (72.153.184.6 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Well that only shows you don't understand the sources in the first place: Rolling Stone, NME and Metal Observer are published sources. They are accepted reliable sources. As such, they, together with the Rough Guide book, vastly outweigh MTV and a couple of newspapers bits. Nu metal is very much the best sourced of the genres. Prophaniti (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says that nu metal is the best-sourced of the genres? Nu metal is only sourced as well as the genre terms you've shot down. More sources cite Mudvayne as progressive metal than any of the other genres. (65.10.58.176 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Read my above post: Essi Berelian's book, Metal Observer, Rolling Stone magazine and NME all cite nu metal for the band. That's more in terms of simple numbers than prog. metal, and more in terms of source weight (one published book and three dedicated music magazines outweighs a biased music TV channel and two newspapers by a long, long way). Prophaniti (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Comparing the ghits of "mudvayne 'progressive metal'" and "mudvayne 'nu metal'", you have 146K for nu metal and 33.7K for prog metal. "Alt metal" and "alternative metal" turn up a combined total of about 60K. Rather, articles like this are essentially an admission of guilt. Not to mention that PM agrees. Face it: the nu metal tag has more sources behind it than all others combined. That doesn't mean you can't have other genres in there as well, but omitting nu metal is essentially pushing an agenda. 128.61.56.41 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you not just for the support, but for showing me an IP user can be sensible. Now, I personally don't agree with alt. metal and prog. metal, but the sources are there. As I say, they're not great sources, but all added up they do make up enough. The rest of the genres, as I've outlined, are worth including in the styles section, but to try to include them all in the infobox would be too much. Prophaniti (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prophaniti, you have been warned about this. The sources for "nu metal" are as inconclusive as those for "progressive metal". True, MTV is biased, but so is Rolling Stone and NME. And Metal Observer is not a valid source of information. Those reviews are written by non-professional critics. Please cease from removing any genres from the infobox, changing the genre mention in the article's lead or otherwise attempting to force a genre opinion. There is absolutely zero consensus as to the band's genres, except that it is generally agreed that they perform a form of rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

No, MTV is much more biased because it is a music channel devoted to selling music and advertisements. Rolling Stone and NME are publications. They inherently rank higher. And Metal Observer is perfectly valid too: it is used as a review source because it has a staff body rather than accepting user-submitted reviews. I don't quite understand why you're complaining about MTV though: it's being used for progressive metal, which I'm not attempting to remove.

If you read above, you'll see there's firm consensus: nu metal is very much in the lead, with alt. metal and prog. metal not brilliantly sourced, but enough to include in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. You have been warned multiple times. If you persist in attempting to force your own opinions onto articles, you will be reported. And, for the last time, a user-submitted review website like Metal Observer is not a reliable source of information. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

How precisely am I "forcing my opinion" by adding validly sourced content? Metal Observer content is not user submitted by the way: it has an editorial staff. Please understand a source before dismissing it. Prophaniti (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the page. I've seen absolutely no assertion that it is a notable source of information. Whether or not the content is user-created, it certainly was not created by a notable authority on music genres. This is the main fact that I have been trying to get across, but you do not seem to understand this. From what I've seen, you have been repeatedly doing this with multiple band articles. You've even tried to deny that Hed PE was a punk rock band by claiming that genres should be only sourced through a non-notable metal website that was supposedly created by a journalist of questionable importance. Please list band genres by what has been properly sourced and cited, not by what you believe is "correct". I don't consider nu metal to be a legitimate musical genre, but I don't remove it from articles when it is properly sourced, as it is in this article. Remember, you should only use your own judgment when the subject matter calls for it. Any other time, you shouldn't bother. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

(unindent) Please see WP:Albums, the section on "professional reviews", where it states "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Metal Observer has a volunteer editorial and writing staff. It is thus perfectly acceptable as a review site, and thus fine for this particular citation. In addition, you still haven't explained your removal of the NME and Rolling Stone sources. All you've thus far undone of mine is the notion of including "heavy metal" as a genre (which I'm willing to discuss politely if you are) and then your removal of sourced material. Prophaniti (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I did not remove sourced material. I undid your removal of sourced material. I have seen absolutely zero proof that Metal Observer is a valid source of information regarding genre sources. Please stick to the discussion and cease from making accusations toward other editors and continuing to strongarm your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you looked at my edit before reverting it: my edit consisted of restoring sourced material. You've still given no actual reason for the removal. I will restore the material one more time. If it's still reverted, I won't be dragged into an edit war over it. Prophaniti (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that saying that "nu metal" is the term most often used to describe the band's style and adding sources like a non-notable review site and two copies of the same mass-published biography is strongarming your POV? Why would you object to one genre being listed as a dominating style, then try to list another as the dominating term? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

No, it's not my POV: I am inserting two published music magazine sources, two accepted review sites, and a published book. In terms of numbers this is the most attributed genre. And your removal of these sources has not yet been justified. Prophaniti (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I've seen nothing that proves that Metal Observer is an acceptable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I've given explanation, even if you choose not to accept it. And as I've stated before, you're still removing other acceptable sources with no reason. Prophaniti (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying in order to justify your attempts to push your own POV and add questionable sources. If you continue editing articles in this manner, you will be banned. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Editing in what manner precisely? Because the only thing of mine you're currently undoing is the addition of reliable sources. That is, by definition, not POV. The sources are not questionable simply because you perhaps don't agree with them. Last I checked you couldn't be banned for adding sourced content. Removing sourced content, going against consensus and insulting other users, that's more in line with banning offenses. Prophaniti (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti, as you continue to lie and accuse others, you just dig yourself deeper into your little hole. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

You can say that over and over again as many times as you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that you're the one making the accusations, acting against consensus, making the insults and removing sourced content. I still don't see what it is I'm supposed to be "lying" about in the first place. Prophaniti (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, scroll down to about here and read your own comment back. Now you know what you are lying about. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

(unindent) Erm...no. Still not seeing it, sorry. I see me saying that you are making accusations (strongarming POV), acting against consensus (Landon + me = 2, you = 1), making insults ("rv idiocy", "stop lying to justify flagrant attempts to force your opinion") and removing sourced content (see your own diffs for that one). If you want to live in a reality of your own, then that's up to you, but it has no place here. Prophaniti (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted Landon's accidental reversion to your vandalism. There is absolutely no consensus. It does not make you look good to continue to make up your own reality. You need to stop strongarming your POV. The revision I had was fine. There was absolutely no need to establish "nu metal" as a dominating genre just because you say so. Remember, you are not an expert on the subject. The experts on the subjects don't agree on the genre. So leave it as it is. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Landon's revert was not accidental, hence the fact that he has performed it twice. And yet again: it's not because I say so. I am not the one being put forward as an expert: that's the POV of the sources which you continue to remove. Prophaniti (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only removed poor sources. Stop twisting the events to your own personal needs. You are not to continue to strongarm your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Trolling

I want to report trolling on this page and whoever undid all those citations. This isn't the first time it happened before either and the user who keeps doing it should be punished. Those citations were to worthy websites as well such as VH1.com and MTV.com. The User's name is DevilDriver fan who deleted the citations without talking on the talk page. Also without a good reason since they were reliable sources and relevant to the text.

That guy must be retarded. -Etos 9.october.2007. 18:34 (UTC)

yh tht dude dus seem a lil bit of a faggot he should be burned,his children eaten and finally stabbed by a mongoose named fred who has a brother called terry the badger who kills people with M60 light machine guns

Lock

One used vandalised it. That doesnt mean it should be locked =/ DragonDanceSL 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I more wanted it locked as i don't like this band very much, i thought it'd be funny if it were to remain as i saw it

Too bad for you that Wikipedia is not a place to vent your opinions. -- Mattrixed ^Talk 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bio

the bio focuses on the first album, though not very in-depth, and the make-up aspect of the band. More about their other releases would give more of an up to date image of the band

I do have a question. Does anyone have any conformation on rumors of Chad getting hurt like, in the throat and that's why he changed the way he sings? Like I said i need conformation of these rumors. -Souless 3:16

"Video Analysis" section

I think this section should be dropped entirely or moved to a new article. Most of it is irrelevant to the band itself, poorly written, and somewhat opinionated. If somebody wants it moved to a new article then it really needs to be cleaned up significantly. If no one protests within 2 or 3 weeks, I'm going to remove it. Jesusjonez^Talk 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV

quote: "The band often showcases Ryan Martinie's jazzy bass playing, and sport emotionally and philosophically in-depth lyrics."

"Many respected reviewers, including Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z believe Mudvaynes lyrics to be emotionally and philosophically deep, however Mr A does not" is acceptable, this is not.

I'm removing that text - please reference respected reviewers if it's to be re-included. Sorry. GeorgeBills 09:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames should be dropped?

Surely since the band have abandoned nicknames, and an encyclopedia is not the place to use wild pseudonyms if possible (exceptions would include Marilyn Manson and many others), should we find & replace Chüd and the other nicknames?

Using surnames (or full names?) would seem far more mature to me, more of a respectful nod to the artists than a kind of in-joke (bad term I know) for the fans.

I really think we should avoid using nicknames for discussing early work and real names for later work - with 3 names each for the 4 members over 3 albums this would imply 12 members for the casual reader.

If nobody enters the debate with a good reason not to do this in a week or 2, I'll probably change the names myself. Or if someone changes them in the meantime, all the better.

They shouldn't be dropped because it is part of thier history. If someone comes to this site looking for everything about Mudvayne it should include nicknames

Skewer 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are fans out there that still refer to them as Ryknow, Gurgg, S, d Kud. Its just natural. I say we leave them.the juggreserection 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Does the biography seem like it's been plagiarised? It looks very POV and like it came off from another website.

Seems to be ripped right off of here - http://www.pearldrum.com/m_mcdonough.asp ... Definately could be a copyright violation, somebody should clean this up Senner 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Member articles

Three of the four current members each have their own article, albeit a small article. The link for Chad Gray redirects back to the Mudvayne article. Since there are articles on the other members, there should be a Chad Gray article as well rather than a redirect. I'd start one, but I don't know anything about the guy. CardinalFangZERO 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any person who speaks German fluently?

It's because there is one phatty phat German Mudvayne site which even gives their birthdates...I don't know German that well anymore, I finished high school last year and I rarely use it. And about info on Chad Gray and others there is some info around internet, nothing much, but it's better than nothing, though...I don't know what to do, compile the info I have, or wait for a better one...

Should we mention the alternative spelling?

An alternative spelling for the band's name is Mu Dv Ay Ne. Should we mention this, or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allixpeeke (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think it's necessary...I've never met anyone who actually refered to them as that and since "Mudvayne" comprises of the same letters I don't think it will cause any confusion to the unique individual who recognises them as Mu Dv Ay Ne but not Mudvayne. -- Mattrixed ^Talk 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

neither is it neccecary to add the lines between: |Mu|Dv|Ay|Ne| The juggsd86 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Bassist?

I think someone should find out about Shawn Barklay and create an artical on it I can't find anything on him. Skeeker 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Their original bassist never recorded anything with Mudvayne except some demo CD Kill I Oughta or The Beginning of all things to End. In fact I don't even know if he did that. He never made it big time and judging by the lack of material on him, I'd say he wasn't good anyways so making a page for him would be useless. You should make a page for Martinie since all it does is redirect here since some guy sabotaged his page. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

im pretty sure he quit the band due to drugs . god bless shawn for making the right move and moving on good luck with "SPRUNG" (this is the band he's in now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.78.52 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Images And Member Biographys

I don't know how to put an image on here so it would be nice if someone did one for Chad Gray. And some one needs to make articles for Ryan and Matt, there used to be but I don;t know why there arent anymore. Skeeker 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said some troll deleted theirs and put insulting comments before he deleted it. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate idiot people Skeeker 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The pic for Tribbett is not relevant any more as the band do not wear makeup any more. Does anyone have a replacement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notsharon (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Using that argument, I suppose the page for the Berlin Wall shouldn't have a picture of the wall, since the wall doesn't exist anymore. Just because they don't wear makeup anymore, doesn't mean the photo is irrelevant. In fact, it's quite relevant, since to any reader who has not seen the makeup before, it gives them a visual aid. -- Mattrixed ^Talk 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but i do think this article needs an additional pic. Maybe a group shot or something.the juggreserection 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New album

Who got the name Shades of Gray and where did you get it. Skeeker _[Talk] 18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

i dunno where it's from, but it's BS cuz they just announced via myspace that "Our next album is titled "By the People, For the People,"".68.255.187.211 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fan generated album, not the studio album due in 2008. Skeeker _[Talk] 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

you're right about that, but that still doesn't explain where the name "shades of gray" comes from. i say until we have a verifiable source for that album name it should be changed to "upcoming 4th studio album" or something similar.65.43.218.67 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Skeeker _[Talk] 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i'd go ahead and make the changes right now but theres an article for "shades of gray" already and i don't know if i can change the title of it or if a new article would have to be created and i don't want a dead link sitting there. i'm also not sure if it should be the 4th or 5th as kill i oughta/tboate was technically recorded in a studio, but was originally an independent release. i think at this point it'd be best to go with "Upcoming studio album", release date TBA/TBD.65.43.218.67 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

we should atleast put that it is rumored as Shades of Grey though, so that when people see the name all over the internet they'll know they're talking about this album.Justerbuster (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TBOATTE isn't a studio release it is a re-release with bonus tracks and a new name. I moved the page to Mudvayne's fourth studio album Kill I oughta is a studio album. Skeeker _[Talk] 21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth studio Album

Hello everyone I noticed that someone had changed the Discography so that there was no mention of the fourth album at all, also before they did this it was on there but it was mentioned as fourth studio album Higley rumored as the new game. So what I did was changed it to Mudvayne's fourth studio album under the discography section and put the rumored title of the new game under the new album section of the article with the other rumors (Shades Of Gray, Revalation and serial Killer.) Hope this is alright sence we know that the album will more then likly be out this year one way or another if you'll read the headbanger's blog or view the bands myspace you will see that they have something in there works, also before they had the flash thing on there site the had Recording New Album for there headline before that.

I know this little section i've just written may be jumbled and mispelled but im just trying to get my point across so please bare with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1758 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I had been told during an early FAC, that you do not need more than two citations for each statement requiring them, unless the statement is widely disputed. That being said, the genre section does not need as many citations as it currently has. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

However, "does not need" is not the same as "should not have". The statement that you don't need more than two citations is there to stop people saying "You've only got two citations, that's not enough". The more citations the better, it just adds more evidence and helps to establish source consensus and majority/minority views. Prophaniti (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Scarlet Letters

can anyone make an article about this song?67.191.60.174 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor pointed out over at Talk:List of nu metal bands that because the band Tool plays a style of music that is very technically-oriented, it should not be categorized as nu metal, because nu metal is musically simple. The same argument could be applied here, as Mudvayne's music is also very technical. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC))

Do you have a source saying that all nu metal is technically simple? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment. I doubt that a reliable source can agree that all nu metal is simple. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so, I've been asked if I could comment here, seeing as I was the one who said that nu metal is technically simple. Specifically, I meant that if we didn't rely on reliable sources, Tool would be disclassified due to their technicality, technical playing generally not being a part of nu metal. I wouldn't say all nu metal, though - Deftones, for example, are quite technical (not to the extent of Tool, though), but they have quite a few songs that I would consider nu metal. Of course, all this is mere speculation - we should dig up a reliable source about nu metal's technicality, as it seems like it would help in the possible revamp of the nu metal band list. With regards to Mudvayne, I've hardly heard anything from them, so I can't really comment. --LordNecronus (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This band was undoubtably nu metal. Not only do countless sources back this up, but the band themselves even agree they are nu metal. RG (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. I wasn't really arguing against Mudvayne's placement within the genre; like I said, the whole "nu-metal-is-not-technical" thing was pure speculation. --LordNecronus (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that Rolling Stone quoted the band members in context there, but isn't the rule that the band's opinion doesn't count? (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

Headers

The headers (in my opinion) make the article more comprehensive, and I'm not sure why they were removed; doesn't it make more sense? Now the article just seems cluttered. Wrecked Door (talk)

NOT Heavy Metal.

Since when is this SHIT "heavy metal"?

Listen to Dio, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath...and you'll tell the difference!

Genre

Is there any point putting the genre "Nu Metal" as early in brackets? Mudvayne and Disturbed are two of the few international bands that have been incorporated this genre no matter what happened after 2003 or after 2008. Particularly for Mudvayne's "New Game" album- it incorporated nu metal to some significant extent. Months ago it was labeled as Alternative metal, nu metal with a footnote indicating an article where Mudvayne frontman clearly hinted it was nu metal, it was removed. I understand nu metal is a genre particularly very hard to solidly specify within any recording artist's album. But anyone who has been listening to Nu Metal and or sub genres like that can at least understand towards how much extent the genre is (or at least the vibe) existing in a song/album, but, then again. I see after 2006 Wiki hesitates a bit more (though I understand just to solidify the cases) regarding labeling a genre of a new album with putting in multiple genres as label. Another example is Lacuna Coil's Karma Code album. As soon as it was released I finished listening to it. As I discovered the band in wiki I often would go to their Wiki page where it was nicely described the band attempted to create heavy sounds similar to korn with down tuned nu metal riffs, now they removed that para. Same to say for Slipknot's All Hope is Gone, it generally is a Heavy Nu Metal album. You cannot deny the facts scratches are significantly used at some points in at least 2/3 songs in that album with Slipknot's down tuned guitar riffs while the band tried to make the sound more experimental.

Flyleaf's each of the two major releases is labeled as Nu Metal with other significant alt metal genres, it is cool. But I do not know how longer it will remain cool as someday that nu metal description would be removed even though the footnotes/link showed iTunes clearly said nu metal is incorporated in those albums.

To sum it up, bands who were full nu metal early in the 2000s now use the nu metal vibe more than they would incorporate the genre substantially and that, at least should deserve it's mentioning on the genre section. Sooner or later people will recognize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.99.67 (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Since when is Mudvayne nu metal. Seriously what the hell is wrong with people. Before you comment on the genre of an artist please LISTEN TO THE MUSIC. You make yourself look stupid. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not influenced by Korn

Mudvayne was not influenced by Korn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.15.150 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Groove metal

Not in any source, not a groove metal band. Progressive metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.145.56 (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Genre discussion re-opened

Apparently there is a consensus against including nu metal, so i decided to re-open the genre discussion to see current Wikipedia editors opinion on nu metal being included and other genre related issues since there hasn't been a discussion here in years. I'm for nu metal, since there are multiple sources calling Mudvayne nu metal and they fit perfectly into the genre, with angry shouted vocals, funk inspired bass playing, industrial elements, heavily downtuned guitars and occasional rapping, The band even consider themselves to be part of this genre. I'm also strongly against Heavy metal being the only genre on the bands album pages since Mudvayne sound NOTHING like traditional heavy metal, and this was enforced by a banned known sockpuppeteer who was pushing his personal opinion that genres should be as general as possible (there is no wikipedia policy supporting this btw), while also trying to enforce his bias. Discuss.

I call the big one bitey (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no such consensus. As you say, that genre was removed by an editor who had a serious personal issue with the term being applied to bands that he liked. He made a few unilateral edits here and here to change the genres, without sources. In the archives, here, there is a source from Rolling Stone in which the band describes themselves that way. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some sources that describe Mudvayne as nu metal ([4], [5], [6]). Considering that there is no actual consensus on this genre, I can see no reason to disclude it. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the person who said there was a consensus AGAINST nu metal was truthful. The band don't even sound like Korn or Limp Bizkit to me though. And they don't rap, they just yell really fast. But the consensus was made if the thing was there for a LONG time, if it wasn't a consensus, it definitely would be removed. I wouldn't be there, since the genre for nu metal was discussed on this talk page on some older revisions. But I would say they're alternative metal, progressive metal and stuff. But nu metal wasn't about sounding angry. I'd just say let's just not put nu metal there until a consensus is made here and people think they could agree that it's fine for nu metal to be here.

Ihy34 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well

If the sources say nu metal, so should be article.. for reference here is the Rolling Stone source. Яehevkor ✉ 18:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well there is currently an overwhelming consensus for this genre to be included, so i'll just go ahead and add it. In time i'll try to get around to adding proper genres to the bands album pages (preferably with sources) and i'll remove all those warnings that were added by that particular banned user. I call the big one bitey (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources don't always mean that it must be on the article, if the genre is controversial and consistently debated, a consensus must be made. Like on the black dahlia murder, you can find some sources calling them deathcore, but they are melodeath, but MANY Ips would remove deathcore and genre war that now it is semi protected. So they compromised calling the genre "melodic death metal, metalcore" instead so no genre warring has to come. It's called compromise. Just like on system of a down there was a consensus against nu metal but the band are alt metal which nu metal is part of and they found many sources calling SOAD nu metal. Alternative metal is a good thing to put there since it's subgenres include nu metal. I'll tell you something else, nu metal (it's sourced so it's fine) is pretty much classed as part of alternative metal. And bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit mix that style (or groove metal, or thrash metal if they are really fast and aggressive) with hip hop/grunge and sometimes with some funk/industrial influences. But bands like SOAD, Tool, AIC, and others are unconventional metal or alternative metal. Although early alt metal bands did have influences from alternative rock and other music. Incubus are sometimes tagged as nu metal and they're sourced as nu metal but for some reason we can't add nu metal to their genre, or can we? But if we allow alternative metal there, I think it would be pretty fine since the guy back a year ago declared a consensus there was many page discussions and his remvoal of nu metal and thing wasn't removed ever. It was just still there, without a consensus it would be removed. But I did add more genres to the albums. But progressive/alternative/groove metal and stuff are all subgenres of metal. I'd say the good time to allow nu metal to be added to the article is when much more IPS/users/etc come to the talk page and put their view on it, and then when a compromise comes, we'll allow it. Besides, if I add deathcore to BDM then it will be reverted and be controversial and lead to genre wars. So sure sources are great, but compromise is important to solve genre wars.

Ihy34 (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ihy34 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources saying nu metal. Most of the arguments against it seem to be opinion based, not based on sources. There's a strong consensus above, it should remain until it changes again. Яehevkor ✉ 09:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, actually looking back in the archives where a consensus was supposedly gained for nu metal not to be added, you can see one of the arguments against nu metal being included is that Mudvayne can't be nu metal since they play a highly technical form of music, which of coarse is completely opinion based. I call the big one bitey (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

note

should we make an edit note on math metal saying it shouldn't be added cause it's a fake genre?

Ihy34 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It redirects to djent, but I have never heard of this. Even thought I'm a huge fan of Sikth. Is that a fake genre too? Яehevkor ✉ 09:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

everything that was one

I don't think that retract me from this, but distract me was not my intention...I am not a tool but a haggard of error...so my intention is useful, but not necessary to distract you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.126.36 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

Is there anyone taking care of this page? A certain user seems adamant to make sure that Mudvayne are only listed as progressive metal, and is cherry picking sources.176.205.131.44 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Cherry picking" would be the sources for the other genres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you even looked at your links? Most of the time they have nothing to do with the song or album in question, and two of them lead to pages that no longer exist. One of them is a throwaway article about their masks. There are actual reviews from, what Wikipedia calls, "reliable sources" that point to them being nu-metal. Also, you acknowledge that they played alternative metal on their first album and yet you continue to remove that from the list of genres.

Btw, [here's] a source for you. An article that actually discusses the genre and has comments from a band member. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the article, please. Go study music. This is prog. Progressive metal is a combination of highly technical music, jazz influences, and time signature experimentation, in contrast with traditional rock and metal songs generally being in basic time signatures - 4/4, 3/4, etc., with the aggressive or heavy elements of heavy metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Some more sources for progressive rock/metal:

http://www.jensmetalpage.com/interviews_mudvayne.htm

http://www.reverbnation.com/mudvayne

http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=3160

http://herald-review.com/entertainment/local/hellyeah-journeys-back-to-heavy-stuff/article_ddd5966e-237b-584c-afd2-e5ef6081f499.html

http://www.straight.com/music/makeup-free-mudvayne-rages-against-machine

http://www.mtv.com/news/1457665/mudvayne-reaches-the-end-with-new-album/

http://www.kaos2000.net/interviews/mudvayne/

http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/features/3683/Mudvayne-Get-A-Makeover

http://www.thisisnotascene.com/2014/hellyeah-blood-for-blood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you completely insane? Yes, Mudvayne have some prominent progressive elements in their music, especially their early material, but that is FAR from their only stylistic hallmark. They are an alternative metal band. They developed as part of the nu metal movement. Their more recent material has an obvious groove metal basis. All of this is backed up by countless sources, and ought to be plainly obvious to anyone who has heard their music and isn't completely deaf. Trying to label them as only prog is incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, misleading, oversimplified and just plain stupid. You're just cherry-picking sources to justify your incorrect opinion and are too egotistical to admit you're full of crap.86.175.24.141 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I cited sources. I provided valid evidence based on scholarly research of music. I didn't call anyone "insane" or "ignorant" as you did, or claim that anyone was "full of crap" or "deaf". I simply stated what is objectively true, which you have failed to do. That there are lot of sources identifying Mudvayne as progressive metal and that their music is based in the technical, sonic and genre-based aspects of progressive metal, which can be proven and what a lot of feet-stomping and vandalism can't dismiss. I believe that it is you who has not heard Mudvayne's music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Several of these sources are not strong. Jensmetalpage is a fan page that notes it used to be a GeoCities [7], Reverbnation just lists them in a slide, and it's not really strong as there is no author and does not indicate who's really inputting this information. I'm not sure how valid Sea of Tranquility is as it appears to have been a print magazine once, but I'm sure someone here can explain it further. The Herald one is not that bad of a source, but the article is just making a passing reference to Mudvayne. I'm sure there are stronger sources. Straight mentions both nu-metal and "prog-thrash", so which is it? MTV calls them "Math Metal" which is only something Mudvayne referred themselves to, which the group later retracted. So I wouldn't use that MTV source. This source talks about progressive rock, not progressive metal and at very best the group says "tinges of prog", which isn't strong. source. This site only refers to one album, not their work or the group as a whole. Can you find better sources that actually focus more on genre of the group without vague things or hunting and pecking for specific genres? This would help our the article more. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there are sources that say that they play prog. metal. That doesn't mean you can ignore sources that say they play alternative metal, nu-metal or whatever else. That's not how this works. You don't just pick articles that you agree with. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There's tons of sources saying other genres as well. It would be misleading to represent them as strictly a prog metal band in the lead. I think since their genre has been widely attributed across the board (and also the band has retracted statements of what they consider to be their music), that we'd have to make it better explained in prose. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously operating on an agenda here, so I'd advise you to take a step back. The sources you're deleting DO work. And they are relevant to the band being progressive metal. In fact, one of them provides a source for the song "Dig" being progressive metal. They're being used appropriately to categorize the band Mudvayne as progressive metal. They are not being used for any other reason. Please stop mass-vandalizing articles. You've gone through multiple band articles deleting genres and sources for no reason other than agenda-based edit warring. Please stop this. It is tiring. What is, is. What isn't, isn't. A is A and cannot be otherwise. What you WANT to be true does not make something true. You cannot rewrite reality to fit what you wish to be reality. Reality is nothing but what is. Like trying to categorize Mudvayne as groove metal because some of the band members played live with Hellyeah, and having "nu metal" as a genre on Ryan Martinie's page because he played live with Korn for a few shows. That's pretty selective sourcing. Most encyclopedias would not consider this valid, to selectively source statements based on things other than what is being discussed. Ryan Martinie playing one show with Korn does not make him a nu metal bassist no more than Paul McCartney playing with Linkin Park makes The Beatles a nu metal band. As for Son Of Plisskin's utterly false assertion of me "not liking nu metal", note that I do not argue Sikth's categorization as nu metal. The real issue is that Son Of Plisskin likes nu metal a little more than most people and is trying to categorize every band as nu metal even where it does not apply. The sources agree with me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no the links don't work because you've never bothered checking and fixing them. I get a 404 error with the MTV link and the postbulletin link doesn't give me anything. Either way, the "fans Dig Mudvayne" link also calls them a progressive rock band, but you don't seem to think that shouldn't be added. The MTV link is no better than the Rolling Stone link I posted earlier, which calls them a nu-metal band. Also, please read about what vandalizing actually is in relation to this wiki, because you're using the word wrong. I listed nu-metal under Ryan Martinie because he played in a nu-metal band called Mudvayne. (Maybe you've heard of them?) My last edit didn't even have a genre listing, so it's all just hot air. There are plenty of sources that point to them being nu-metal as well. You're the one who's being selective here. If there are sources that say they're progressive metal, fine, include them, but that doesn't mean you ignore the other sources mentioning the other genres. Funny how you talk about writing reality, since most people were fine with the genres before you came along. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Mudvayne is a progressive metal band. Stop using an encyclopedia to push your own agenda. And the sources DO work. You never even looked at them. The sources support PROGRESSIVE METAL and ONLY PROGRESSIVE METAL and NOTHING ELSE. You are ACTIVELY VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE every time you add miscategorized genres. Mudvayne is NOT a nu metal band, it is NOT a groove metal band. Your aggressive agenda-pushing is not welcome here. You need to learn how to identify musical genres by their actual attributes and not what a bunch of drunken Nickelback fans who never listen to bands think of bands they determine is "lame". The fact that you are vandalizing an article based on your opinion and your opinion alone disqualifies you from being a valid contributor. You are a vandal and nothing else. What is, is, and what isn't is not. Mudvayne is PROGRESSIVE METAL, per sources and musical knowledge. The fact that you don't even know what progressive metal is disqualifies you from contributing to this discussion. Encyclopedic fact is fact. Not your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, calm down, please. No one is trying to push an agenda here. Secondly, I also think that progressive metal should be in the infobox, because as you've said, there are some sources that suggest/indicate so. Nevertheless, I can't really understand why you are insisting on removing nu metal ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] and two additional book sources in the article) or alternative metal ([15], [16], [17], [18]). They both have really credible sources, which are actually more reliable than the ones that you've posted here. Please tell us again how we are the biased ones. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Genre Field

Before you remove the genre field check Template: Infobox musical artist, it basically states there should be a genre field on all music related articles. I know there is a lot of genre warring going on here so i'll put opinion aside and add the four most heavily sourced genres ordered from most sources to least sources/alphabetically. Four is generally considered the highest number of genres you should have in a genre field.

--I call the big one bitey (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre Field

Before you remove the genre field check Template: Infobox musical artist, it basically states there should be a genre field on all music related articles. I know there is a lot of genre warring going on here so i'll put opinion aside and add the four most heavily sourced genres ordered from most sources to least sources/alphabetically. Four is generally considered the highest number of genres you should have in a genre field.

--I call the big one bitey (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• When people keep making unjustified additions to the genre list, that's a problem. ProgGuy (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So justify these edits please? Removing the genre fields goes against what is spelled above, there's no consensus to remove it. Why remove the nu metal category? There are multiple sources for nu metal. Яehevkor ✉ 19:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing for "nu metal" is unjustified, absurdly allocated and quite frankly, cherry picked. The removal of the genre field was based in a consensus previously reached after edit wars. There are more sources for progressive metal than nu metal (see archives). This is a dead issue, please stop trying to refuel a fire that died down ages ago. You cannot argue with what the sources say. ProgGuy (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can favour the removal of genre fields if it is prone to causing problems among editors. However, I can't see an actual consensus anywhere on genre removal and there is no new consensus yet. You're acting alone here. Also note that there are more sources for nu metal than progressive metal; none are cherry picked or unjustified. (See archives) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What consensus is there to remove the genre field at this point, I looked in the archive and couldn't see it? Can you Explain how "nu metal" is unjustified? It's strongly sourced as far as I can see, if this genre is cherry picked then they all are. Яehevkor ✉ 20:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There's clearly more sources for progressive metal. Nine are on the talk archives and several more on the main article. More can be found. The sources claiming Mudvayne as nu metal are insignificant and run towards promotional articles, fanboyism, and cherry picking. Look at the quality of the sources. Several significant heavy metal sites and music experts have classified this band as progressive metal. If I have to explain how sources work, then what is the purpose of this site? Maybe we should just get rid of the entire site if we're not going to operate within the way it was originally intended? Maybe the genre field should be deleted from the template if users are not going to use it correctly. I fail to understand why the uncyclopedic approach is frequently taken towards music articles when rock and metal bands can easily be approached in a correct way, and yet we continue to not take this approach when the information is staring right at our faces. You have a raging edit warrior who repeatedly adds and removes genres without logic and reason, calling himself "Son Of Plisskin" acting as if he's acting based on consensus and musical authority, when, in fact, he's simply vandalizing multiple articles without purpose, including the anonymous edits adding "death metal" to the genres section on the infobox for the article Mr. Bungle despite the fact that it is unsourced. Is this an encylopedia, or a source of fanboyism? Please leave your personal opinions for Wikia sites, or else Wikipedia should just be renamed "Wiki Site" because this is NOT how an encyclopedia operates. ProgGuy (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war. More sources for one genre doesn't mean others can be ignored, we have plenty of reliable sources for nu metal, I still don't understand the need to remove it. You are aggressively trying get your way, by throwing about accusations, "fanboyism", "vandalizing", accusing veteran editors of not knowing "how sources work" (hahaha). I feel I should point out no one who has taken part in this discussion has edit warred with you on this issu. Now, you are still claiming you are editing with consensus, where is this consensus? Please provide a link to any discussion(s) that reached this consensus. You are unsure we know how sources work.. do you know consensus works? For reference, here's the policy Wikipedia:Consensus. Яehevkor ✉ 20:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me how NME, Rolling Stone, PopMatters and Allmusic are not reliable while Kaos2000 is. Do you really think that PopMatters is labeling the band as nu metal just because of fanboyism? How can these sources be insignificant? These articles are written by music experts. The sources that were cited on talk page discussion and on the article label the band as both genres. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not been anonymously editing the Mr. Bungle page, thank you very much. (I've actually reverted many of that IPs edits as well for removing nu-metal from the Mushroomhead article. Though at least with that band I could support removing it as long as there's some discussion about it, and not just cherry picked sources). And stop accusing people of fanboyism when this is clearly a personal issue with you (and one which already got you banned on another site two times, and blocked on this one). How does calling Mudvayne a nu metal band equate to "fanboyism", anyway? I'll leave the genre boxes blank for now (until the matter was properly discussed), which is what I was initially supporting , since I'm getting tired of this, but the moment you start adding progressive metal to the genre field, you can be sure nu-metal will be added as well. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of you are giving credence to bad journalism. You put preference over mainstream label promoting tools while ignoring credible journalism. This is ridiculous - this is supposed to be an encyclopedic source and this very site actively has users edit warring on the article penis over whose photo of their own genitals gets to be the visual representation of the male sex organ. And then you throw out arguments like this because you can't be bothered to look at the sources and make an encyclopedic estimation of what is correct, instead of pushing your own opinion. If you're going to add "nu metal" where it doesn't belong, why not just add "country", "polka", "pop", "punk" and "dubstep" to every article as well, since you're clearly not trying to use this site as an encyclopedia, you just want to add whatever you can to an article regardless of how it fits in to what's being discussed. This is actively a quest on your behalf to make as many edits as possible regardless of whether they're correct. So Mr. Bungle suddenly becomes a death metal band, Metallica is now jazz fusion and Miley Cyrus plays polka. Because never mind what the sources say or what is encyclopedic accurate information, let's just edit for the sake of editing. ProgGuy (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like how this place works, then no one is forcing you to edit here. Who's to say what's bad journalism? There are certain sources that are deemed as "reliable" and that's what this site uses. If you want nu-metal off the page then find a credible source that says that people mistakenly describe them as such. One of your "sources" is just a tiny blurb on an article about their masks. Just sayin'. Do you really think that people from rendom newspapers have much more knowledge about genre classifications than people who run sites like AMG (which I'll admit does have a lot of problems)? SonOfPlisskin (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason why some sources claim Mudvayne as alternative/nu metal is because of a demo that they did in the late 90's called Kill I Oughtta (reissued as The Beginning of All Things To End) which had a drastically different sound from the rest of their albums, alternative metal, and was based more in simpler, riff-based music compositions and aggressive lyrics. Starting with their first official release, L.D. 50, Mudvayne began using more technical jazz and orchestral influenced composition with mathematical time signatures. Here's the thing about sites like AMG and Rolling Stone and such: They do fine on things like Britney Spears. They don't do so hot on progressive music. Rolling Stone condemned Rush's albums as some of the worst music ever made in the 1970s before listing some of their albums among the 500 best ever in the 2000's. RS is wildly inconsistent and is more concerned these days with political commentary than reviewing albums. ProgGuy (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

And what's the deal of the repeated reverting on Dig (Mudvayne song) to a version that lists "rap metal" among the song's genres when this is not only unsourced, but it is not a rap metal song in any way? ProgGuy (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But you're assuming that you're the only one who listens to metal and knows about genres. I don't agree with the "reliable sources" on several things as well, but that's how the site works, since it's the easiest way to prevent any bias and original research, and it's not like the sources you provide are from any highly regarded metal experts either. I still think Mudvayne is nu-metal because they have pretty much every stereotype associated with it apart from turntables and rapping (I also explained this on the prog. metal list page), and you're more likely to see them touring with another nu-metal or alternative act (or possibly a metalcore or groove metal band (or an out of touch group like Metallica)) than see them playing at Powerprog. When I think prog. metal, I think Dream Theater, Fates Warning, Psychotic Waltz, etc. Either way, no one is saying that progressive metal shouldn't be added (although I think progressive metal bands should, first and foremost, have metal riffs, which Mudvayne don't, but that's an argument that will go nowhere), just that nu-metal should stay. Again, just because their music is "complex", it doesn't mean that they can't belong in the scene. We still consider Watchtower to be thrash. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sea of Tranquility

Recently, this site has been added as a source to this article. I'm not sure of it's ability to follow WP:RS, but I've opened discussion about it on WP:ALBUMS here. Might be worth adding anyone's two cents there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sea of Tranquility is a very reliable source. It is a well-respected progressive rock magazine and an authority on the genre. 64.134.96.198 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you back that up with some sources? I've had trouble finding content to see whether or not they are notable. You may want to focus the conversation here, btw. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox opinion pushing

Obviously someone keeps using the infobox to opinion-push nu metal while deleting progressive metal despite the fact that Mudvayne is clearly a prog band by the sources and Sea of Tranquility has debunked the claim of the band being "nu-metal". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to this discussion, we found that Sea of Tranquility was not a reliable source. You'll have to find more sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

By whose standards is Sea of Tranquility not a reliable source? It's often cited by numerous bands and prog/hard rock/metal fans. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this. See the WP:ALBUMS discussion. The site was deemed not notable or reliable per the discussion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Sea of Tranquility

How can Sea of Tranquility be an "unreliable" source if they have a far more professional website than Piero Scaruffi? No, sorry, Sea of Tranquility has been proven to be a reliable source. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• You know what, to avoid further debate, let's just get rid of the Sea of Tranquility cite until someone can get a clue. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually don't use Piero Scaruffi as a source anymore. It doesn't matter how "professional" your site is, it matters on who's writing it and the context. Robert Christgau's website looks like it was made with a potato, but he writes for countless papers. His website is just a bit uhh...home made. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Genres

Not that the number of sources have legitimately meant anything over the weight of the sources (which is why progressive metal is more relevant than nu metal in regards to this band, but I digress), but there are a far greater number of citations referring to Mudvayne as an alternative metal band than a nu metal band. Now, can you stop edit warring by repeatedly adding "nu metal" and deleting progressive metal, in spite of the sources? There are also far more citations calling Mudvayne a progressive metal band. By your own rules (which contradict the actual rules, but I digress), the repeated adding of nu metal is nonsense. And by the actual rules, the repeated adding of nu metal is nonsense. So if the actual rules and the rules you made up are against you, give up. Seriously. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you can point out which rules are being broken or not, we'll be happy to figure it out. Otherwise, I'm a bit more confused by this then anything else. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You continue to make the same edits over and over again with no regard to consistency, evidence or the sources, then cover your butt by asserting an alleged standing that conflicts with what's in the articles being cited, the majority of the sources on the band, the sources for the individual albums/singles, making claims that don't add up with what the sources say, re-reverting and changing to your opinion rather than the evidence. This is not how sourcing works. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does, you need to match what the source says. You can't just hear "Mudvayne are a something-metal" group than apply that to albums of your choosing as bands change their style as time moves along. You need specific sources describing the albums in question. I'm still waiting for you to explain which rules I've broken as well BTW. If the sources are not good, I'll remove them. It's your burden (see WP:BURDEN) to find sources if you want content added. Not mine or anyone else really. And please when using these sources, "WP:STICKTOSOURCE" if it's talking about the band, use it on that article. if it's talking about an album, use it on an appropriate album page. (per WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Genre refs (March 2015)

The infobox was very messy. I have removed the citations. The exact same citations exist in a Genre section of the article. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor:The infobox was cited. You say the same ones were elsewhere, but the ones I searched for by url were not. And, now, nobody knows that anyway. Did you know that this part of all articles like this, is the constant-nonstop-forever playpen of genre warriors, and that anyone who's not a hard-core 'good' level of researcher on this particular article will now not know whether to correct them? There's a very seriously necessary reason why citations exist, as it defines this as being an encyclopedia. I truly don't mean to sound disparaging but there was no actual problem, and now there is. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 06:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but when I saw the citations for the respective genres they had the exact same source numbers. (ex. alternative metal had 1, 2, 3, and 4 next to it in the genre section, suggesting the same source was used) I thought it would clear up the over-filled infobox, so I did. Pardon me if I caused a problem, but I don't really see what the problem is here. I even left a hidden note saying these genres are in the genre section. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor The problem is that there's been some disruptive IP editors who have had some real problems with genre warrioring and POV-pushing related to this band. Excessive sources related to genre have supplied to establish that genre contrary to the IP's views were not in fact WP:FRINGE viewpoints as he asserted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre refs

I know this was discussed and we had a reason to put all these citations here, but there seem to be simply too many refs. It is not aesthetically pleasing to see all these brackets and numbers placed into the infobox. One or two is good, even three in this case for some of the more controversial or arguable tags (nu metal and progressive metal), but four to five is outrageous. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox citations for genres

I noticed these were removed by an editor moments ago. The last time I tried to do that, I got reverted. But I agree that they are in fact superfluous as they appear in the style section later. What do you guys think? I think if there should be any refs for genres in the infobox they should only be the strongest references and for those that are most controversial. This overflow of citations make the article look ugly. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 04:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citypaper.com/music/story.asp?id=17177

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Heavy metal

If you just put everything as Heavy metal, it will avoid edit-warring, since the majority of sources agree that the band, album and songs are a part of at least one form of metal. --68.185.2.34 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

All of the current genre are heavily and reliably sourced, and there isn't any recent edit warring going on. This makes no sense. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is a disguise for the user's real intentions; I think it may personally disagree with the genres associated with the band and is trying to negotiate. I oppose this, mainly because there's not really much warring going on in the first place. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I know, I'm just documenting this ludicrous argument for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly the past edits and discussion talk disagree with you, DannyMusicEditor, and Sergecross73, heavy metal is the most heavily and reliably sourced. 68.185.2.34 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I find the past participants and discussion all highly likely to be your comments. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no one disputing anything other than a long-term IP hopper who's spent months/years POV pushing genre ideas onto Mudvayne articles, then ironically accusing everyone else of POV pushing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Popular Music citation on Mudvayne

Regarding the use of "Encyclopedia of Popular Music" on Mudvayne. I contacted the author of the book, Colin Larkin, asking for a retraction of the claim of Mudvayne being nu-metal. He responded that the book was authored by people other than him and that the research in the book was based on the Internet, which makes this source unusable for an encyclopedia as the book itself is unencyclopedic, despite the title. His email is documented here: http://mudvayneisaprogressivemetalband.blogspot.com/2017/09/mudvayne-is-not-and-has-never-been-nu.html

I do not intend on using Wikipedia and since I am writing you from a public computer station, I ask that you email me at isaacbaranoff@gmail.com if you wish to respond since I do not have an account here that you can respond to. All I have to say about the citations being used on the Mudvayne articles is that they are being used irresponsibly and incorrectly and the citations used to claim Mudvayne as a nu-metal band do not warrant any intellectual consideration, as the ultimate source of said information is, to be absolutely frank, Internet trolls. Mudvayne was always a progressive metal band and was never claimed as a nu-metal band by any credible authorities, and certainly not before 2014. -- Isaac Baranoff, noted progressive rock composer/recording artist since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.13.114 (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources call them both genre. So we label them both. The end. The lengths you're going to portray a subjective thing as objectively wrong is baffling. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mudvayne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040822061147/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=13 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928225752/http://www.revolvermag.com/features/index.html to http://www.revolvermag.com/features/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091120132826/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=130358 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=130358
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/templateid/12635/menuid/3/tempidx/5/catid/4/editstatus//restemp/N%3B/fPpagesel/1?PHPSESSID=727b53caab4d4855ee7358d5315c57c1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010121749/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=128312 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=128312
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123072455/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=166402 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=166402
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225735/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=1087 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=1087
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitch.com/2001-08-30/music/mud-brothers
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716065247/http://www.sickdrummermagazine.com/index.php/the-drummers/metal-hardcore/1714-interview-with-matt-mcdonough-of-mudvayne.html to http://www.sickdrummermagazine.com/index.php/the-drummers/metal-hardcore/1714-interview-with-matt-mcdonough-of-mudvayne.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=35&a=377870

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)