Talk:Nu metalcore

More bands

I don't know how to edit wikipedia, but there are many bands and sources here maybe someone else could add?

Afterlife: http://new-transcendence.com/review-afterlife-vicious-cycle-ep2017/ Dangerkids: http://www.soundinthesignals.com/2017/01/dangerkids-blacklist-album-review.html Darke Complex: http://new-transcendence.com/review-darke-complex-widow-ep2015/ Gift Giver (since White Devil): http://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Gift-Giver/45024/ Loser: http://new-transcendence.com/review-loser-2017/ My Enemies & I The One Hundred: http://www.punktastic.com/radar/introducing-the-one-hundred/ The Plot in You: http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/68995/The-Plot-In-You-Happiness-In-Self-Destruction/ Sheevaa: http://new-transcendence.com/review-sheevaa-stages-grief-ep2016/ Sylar: https://auditoryspectrum.com/2014/10/22/interview-jayden-panesso-and-sylar-are-the-future-kings-of-nu-york/

There's also bands like Alpha Wolf, Kriminals, Ded, newest Sworn In, Traitors and sometimes Motionless in White, who have strong enough nu metal vibes,

None of the ones with sources you listed are even notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They'd have to qualify for their own page first. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ded has their own page and are mentioned on the same article allegedly quoting Gemini Syndrome as nu metalcore (when they're not nu metalcore - that article just lists them as "other current nu metal", and this article http://numetalmessiah.net/2016/07/nu-metal-is-back-with-a-vengeance-not-rotting-in-vain/ just lists them in a general nu metal revival category), as does The One Hundred. And if you're arguing their pages aren't large enough, Shvpes' page is literally a single line yet they're included on here AND are marked for deletion. Shvpes and Gemini Syndrome shouldn't be here, and I don't see why Ded or TOH wouldn't be 'notable' enough if they are.

I was the one who nominated Shapes for deletion by the way, and once it is (it will be) I fully intend on removing it. You still need individual sources, and I'm only convinced on Ded at the moment, or if The One Hundred isa covered in the site provided I can do that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Predessors

Any rooms for bands which fused the genres before the emergence of the subgenre, like Demon Hunter and Dir En Grey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganondox (talk • contribs) 01:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I see Demon Hunter got added, but if they belong then so should other bands like Maximum the Hormone and Ill Nino, as they weren't the only notable predecessor that mixed metalcore and nu metal, and none of them have any direct connection to the Nu Metal Revival. Ganondox (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

With those bands, I specifically referred to specific albums which have both nu metal and metalcore listed as genres. The problem is those pages aren't sourced either. http://www.metalsucks.net/2011/04/21/readers-choice-maximum-the-hormone/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/09/23/japanese-metal-band-hysteric-panic-almost-crazy-weird-maximum-hormone/ I think there is a lack of sources putting nu metal and metalcore together for Maximum Hormone due to the fact they are a Japanese band, meaning less English language commentary, especially on specific albums. Japanese bands have been mixing nu metal and metalcore together longer than American bands have, regarding it as just taking influence from western metal.

People have been making the claim that Ill Nino has been mixing nu metal with metalcore since their third album, but so far it's only their most recent album that I've found what's a considered to be a credible source acknowledging the mix: https://www.allmusic.com/album/till-death-la-familia-mw0002680839 Ganondox (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what would make the most sense; as many of these bands are not specifically called "nu metalcore"; is that we mention these bands in the history section but not in the list of bands, as predecessors. Issan Sumisu (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to go out writing it though, just due to the sourcing problem. For example, Ill Nino predates the revival and the album generally agreed as incorporating metalcore first fits in the right period, but I haven't been able to find a good source that explicitly states the inclusion of metalcore. The one obvious, objective sign of metalcore influence is that one of the tracks features the vocalist from Hatebreed, which technically doesn't confirm metalcore influence ever though it's clearly there. The reliable source that confirms metalcore influence is for their most recent album, which came out after the start of the nu metal revival. Based on that source, they should be included not as predecessor, but in the list, but that's a clearly misleading conclusion. For the Japanese bands, one can look at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_nu_metal_musical_groups and see that numerous of the listed artists are also listed as metalcore, and at least The Gazette is actually cited for both, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources where someone put 2 and 2 together and concluded that Japan had the nu metalcore thing going before the American nu metal revival. Ganondox (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nu Metal Revival

This is NOT the same thing as nu metal revival, there is no good source claiming they are one and the same (the source that was being used to justify the claim was a URL to what currently hosts a phishing site, and based on the comments on the edit history the intended site never actually made the claim the two terms were synonymous). Rather, it's one of three aspects of the scene called nu metal revival. The three aspects are 1. bands that previously left the nu metal style returning to the style. Such bands include Staind, Slipknot, and Linkin Park. 2. Metalcore and Deathcore bands such as Of Mice and Men, Emmure, and Suicide Silent adding nu metal to their sound and 3. New new bands forming, such as Issues, From Ashes to New, Islander, and Hackivist. While many of these new bands incorporate new sounds, otherwise take on a traditional nu metal sound, and the only fusion that is consistent enough across multiple bands to constitute a new, distinct genre is nu metalcore. It's kinda ironic we have people here insisting they are the same thing when another page on the wiki explains the distinction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_metal#2010–present:_Minor_revival Ganondox (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there are sources to claim that "nu metalcore" and the "nu metal revival" are the same thing but there are no sources to claim what you are saying. Furthermore, in the "minor revival" section of the nu metal page, it is never claimed that the bands returning to nu metal are apart of the revival, nor does it say anything about which bands are continuing the traditional style or creating a new style, as sources do not reflect that information. We'd need a lot more sources (of which we do not have) to provide the information you are requesting.Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"The problem is that there are sources to claim that "nu metalcore" and the "nu metal revival" are the same thing" No, there is not. You claim there is such sources, but you've failed to provide any. I have seen sources that list the nu metal revival and nu metalcore together with a hyphen due to their significant overlap, but none that actually claim they are synonymous, and several write it that way BECAUSE they aren't synonymous. For example from this source: https://thatsrockingawsome.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/7-nu-metalcorenu-metal-revival-bands/ opens with this sentence: "With the current Nu Metal revival, bringing us new Nu Metal and Industrial Metal bands, along with the currently emerging Nu Metalcore genre, here are 7 Nu Metalcore/Nu Metal revival bands." The fact they used the word "along" means they consider the nu metal revival and nu metalcore to be two separate things, it's just a matter of reading comprehension rather than blindly inserting sources that include words together. The SINGLE source that was being used for that argument doesn't even exist anymore, but you were too lazy to check that out because it's so much easier for you just to revert edits than actually try to improve the quality of the page. Part of the advantage of wikipedia is that anyone can edit it and then the more technically minded people can clean it up, and you're just breaking the system.

"there are no sources to claim what you are saying." My main point is that they aren't the same thing, not the specific explanation for how the nu metal revival works. You don't need sources to prove that two terms aren't the same as it's the null-hypothesis, just like how you don't need a source to not list metalcore as a random bands genre, you need a source to back it up. Requiring a specific source to claim that nu metalcore and nu metal revival aren't synonymous is inane as it's a claim based on the synthesis of several sources talking about the nu metal revival, many of the older ones made no reference to metalcore whatsoever. You can also just look at the bands people group in nu metal revival to see it refers to multiple different types of bands, most of which can be put in one of the three categories I gave, but sources aren't needed as my argument is not a claim made in the article or am trying to add. But you want a source? Here is one from the article on nu-metal: http://www.metalsucks.net/2014/02/25/nu-metal-revival-apocalypse/ They refer to the same three aspects I referred to, they even outline it in three different stages both chronologically and sequentially in the organization of the article. It's not that I lack sources for my claims, it's that it's a PAIN to change references. Anyway, regardless of sources, calling bands which are obviously not metalcore (like From Ashes to New) nu metalcore is just plain idiotic. If you insist on this page being about the nu metal revival, it should be moved to a different title. You're abusing wiki logic at the expense of common sense by using local-quality sources with no central coherence, this is not how sources were intended to be used.

"it is never claimed that the bands returning to nu metal are apart of the revival" Yes, it is, it is implicitly by them being in the section in the first place and it making up the majority of the section. There is also PLENTY of sources which list them as part of the revival, including the one I posted last. This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard.

The main issue I see is how terms change over time. When the old articles talked about nu metal revival, they were talking about the recent financial success of old nu metal bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit, and various bands that returned to the old style or reformed in response. People didn't start applying it to metalcore bands until they started making connections with what the older nu metal bands where doing as initially they were just considered to be metalcore which so happened to take influence from nu metal. It wasn't until much later that nu metalcore was recognized as a distinct genre from both metalcore and nu metal. People didn't initially use the term nu metal revival just because it takes time for specific terms to catch on, but you can see here that it's still used to refer to the original comeback: http://www.rockfeed.net/2016/09/14/limp-bizkit-korn-tour/ As a result in changing trends over time, there is a bias to see nu metalcore and nu metal revival to be listed together, especially in top search results, but that doesn't mean people are actually treating them as being the same thing, just closely related things. Ganondox (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Looked at the archived source you referred to, it's a joke. First off, it never even claimed that nu metal revival and nu metalcore. Rather, they proposed nu metalcore and new nu metal (a term no one else uses except in a literal sense) as possible names for a subset of the nu metal revival with certain qualities, but they actually divided that group of new bands into two categories, those that metalcore based and those that are nu metal based (also, they list old bands as being part of the rival, contrary to your claims, just not as part of nu metalcore or new nu metal for obvious reasons). Second, their use of the terms was prescriptivist, while Wikipedia is a descriptivist resource. Unless we are referring to a specific guy's work, which we aren't, multiple people need to actually use the term for it to be a legitimate alternative. Finally, it's an extremely low quality source, it clearly went down for a reason, and it should never have been added to Wikipedia in the first place as it does not reach quality standards. It's just a random person's blog who no one else referred to, someone just put it on Wikipedia as a quickly dirty way to add a new genre as frankly the way new edits is enforced is very poor, people pay more attention to whether a link exists or not than what the link actually is too. I guess you could use multiple blog sources to prove it is a way people use a term, but it would take MULTIPLE sources, not just one, and again, the article was making grossly inaccurate claims about how people refer to nu metalcore bands and then using it to make grossly inaccurate claims about what bands constitute nu metalcore. Ganondox (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, that first source you refer to was written by my friend and he says that the source was referring to nu metalcore and the nu metal revival as being the same thing, with industrial metal being associated but not apart of it. Noah Robertson from numetal.net refers to nu metalcore and new nu metal as being the same synonyms in this article, as well as this article referring to nu metal revival bands as all merging nu metal and metalcore, referring to it as nu metalcore later on in the article. If you believe they aren't synonyms, this article would not need to be moved as everything on this page other than the introduction only refers to the style of nu metalcore. Feel free to create a page for the nu metal revival, assuming you have enough sources. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it was written by your friend! No wonder you are putting so much effort into defending a bad source at expense to the quality of the article, something other users have disputed as well! You are a blatantly biased party in this discussion, I am disgusted. GET OUT!

And no, you didn't find another two articles that say the same thing, one was a verbatim copy of your friend's or visa versa, and the other did NOT claim that nu metalcore and nu metal revival are the same thing, but rather than nu metalcore is EVIDENCE for the nu metal revival. And as the page is, it listed numerous bands that do not fuse nu metal with metalcore while neglecting many that do, which is PRECISELY what I was attempting to fix, but you reverted in order to favor your friend's account. As you have been displaying blatant nepotism in the handling of this page against all evidence, all your edits should be reverted.

It's also funny how you demand sources for a nu metal revival page, but it doesn't need it's own page, it has it's own section on the nu metal page, which has PLENTY of sources. Ganondox (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Please do not resort to personal attacks, it is a blatant breach of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially since that source was added by other editors and I wasn't aware of it's adding to this page, all I knew was that it brought it up in this discussion. Furthermore, those two sources I added state the terms as being synonyms, and by removing them without reason or concensus continuously, you are disruptively editing. If you can provide sources to say that any of the bands you are adding are apart of these style then you can add them. But until then, since that is unsourced, until you provide a source you are disruptively edit warring.

Edit:My friend's blog is no where on this page, you were the first person to bring it up. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by first-source, as the nu metal messiah post was the first reference on the main page and most of what I wrote was in reference to that article (technically it was the first source I referred to even though it wasn't the first source I linked). Anyway, lets cut to the chase. You claim that "as everything on this page other than the introduction only refers to the style of nu metalcore". This is not true, however, because there is three bands in the list that do not belong to this style: From Ashes to New, Gemini Syndrome, and Islander. Except for Islander, I can find no sources claiming any of them are metalcore of sort, much less nu-metalcore. With Islander, I found someone put them on a metalcore subreddit, so not a reliable source, and then another source saying others call them metalcore, but they are really punk rock, so what it appears to come down is a few people mislabeling them due to their post-hardcore influence. For From Ashes to New, the source given makes no mention to metalcore or even the nu-metal revival, it just says they are nu-metal, so they pretty blatantly should not be on this page. The other two are cited by that problematic source. It doesn't even make any claims to Gemini Syndrome having anything to do with Nu Metalcore, which it only gives as an example of New Metal Revival bands in a separate section from when it gave examples of nu metalcore bands. They do list Islander in that section, but their use of Nu Metalcore is atypical as they specifically mention not all the bands are metalcore based and as noted previously Islander is an odd case (though the fusion of nu metal and post-hardcore is by no means unique or even novel). A case could potentially be made for Islander, but From Ashes to New and Gemini Syndrome got to go, and it seems like the many thing holding them back is the claim that New Metal Revival is synonymous with Nu Metalcore.

Now, you claim your circle uses nu metalcore synonymously with nu metal revival, but the trend is by no means universal: there is plenty of sources which use nu metal revival to refer to something else. Also, none of the sources (which was actually just one source, Noah Robertson) actually claimed nu metalcore and nu metal revival were synonymous. So I don't think there is sufficient evidence to make the claim, especially when the claim is being abused to include bands from outside the genre. Ganondox (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've been won over, we will remove the mention of nu metal revival as being a synonym. Issan Sumisu (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Nu metalcore

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nu metalcore's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NME":

• From Gothic rock: "NME Originals: Goth". NME. 2004. Archived from the original on January 26, 2008. Retrieved 30 September 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Melodic hardcore: "Notes From The Underground – Our Time Down Here". NME. Retrieved 2 November 2018.
• From List of nu metal bands: "28 Nu-Metal Era Bands You Probably Forgot All About". NME. Retrieved 11 December 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing review - article is in very bad shape

In reviewing the article, this article has some very deep-running problems.

1. A heavy reliance on sources that are considered unreliable/unusable (Alternative Nation, Cryptic Rock, and Wordpress Blogs (See WP:NOTRSMUSIC and WP:USERG for more info.)
2. Large amounts of original research - many of the reliable sources used simply don’t verify the claims being made. They often don’t even mention the term “nu metalcore”. Some are so flagrant that I can’t belueve they are accidents either.

Unless some massive improvements are presented, this article is going to be redirected. It’s current shape is simply not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)