Talk:Reroute to Remain

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Genre

For any topic about In Flames' music genre, please see the | STYE talk page, so that we won't break the discussion into two different pages.

First of all this is the Reroute to Remain talk page and that's what it is for. Second there's a rule on Wikipedia that says sign your posts. Third, headings should be used as well in a talk page. Neither is being followed apparently. --Leon Sword 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This album should not be compared to Soundtrack to your Escape because anyone will tell you they are quite different. Although a lot of the songs don't sound like older In Flames they still retain a Gothenburg metal or swedish metal sound. Also some songs clearly retain melodic death metal guitar techniques used in previous albums. Anyone who says otherwise needs to take some serious guitar classes.

I agree the album is not traditional melodic death metal, and that it could be labeled alternative metal, but Gothenburg metal I believe should also be used considering the fact that some of the guitar techniques done in the songs clearly don't fit the alternative metal genre. Furthermore the amount of keyboard work done on the album shouldn't be ignored. Keyboards is something unusual for alternative metal but common in Gothenburg metal. --Leon Sword 01:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anyone who isn't an In Flames fanboy thinks this album is completely removed from Gothenburg metal ("melodeath" in some circles). I vote just alternative metal or nu metal. Ours18 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for Alt. Metal. Inhumer 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well im not an In Flames fanboy and I think the album retains some gothenburg metal sound. I don't know how songs on this album can be compared to songs of "true" alternative metal bands like Breaking Benjamin, Tool, and A Perfect Circle.

Also, as I stated before Keyboards and synth are uncommon in alternative metal but common in melodic death metal or "gothenburg metal"

Also some of the guitar techniques used on the album are never seen done in alternative metal. I think we should at the very least keep "Gothenburg metal" in the genre along with alternative metal. To label this album only alternative metal or nu metal is quite misleading. --Leon Sword 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting Gothenburg in there at all is misleading, but for now I'm just switching the order. Ours18 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with alternative metal. Connacht 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no difference between "melodic death" and "gothenburg" metal, so I will leave it as "melodic death" to avoid confussion. --Dexter prog 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I added a source listing the album ad "Death Metal", and changed the genre accordingly. --Wildnox (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources I found, one lists them as "death metal", another one as "metal" and the last one as "rock" (???? the guy sure didn't play the record, haha):

Considering this, I'd just leave the genre as "metal" or maybe "metal, rock". --Dexter prog 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there isn't a genre called Metal. Maybe we list the band as Heavy Metal, since that is what anyone would assume "metal" means, and it is a pretty good cover-all-bases type genre. --Wildnox (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because people will still edit it saying it is not "heavy metal" thing in heavy metal as Iron Maiden and editing it back to Alternative metal... --Dexter prog 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to please all the random anons who come by to edit once or twice or POV push, but to be as correct as we can agree to be, and those are the only people I could imagine making that change. Alternative Metal is under the scope of Heavy Metal as a sub genre. People assuming Heavy Metal to be synonymous only with NWOBHM rather than the entire genre as awhole are, for lack of a better phrase, ill informed. --Wildnox (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, lets try it. But if edit wars start happening again, I will roll it back to debated. --Dexter prog 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna add, "Involving users who have actually been in the talk page at least once" to that maybe? I just want to ensure the lot I mentioned before don't just use your message as a tool.(Meaning "Oh look all I have to do is make one edit and it's down" kind of thinking) --Wildnox (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you take everything I say as an offence?. If edits wars start again, I will put back debated or maybe the sourced genre provided abobe by some user I don't remember. Anyway, this does not concern Reroute to remain. --Dexter prog 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking it as an offense. I was the user who added the sourced genre in the past. --Wildnox (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source from yahoo listing the album as Hard Rock and the rather vague "metal". --Wildnox (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we have Scandinavian Metal, Heavy Metal, Death Metal/Black Metal, Hard Rock and metal. I still think debated is a better choice. --Dexter prog 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't leave that as the genre forever, especially when we have sourced possibilities. Maybe a straw poll of all the ones we have sourced can solve this, or at least help establish a basis of consensus? --Wildnox (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where did whe get Scandinavian Metal and Black Metal from? --Wildnox (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From here: http://www.answers.com/topic/reroute-to-remain

We can leave it as debated, Cradle Of Filth's genre has been set to debated a long time ago and it continues that way... Anyway, I don't know what we should do. Is that thing about the poll accepted by wikipedia? --Dexter prog 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've been opposed to that decision on that article, as it essentially means that there will never be an attempt at a consensus in the future, which violates Wikipedia:Consensus. I can support "debated" as a short term solution until consensus is reached, but never as a long term solution as that article has. Straw polls have been used many places on wikipedia in the past, they aren't the be all and end all, but they can work well with small articles like this. --Wildnox (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Yes, lets do a poll then, I agree. --Dexter prog 01:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources sound very convincing, the problem is that any kind of metal and especially metal subgenres tend to get thrown into a more general category like "Hard Rock" or "Metal". From the edit history the only debate i can see over the genre was wether to call it Alternative metal and Melodic death metal or Alternative metal and Gothenburg metal. For those who don't know that's the same thing so there is technically no real debate. --Leon Sword 01:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always suggested "melodic death" instead of "gothenburg" to avoid confusion that may cause to people who are not familiarized with the term gothenburg. But anyway, there are people who still believe "melodic death memtal" should not be there, involving the article in a constant war... --Dexter prog 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with "Melodic death metal" as the genre. --Wildnox (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the genre should be Alternative metal and Melodic death metal, but yes some people seem to cringe at fact of calling this album melodic death metal just because it changed in sound from In Flames's previous albums. The article does state that this album is considered a transition between Clayman and STYE. Transition meaning it kept some old sounds and added some new ones. --Leon Sword 02:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "transitional album" since RTR itself is a "rerouting album" (appropriate term). Whoracle could be a transitional album between TJR and Colony, instead. In Flames WERE a melodeath band a loooooooot of years ago. Connacht 12:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't cringe at calling this album melodeath because they changed sound, they cringe because the album is quite blatantly not melodic death metal (or more appropriately, Gothenburg metal). It lies somewhere in between hard rock and mallco---oh, I'm sorry. Nu "metal." Ours18 00:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't an edit war as much it was people reverting the constant vandalism of 194.144.111.210 Inhumer 23:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]