Jump to content

Talk:Sepultura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bio

[edit]

for a historic band that has been around for so long to have a short bio is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.65.145 (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

[edit]

I don't think the genre "thrash metal" fits Sepultura throughout its entire existance. Maybe it could be labelled thrash metal in the begining, up until Chaos AD in 1993. I think the music in their later albums changed. I beleive hints of various styles of music could be heard from 1993 onwards, including industrial metal, grunge, hints of nu metal,doom metal, some rap, and even tribal music (?)...

I agree, 'Industrial Metal' is more apt, in the first paragraph it says Industrial Music. the art of noise could come under that genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could they be "world metal" like... soulfly? --202.36.252.2 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to get picky, I'd argue that Morbid Visions and Bestial Devastations habe more than an overshadowing of death metal. The question should be "is the genre label used to describe what they are now, how they're generally regarded, or what catageories they've ever fitted into for the lifetime of the band"? If you go with the last of those options, we'd be listing Pantera as "glam" though ;) IainP (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that nu-metal should be added as a genre. I mean, have you heard the stuff off of Roots? The guitars sound JUST like Munky and Head (from Korn)!


I was bold and changed the genre (probably the 9287927th time). The musical artist template [1] states we should aim for generality ("The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop)"). This one had too much detail that should be incorporated into the article, not the infobox. If someone really feels the need to add metalcore (just because of the "new" singer?) I wouldn't be totally apposed but then I'd like to see reliable sources. Emmaneul (Talk) 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SEPULTURA BLACK METAL! It's ridiculous! For me is an original research, all the metal media label them as thrash metal and, later, groove, aternative metal ecc... But black metal is inappropriate! Those critics are only making confusion in the whole metal music with those craps. --Born Again 83 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agreed! Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be more like political metal with all their leftist themes in their songs. Damn communists. Norum (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC) groove metal should be replaced with crossover thrash since sepultura's new albums are hardcore. roots is their only groove metal album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Folks, the article seems really hard to read with all the 1991 (1991 in music) links throughout. Virtually every other article just goes to the "year" link, though I'd say that the "in music" one is more relevant to this article.

Any objection if I trawl through and replace them all with a single link to the "in music" pages, aliased as the years (e.g. "[[1991|1991 in music]]")?

IainP (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. It is very difficult to read "... 1991 (1991 in music) ..."

Confusion

[edit]

The line that says "Gloria, was hit by the death of her teenage son in a car crash" is a little bit confusing... was Gloria hit by her son? Or was she emotionally devasted? Also, I thought one of the band members was murdered by the portuguese government (which took over brazil) for propaganda against the government. Which led to the breakup into Soulfly? And that they had to channel all their albums underground to the US to be released to prevent the government from finding them? --Nzhamstar 22:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't find the initial line confusing but I suppose it's just down to how you pick it up on first reading it. As for the second bit... the breakup was down to a personal rift in the band, partly due to Max dating the band's manageress (Gloria). Nobody was killed as far as I know. As for channeling albums to the US... haven't they recorded in the US/Europe for ages now, anyway? (happy to be corrected) IainP (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, maybe its just me then, nevermind. As for the murdering thing - found this: : According to legend, the Sepultura break-up was over a combination of money issues and clashes over where the members wanted to take the music. In 1996 Sepultura fired their manager, Gloria Cavalera (Max's wife). At the same time, Max apparently wanted to go in a @different direction to the rest of the group, which included his brother, Igor. This, along @with the mysterious murder of Mamma Cavalera's 21-year-old son (Max's stepson Dana @Wells), further separated Max and the rest of Sepultura. Finally Max left in search of @something new, while Sepultura searched for a new vocalist. from here --Nzhamstar 22:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose different places will have different sources. Everywhere I read at the time said that Dana had died in a car crash, although the word "mysterious" is often used to describe the incident. Perhaps there may well be other information there, but I can only find the same @text repeated over umpteen other sites stating "unsolved murder" (do a google on '"dana wells" sepultura murder'). All does seem a little mysterious :) IainP (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as anyone reads this, please re-evaluate the past comments and consider deleting them... Hate to do it myself, it's someone else's words. The comments above are a little far from full research. Even basic history research. Sorry guys, I'm really sorry in writing this, but... pretty bad stuff written above. Take a look down, please. I plea.

Sepultura's break-up occurred because the band, in a majority consensus, fired Gloria Cavalera, Max's wife. Occurred, as best reports can tell, as something like this: the band, with the excpetion of Max, were disliking Gloria's work as their manager. The band discussed the manager exchange and, as one can expect, things got a little bit hot between Igor and Max, main founders of the band (both are brothers by blood, both started the whole idea of having a band, it was their house that was used as practice room, using as drums some domestic parafernalia. First time Igor had a chance of playing at real drums was during a small-time band festival, where most of the drums are shared among the bands). During discussion, Max, as far as is known, claimed that if she were fired, he would leave with her. Igor took that "blackmail" pretty seriously, and kept on the decision. Max fulfilled his claims. It is said that both talked calmly about it afterwards, and did not quite reach an understanding on the subject. Max left Sepultura along with Gloria, and founded Soulfly. Soulfly itself was Max's way of staying on the music business with people he enjoyed and performin his personal experimentation, long wished since the days from Sepultura. Sepultura, since then, went down and under, as they couldn't find much of a replacement for Max. Even after finding a good replacement, they still had trouble on going on, as Igor's interest on music declined, since most of his time is now devoted to his own fashion business.

Dana Wells, son of Gloria Cavalera, stepson of Max Cavalera, died on August 16, 1996, approx. 1:43 AM, at Phoenix, Arizona, in a car crash on Cactus Road. The reasons that lead Max to refer to his stepson's demise as murder are that the circunstances surrounding the "accident" are suspicious to the last. No precise confirmation on the occupants of the second car involved (it never crashed) are available, and the two persons that were on the car with Dana claim amnesia. Both. With the precise, exact last memory. Testimonies that don't match, no material proof, no witnesses, no responsabilites held by anyone at all. What really stirs Dana's friends and family (please take note that Max fits on BOTH groups, they were best friends) is that both facts and alleged facts don't match at all Dana's demeanor and personality. Both passengers refuse to take the lie detector, the other car's only confirmed occupant (local witnesses says there was two, but no confirmation on the passenger's identity was made, as the "probable second occupant" provided by the driver testified and proved all but being in the car at all) is using every legal procedure possible to avoid full prossecution and questioning. Heck, he even appealed to the Fifth Ammendment. Police has the investigation open, but not active. Solution to the mystery will only occur when the three people involved tell who was fourth and start talking, something none of them has any reason to do.

Now, about the comment on a possible member murdered by portuguese government... HELL, where did THAT came from??? Brazil is an independent nation since their early imperial time (early 19th century) having nowadays close relations to Portugal, due to it's cultural inheritance, but no more than that. Brazil's government has been autonomous ever since. Brazil HAD a military dictatorship (the last one) from 1964 to 1985, having it's repression power increased in 1968 and then demeaned in 1979. From 1985 to today, it returned to be a democracy. Political murders and disapperances occurred from 1964 to 1979. An attempt occured later, but never came to completion due to an unexpected early activation of a bomb (the car was pretty beat up, but still in one piece... the military officer carrying the bomb on his lap during the explosion is the image that serves as an icon to the event). Political murders occurred to persons of political militancy, and always people that wouldn't have their disapperance noticed by more than family, friends and co-workers. Artists that went too far from the intended ways were cast of, exiled. That practice was known as "Brasil: Ame-o ou Deixe-o" (Brazil: Love it or Leave It).

The reason why Sepultura always was more active on the US is based on the public's acceptance on music. Brazil, in terms of music, is quite anti-metal in a general practice. Sepultura isn't the only metal band on the country, but the only one, in that time, to actually have quality enough to sell on more receptive markets as the US and Europe. It wasn't a bad thing to think in brazilian metal as Sepultura. Of course, nowadays, things have changed. There are more bands around, and they have quality. Brazilian heavy metal scene is much more intense than it was 20 years ago, but is far from being extensive or even good enough. Punk-rock is what grows steadilly in Brazil, and most of the metal scene concentrates on nu-metal. Geographic concentration of metal scene gravitates towards the São Paulo metropolis (nowadays being know as the largest city [some say second largest] in the whole world, and I mean it, the place is huge).

Hope all this was enough to satisfy most know-why cravings of most around.

200.180.164.73 20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)<a.abdiel@terra.com.br>[reply]


So, Igor left the band? The main text of the page doesn't even mention it. What happened?

Just to make a little something clear, Igor has sold his fashion business (cavalera) some years ago. He owns a night club with derrick greene in sao paulo tho.

New Album

[edit]

I edited the new album release date, its been pushed back to March 31st by SPV

TEM.

Discography

[edit]

In line with other music pages, I'm planning on moving the discography to another page, if that's OK. Same format and content, just a page of its own linked by a "See also". I'll do it when I get a chance over the next few days. This saves repetition and possible edit errors on information spread over several pages - many bands have individual member pages containing the discography repeated. IainP (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done IainP (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Formation

[edit]

In the top section of the article, it says the band was "assembled in 1984". In the sidebox, it states "Years active 1982–present". In the Biography section it says it "was formed in Belo Horizonte in 1983". So... which is it? 1982, 1983 or 1984? 59.167.63.221 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEPULTURA ROCKS!

Can we get a picture of the band?

[edit]

That would be swell. -Iopq 15:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrash

[edit]

Sepultura is Deathrash, and thus I think it should be added to the genres. Maybe drop Thrash, and Death metal? Groove could stay though...

Sepultura was deathrash. Later they played regular thrash. Finally they went to a groove sound. --Pasajero 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Genre Changes

[edit]

Does anybody else agree that the genres are changed way too much? I think we should just list them as Death metal, Thrash metal, and Groove metal, and leave it as that.

That leaves out too much, such as the nu-metal/experimental tones on Roots, the hardcore punk of Against, and the metalcore of Dante XXI. We want Sepultura's entire catalogue to be displayed here. If you disagree with this classification, feel free to start a discussion either here or on my talk page. By the way, remember to always sign your comments. Dark Executioner 18:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Kudos to the user Slicing for helping me out with the genres. He found some credible sources. Now this genre debating should be over. I didn't set out to cause an argument, only to better the article's coverage. Dark Executioner 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

Their main sounds have been Death Metal, Thrash Metal, and Groove Metal, in that exact order. Only one album had numetal leanings and that was Roots, and it was more Alternative than nu. Then they went back to Groove Metal and lasted as that until they released Dante, at which point they changed to a mix of Hardcore Punk and Groove Metal. They've never been black metal and that much is obvious, so that goes. Also, I'm removing metalcore, as no reliable source you mentioned for metalcore (purevolume? lolxd) is verifiable and is more along the lines of a blog. Not a credible source. -Motley a b c qu 05:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Have you ever listened to Roots? Andreas' guitar sounds exactly like Head and Munky from Korn. They even credit them as major inspirations in the linear notes! As for black-metal, yes they were, originally. Look at their lyrics/musical stylings. Also, Dante XXI sounds a lot like shadows Fall. That's metalcore to me. Dark Executioner 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

I'd like to mention the sources for the genres Groove Metal, Nu-Metal and Metalcore are totally useless.
As posted in the article:
Groove Metal[1]
Nu-Metal[2]
Hardcore Punk[3]
Metalcore[4]

References

  1. ^ http://metal-videos.blogspot.com/2006/07/sepultura.html
  2. ^ http://www.metalstorm.ee/pub/review.php?review_id=296
  3. ^ http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=3130
  4. ^ Dante XXI

My concerns:

  • Groove Metal: The source is a blog, any amateur could have written that, blogs are never reliable sources. See WP:SPS
  • Nu-Metal: Nu metal is only mentioned in a user comment (AnarChrist - 17.07.2007 at 19:33). Some guy's opinion, therefore not reliable at all.
  • Metalcore: that's no source at all, this is original research. If Dante XXI would clearly be metalcore than professional reviewers would certainly have noticed it and mentioned it in their reviews.
  • Hardcore Punk: this is a nice source but the problem here is that they only mention that 1 song is hardcore punk. (""Dictatorsh*t" was straight-up hardcore punk, complete with noisy, hissy intro.") 1 song on 10 studio albums is not enough to make Sepultura a full-fledged hardcore punk band. Hardcore punk might be an apparent influence (as proved by Dictatorsh*t) though.
Here are some examples of professional review sites WP:ALBUM#Review_sites
I'll remove Nu-Metal, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore from the article page until reliable sources are presented (as WP:VER allows me to do so) Emmaneul (Talk) 16:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

early-Black Metal

[edit]

Well it is not definately their early sounds at all, but i though that Bestial Devastation/Morbid Visions and some of demos falls under the classification of initialliest black metal, cause of, that there is blast beats, tremolo-technique riffing, bulletbelts, corpsepaints, satanical/antichristian lyrics and shrieking thrash screams. All significant black-elements/hints are there. Thoughts?

I totally agree. Added. Dark Executioner 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner[reply]

I disagree. Removed. They're more along the lines of Possessed type Death Metal. Satanic references doesn't make you black metal, or Slayer would have been. Corpsepaint doesn't make you black metal, or Kiss could be! All of those arguments are irrelevant, and the information provided is provably false. -Motley a b c qu 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see some good points in both arguments (Possessed type DM vs. anti-christian early-BM). But on wikipedia we don't care about these opinions, we care about sources. If reliable sources can be found stating early Sepultura is BM, then it can be in the article's infobox (preferably followed by (early) or the like). Emmaneul (Talk) 17:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On AMG, any artist that is heavier than thrash is black/death metal. Sepultura to Bolt Thrower to Deicide, all the way to grindcore and pure death artists. Black is definitely not worth including. 12.165.254.36 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that about AMG, but there are other factors that (arguably) make them a first wave BM band. Listen to their early recordings and you'll find similarities with f.e. early Bathory recordings. But then again, around 1985 BM and DM were still in their infancy and not as different as they are now. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this, but that's a lousy argument. I've been a fan of their music since 1992, and I've never seen them mentioning Bathory on interviews or even wearing one of their t-shirts. You'll be hardpressed to find a direct link between Bathory and Sepultura.
Furthermore, if you think they sound alike, that's purely incidental. (For the record, early Sepultura's oeuvre is basically Slayer / Possessed / Kreator put together. No Scandinavia here.) Bathory and Sepultura shared similar formative influences (Motörhead, Venom), and because of that they're bound to have some similarities - but that's it. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Morbid Visions is listed within Terrorizer Magazine's Top 20 Black Metal Foundational albums, (issue #128 within their Black Metal Special, p.42). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which, sadly, doesn't say much. I've recently acquired Terrorizers #108 & #109, the ones which come with the two-part Thrash Special. Their "Thrash Top 20" on #109 is hilarious! I mean, what is Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark doing at a "Top Thrash" list????? What a royal screw-up! There's other oddities: Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales and To Mega Therion (what?) and Venom's Black Metal are there too. Wait... wasn't the latter the record that gave birth to an entirely (different) metal subgenre?
Guys, let's take "Black Metal" off Sepultura's page, shall we? Because using Terrorizer as reference isn't a good call... Hell, they don't even know the genres that each band belongs to! Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Although venom did pioneer many of the traits used in black metal, the album black metal is more along the lines of speed/thrash metals, so that bit of info is indeed correct.

That's retroactive labelling. Why?
a) "Although venom did pioneer many of the traits used in black metal..." And what kind of Black Metal are talking about? The Finish stuff (Impaled Nazarene, Beherit)? Greek (early Rotting Christ, ect)? Or those Norwegian clowns? You're judging Venom from what came ten years later... Who said that didn't play Black Metal? They invented the bloody thing!
b) "Thrash" and "speed metal" didn't exist when Venom came to be. They started to exist when the bands that came after Venom started releasing records - Metallica, Slayer, Destruction, etc. These bands melded NWOBHM with Hardcore punk - which isn't the case of Venom, because Hardcore barely existed when they started releasing their records...
c) On the last track of the Skeletons in the Closet (1994), rare tracks compilation, they completely diss thrash metal on a radio interview. Now, with the huge egos these guys had, why would they diss their "own" style? That doesn't make sense to me... Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And early black metal (Bathory) much of the time included thrash metal traits. I mean, the genre came from thrash, so earlier stuff should sound a bit like it. I've heard early Death songs that are definitely thrash as well, so...

And what "thrash" traits did Bathory have? And for the record, their vocals style are too extreme, the musicianship too crude, and the lyrics too satanic to be deemed thrash metal. 1980s Metallica was Thrash Metal. Yes, Slayer is Thrash too, but they were so extreme for their time that their music borders on Death Metal sometimes (no wonder they were the biggest influence on that genre). Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it says on the page for Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark it lists the album as thrash metal. Checkmate?

No checkmate, not really. The source used on that particular article - Allmusic is not that truthworthy, at least regarding extreme metal. For one, they put Death Metal and Black Metal together, like "Death/Black Metal". 2nd Wave Black Metal, according to its founding members, was meant to be the opposite of Death Metal, so that pairing is odd to say the least. Also, the closest Bathory ever got to Thrash Metal was 1988's Blood Fire Death. Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]

I've done a slight clean up, with the biggest change being addition of numerous 'citation needed' flags as there appears to be a lot of POV or unsourced material, particularly concerning critical response and fan opinion. Some of this should probably just be deleted, but I'll wait to see if any sources turn up. Also, someone deleted the black metal section from the infobox, despite it being well-sourced. That should probably go back in (see above paragraph). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out the info box thing was slightly more confused... Terrorizer #128 lists Morbid Visions under its top 20 foundational black metal records, which makes the genre listing extremely notable; however the reference was being used to justify the inclusion of death metal, so I changed that. However, Terrorizer helps out with this as well, as their top 40 greatest death metal albums of all time (#151) lists Arise at 16 and Beneath The Remains at 22, so I added that as a reference to justify that genre-listing. I think the naysayers are going to be struggling to regard the world's biggest-selling extreme metal magazine as anything less than authorative on the matter :-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We meet again...
  • "Terrorizer #128 lists Morbid Visions under its top 20 foundational black metal records..."
...which is a complete load of crap, by the way. While some american metal mags such as Metal Maniacs were dissing (norwegian) black metal in the mid-1990s, treating its followers as retards, Terrorizer was doing the finest hype job ever over the aforementioned metal subgenre. Of course they would eventually commit an abomination, like naming a clearly DEATH METAL record such as Morbid Visions as being "black metal". But, hey - they have to please their readers, right? I also happen to have the official Sepultura biography [2] and it explicitely states that they were basically a death metal band until Schizofrenia.
I hope I won't see the day when they'll start saying that Kiss is a black metal band because they wear "corpsepaint"... Ha ha...
  • "Terrorizer helps out with this as well, as their top 40 greatest death metal albums of all time (#151) lists Arise at 16 and Beneath The Remains at 22..."
...which is also bizarre. According to Sepultura's biography, their were eschewing their death metal roots since Schizofrenia. For the next two records they were a Thrash band with slight Death Metal touches. Sorry, I also - my opinion here - can't place Sepultura in the same league as Morbid Angel or Incantation.
Beyond that, I also have Malcolm Dome's Thrash Metal (1990) book, and Sepultura gets mentioned in the last chapter as an "up-and-coming Thrash band", destined to be one of the greatest of the genre. (In fact, they were).
So, to finish up: I think that Malcolm Dome's book and Sepultura's biography are more reputable than Terrorizer, in that genre confusion matter. Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that in the 80s the lines between black, thrash and death metal were not as rigid as some would have us believe today. The band have been referred to as 'black metal' by a reputable source, as well as thrash metal and death metal. There is no reason why all three descriptions cannot be listed provided they're sourced. There is no 'genre confusion'. To the best of my knowledge, Terrorizer remains one of the world's biggest-selling extreme metal publications (edit: actually I'm sure of the relative sales of Terrorizer and, say, Metal Maniacs but that is rather besides the point) and as such has high notability in this area. That you disagree with them is neither here nor there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that in the 1980's the genre lines between different extreme metal subgenres were blurred. What I don't agree is ignoring that there are two sources (mine) openly contradicting a third (yours). And worse: one of the sources is the official biography of the band. Have you considered that maybe you're POV is getting in the way because your musical tastes tend to favor black metal? Think that one over, please.
I recommend you consult Wikipedia's policy regarding civility. I'll address your issue with my username below. Regarding genres, as far as a Wikipedia entry is concerned, it is perfectly reasonably to state that, for instance, their early work has been described as thrash, black, death or whatever, as long as it is sourced. I am not POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the most "civil" of Wikipedians, either, ha ha... If Wikipedians are civil at all, of course!
Regarding the validity of sources, Wikipedia just doesn't care about truth. It is stated right there, in Wikipedia's verificabilty policy article: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verificability, not truth". So if John Doe at Terrorizer publishes an article calling Burzum "glam metal", that's it. It's a complete load of crap, but it can be used as a Wikipedia source! By the way, I have Terrorizer issues #108 & #109 (the "Thrash Special"), and they had a "Top Thrash" list which included Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark and Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales. What the Hell...? Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what about not having that 'genre confusion' bit? Have you already forgotten the "Actually, it turns out the info box thing was slightly more confused..." line that you wrote? Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually take the time to check what I was saying, the issue with that particular edit was simply that someone had altered the 'black metal' tag but had not changed the reference (which was to Terrorizer's black metal article). The reference did not support the claim. If you can't manage civility, at least try and maintain some degree of accuracy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, there are many other bands of the era which end up having silly genre disputes on Wikipedia talk pages or fan forums... Celtic Frost and Possessed leap to mind. Bottom-line is, if it's well sourced, it stays. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also incidentally, a guy that chooses the user name Blackmetalbaz would never push the "black metal" tag were it doesn't belong, would he? I think what we have here is a probable case of vested interest. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic case of what is known as the ad hominem attack. Actually, the 'black metal' prefix is a college thing, distinguishing me from another Baz who happened to be more of a thrash fan. As it happens, I'm a great lover of many forms of metal, including thrash, black and death. I fail to see how my username denotes vested interest any more than yours does. And yet I'm remaining more civil then you. Interesting, given that you have already insinuated that I am a troll. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a legitimate questioning of what might be your underlying motives. An ad hominem attack would be calling you a stubborn a**hole. Did I do that? No. And I used your name in argument as an example of your attitude in general, which is the insistence of calling early Sepultura music "Black Metal", which in some knowledgeable metal circles would be quite laughable. And yes, you can be civil - at times. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, "Terrorizer #128" isn't well sourced. What about the month this mag was released? And in what year? Who was the author of the "Top 20 Foundational Black Records"? What was the original title of this article? In what pages of this mag can it be found? For a guy who's always ranting about "proper" footnotes, you're presenting a very badly written reference... Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I bow to your superior pedantry. This is where my Wikipedia skills are wanting... the reference is Terrorizer #128, February 2005. The article is entitled "The First Wave", and the specific section on Morbid Visions is written by Paul Schwarz, p. 42. As a decent Wikipedia editor and someone who is not interested in POV-pushing, I'm sure you'll be able to incorporate that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for tidying up the Schwarz reference. I have amended the Hinchcliffe one as well to match. You're right, it's much better this way. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, a magazine that calls Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark or Celtic Frost's Morbid Tales "Thrash Metal" doesn't deserve to be taken seriously! Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(not indenting as thread is getting long) I'll reply to everything you've said above in one place to avoid confusion. My position is probably quite similar to that of Terrorizer and numerous other commentators, that thrash, black and death metal in the mid 1980s were not particularly well defined, the boundaries being nowhere near as rigid as they would be viewed nowadays, if they existed at all. From this point of view I'd argue that Bestial Devastation and Morbid Visions could easily be viewed as both death metal and black metal. You clearly disagree. That's fair enough and there's no point getting into an edit war over it. Similarly I'd argue that things like Venom and Frost could also easily be viewed as thrash metal, without this precluding them from also being other styles at the same time. This is of course simply my POV, but it is one shared by the Terrorizer staff amongst others. You are correct that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth and I'm struggling to see how a magazine of Terrorizer's importance and readership could possibly be discounted as a reliable source; the fact that you or others happen to disagree with them is neither here nor there. If we get a consensus saying that something like Terrorizer should not be used as a source (and I think that's highly unlikely), fair enough, I'll stop using it as a reference. Until then I believe those references should remain. Like I say though, edit wars help no-one and we're both trying to improve the article here, right?

One final point though... you're not correct regarding what the ad hominem logical fallacy is. Calling someone a 'stubborn arsehole' is simply an insult. An ad hominem would be if I was editing, say, an article on Margaret Thatcher, and someone said that I was a communist and therefore anything I wrote on the subject was intrinsically wrong or biased. In this case, your suggestion was that as my username is Blackmetalbaz, my opinion on what is black or death metal is therefore biased and intrinsically wrong. This is clearly untrue; see ad hominem. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say as well, a reasonable compromise might be to remove it entirely from the info box and simply mention the Terrorizer listing in the body of the article without comment. That maintains NPOV and allows the reader to make up their own mind as to whether they want to pay attention to Terrorizer's opinion. As a commercially published print resource, specialising in extreme metal, with a wide readership, I'd personally regard that as a reliable source, and to exclude it altogether would come across as POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discography Section

[edit]

If there's already a Sepultura discography, why repeat it on the main Sepultura page? Here's my suggestion: instead of repeating the discography, why not tell the band's history through its albums? The Nine Inch Nails page is a good example of that approach - plus, its a featured article in Wikipedia.

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though the page'll need some fairly major restructuring. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

[edit]

Why are there so many "citation needed" markings on this page? At least 90% of that stuff is true, believe me, I've either read it online (AMG.com, Metal Observer.com, etc.), in a magazine (Revolver, Terrorizer, Metal Hammer), or it's listed on their official website. I think the number of "citation needed" needs to be reduced. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce them by providing sources then. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found out an interesting unofficial Sepultura page with loads of transcribed Metal Hammer articles in it [3]. You guys should check it out. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I'll trawl through it at some point when I get a minute! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, question for you: have you got any decent reference for the correct spelling of Jairo's surname (the biography for instance)? At the moment there's a discrepancy between this page and his persoanl one... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that the "Guedz" surname is an alias / stage name. In terms of Protuguese pronounciation, it is relatively close to "Guedes" - a proper brazillian surname -, while being similar (?) to an English or Germanic-sounding name. It's good to remind ourselves that these guys loved "foreign" bands (read: non-MPB music), and that they were trying to emulate their heroes by adopting English or english-sounding pseudonyms.
I'll check the Sepultura biography and then I'll get back to you on that "Guedz / Guedes" matter. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that both "Guedes" and "Guedz" are feasable. According to the Sepultura biography, it is "Jairo Guedes". Interestingly, the brazillian music site PoppyCorn [4] has two articles which feature different spellings of Jairo's surname. There's a "10 years of Roots" feature [5] which spells his name as "Jairo Guedz", while an article on Eminece themselves [6] spells "Jairo Guedes". I also happen to have the second Eminence [7] CD, Humanology (2004), where Jairo is credited as a bass guitar player. "Jairo Guedz" is the spelling adopted on the record's liner notes.
Maybe something in the lines of "Jairo Guedes a.k.a. Jairo Guedz" would settle this matter? Musicaindustrial (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be the best option. We should pick one and stick to it though, and set up a disambig. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Metal

[edit]

When Sepultura were born, death metal didn't exist yet. There's a big incompatibility with sources. If the first bands were Possessed and Death, how can them be part of that genre? Sepultura were thrash until Arise and part of Chaos A.D., after they experimented styles such as groove, alternative, tribal.

If the first wave of black metal were Venom, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Celtic Frost, how can Sepultura be part of black metal in the early days? --Born Again 83 (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way Sepultura can be a part of black metal in the early days is that they PERFECTED it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talvimiekka (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd... Just doesn't merit further comments. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't start out Thrash Metal, Morbid Visions was closer to early Death Metal than Thrash Metal and had a lot of "Black Metal" influences like Venom, Morbid Visions could be considered early Death Metal more than anything though. Crediting Possessed and Death as the sole founders of Death Metal would be incorrect, though they were important in the development of the genre. Morbid Visions is a Death Metal album and it came out before Death's Scream Bloody Gore, though Death was playing Death Metal before Sepultura was even formed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanPunker (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about Restructuring this Article

[edit]

I was going to restructure this article's biography - I planned to tell the Sepultura history through the group's albums. My model was the Nine Inch Nails article.

I've recently revisited the NIN page and found out that they traded the album images for group and music video shots. That solution avoids the "fair use rationale" image problem and keeps the proposed biography structure intact. I could do the same with the Sepultura page; I have their official biography, which has loads of exclusive photos that I could scan.

My question is: how do I upload these images within Wikipedia's media copyright protocols? Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black metal / death metal

[edit]

By WP:ALBUM#Review sites recommended Allmusic Guide (actually the most reliable source for reviews on the internet) says in the Morbid Visions/Bestioal Devastations review: "Sepultura's early work can be described as extremely raw, under-produced, and unspectacular death metal". Read the difference between black metal and death metal for example here: "Death metal flourished from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, and then was for most purposes replaced by black metal. Where death metal was structuralist with heavy emphasis on chromatic phrasing and hence rhythmic, black metal used narrative construction based on melody". Listen to some Mayhem (band) and some Morbid Angel and you will understand that Morbid Visions/Bestial Devastation has nothing to do with black metal.--  LYKANTROP  10:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ig(g)or Cavalera - spelling?

[edit]

Hello! I need to establish a clear consensus on the issue of how to spell Igor Cavalera's name - he has for the past couple of years spelled it as Iggor. However, I saw an editor recently revert a change to Iggor from Igor and, when I asked him to provide evidence of consensus on the issue, all he could say was "It is simple: Iggor is not his name". As far as I'm concerned, this is entirely inadequate. Please go to Talk:Igor Cavalera and leave comments there.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the official Sepultura biography [8], originally released in 1999, and not once it spells the younger Cavalera's name as "Iggor", with two "Gs". This must be a fairly recent development... I any case, I think will should stick with his birth name spelling ("Igor"). Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Ygghor Kavhallera? :[ Cannibaloki 15:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannibaloki, that's just taking the piss =P--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sepultura were originally genred "death metal" back in the day.

[edit]

Is it just me or does anyone else remember that Sepultura were genred as death metal and no one ever questioned it.

In the days of Schizophrenia, Beneath the Remains and Arise as I remember they were always genred death metal. they were grouped alongside other groups like Death, Obituary, Morbid Angel, Cerebral Fix, Nocturnus, etc.

Sepultura and Cerebral Fix were at the tamer end of death metal and had major thrash influences and Morbid Angel & Obituary, etc. were at the other end.

At the time death grew out of thrash and was often seen as a sub-genre of thrash as it was still quite new as a sound. Even Napalm Death was labelled as death metal and was generally seen as the far end of the death metal up until the band harped on about having major punk origins and tried calling themselves "Grindcore". Slayer were about the far end of thrash. death metal grew beyond this. labels like Black metal, doom metal & gothic metal all came later as death metal took over and spread into other areas. Doom metal happened as many death metal bands claimed to be influenced by early black sabbath (cathedral spring to mind) and slowed down playing death metal and black metal evolved when death metal brought in influence from groups like Venom. When Venom called their album "black metal" it was only a way of marketing their sound and only meant it was 'evil / satanic metal'. it was not a new genre at the time. Christian metal groups marketed their music as 'white metal'.

Please can others back me up here who remember as I can't be the only one who remembers it this way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.254.123 (talk) 16:32, 15 August, 2008 (UTC)

You're not alone... When did you first get into extreme metal? In the early 1990s? Because what you just wrote was the basic perception of extreme metal in those days.
I'd just slightly disagree with some things... Grindcore being the same as death metal, or about those string of Sepultura you mentioned (Schizophrenia - Beneath the Remains - Arise), which were always in the gray area in terms of being death or thrash...
But about the black metal stuff your comments were right on. Many of these so called "2nd Wave" black metal bands started out or were closely related to death metal. Darkthrone's debut, Soulside Journey (1990), was death metal... The seeds of Immortal were lain on the death metal band Amputation... There's also the fact that an early Mayhem photo session with the late Euronymous wearing a Death T-shirt on the liner notes of A Tribute to the Black Emperors (1995). I also read on a zine somewhere that he was mad that death metal was getting popular (according to him, people were going to school with Autopsy shirts) and that he wanted to make "death metal scary again". Also, according to Lee Dorian, Napalm Death played in Norway in 1987 and they stayed at Euronymous's house... he was a huge fan of ND, by the way.
But it seems like most Wikipedia editors invested in extreme metal tend to be more on the "black metal" side of things, and this slant can be easily detected by older metal fans. Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was into groups like Iron Maiden from the release of the Powerslave album and I remember buying my first thrash album which was Anthrax - fistful of metal. Spreading the disease had just been released and I got into Megadeth, Slayer, Metallica, Exodus etc etc almost instantly after. My friends and myself all kinda done the same thing simultaneously getting into thrash. One of my best friends was a big Slayer fan where as I liked Anthrax and Megadeth more. We all loved Metallica as they were the dons back then. I like Slayer but never majorly clicked with as much for some reason. Probably because I found the whole Satanic bit boring as other thrash groups wrote more interesting lyrics about life. Other bands I was greatly into were Nuclear Assault, Sacred Reich, Suicidal Tendencies & Dark Angel. I hopped onto Sepultura on the release of Beneath the Remains as they quickly became popular and looked the dons. They wore black chunky basketball boots with silver tape wrapped round them (I've no idea why - possibly a skating thing), Urban combat shorts and sleavless black t-shirts (sometimes a white / black lumberjack shirt over the top) and just appeared to be so cool coming from Brazil (they even wore 'bum bags' around their waste which were a new fad back then). In interviews they would talk about the poverty and the police death squads killing the poor and homeless back in Brazil. Their accents were cool too. This was a new thing and I like most fans were suckered in to thier streetwise look. Their attitude that was more inline with early thrash as thrash other than a few bands wasn't about satan or "looking scarey" as it was more about agression, attitude or rebellion. When Sepultura came out I remembered them as part of the new Death Metal craze that was taking over thrash metal. I feel that many fans got into Death Metal as it was like they were "more metal than you" attitude. As though listening to louder, more eggressive groups makes you "more metal". You can soon spot some one who was there at the time by memories and experiences. It is impossible for younger fans to remember it this way, lol Their perception is built on a younger experience of something that had already lost its roots. Your very right how Wikipedia editors tend to be more on the Black Metal side of things.

To explain Napalm Death- When Napalm Death came around Death Metal didn't exist and I think they basically genred themselves as extreme thrash metal as there was nothing else out here. They were well known, not due to poplararity of their music but from the publicity of them being the most "extreme". I can remember around the time of their 1st or 2nd album I watched a documentary made for the BBC with an interview with members of Napalm Death at their semi-detatched council looking house (with a ball floating in fish pond) in Birmingham and they were drawing a diagram of how thrash evolved and how it is a cross between Heavy Metal and Punk Rock. Personally I disagree as I see it as Heavy Metal influenced by Punk Rock but this was their perseption of the genre. Thrash was the most extreme music back then and Napalm Death naturally got genred as extreme thrash metal. I think they were happy with this hence them explaning the evolution of thrash and what they are (were) in the interview. There was no mention of death metal or grindcore (or black metal) as they didn't exist. When Death Metal came out Napalm Death were naturally grouped together with them due to the vocal style and would even tour with Death Metal groups. On Napalm's third album they even went for a death metal sound. It was not until after this album that I read them inventing the term 'Grindcore'. Carcass are now sometimes genred as being "grindcore" but they were definetely a death metal act when they started out.

Morbid Visions was definitely a Death Metal album.

VanPunker (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sickens me that this is even a question. Sepultura was the primer for metal for many people out there. And right on with the ND mention[9] Grindcore, heavy, death, whatever... Sepultura was damn nuts and evil back in the day. It is a shame sources are so light. I wanted to add some info from what I remembered as a kid but there isn't much. Maybe someone has some zines on hand? Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

[edit]

There are many albums strongly having nu metal both in Max's presence and after it. Such as Roots, Chaos A.D and Against. Solino the Wolf (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Chaos A.D. was released (1993), nu metal didn't exist. Ground zero was Korn's debut album, which came out a year later... Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
completely right.My msitake. (what about Against? ) Solino the Wolf (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good question... The guitars in that album are tuned very low like standard nu metal, but the tempos are faster and Igor's drumming is more hardcore-oriented then the normally mid-paced, syncopated beats of nu metal. Some people have labelled this album "metalcore", but I believe that genre didn't exist or was in its infancy when Against was released. I really wouldn't know what metal subgenre Against fits in... Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True.It's kind of hard to name a genre for Against and some of the following albums.Solino the Wolf (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says "The band was a major force in the death metal and thrash metal realms during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and their later experiments melding hardcore punk, nu metal, and industrial music with extreme metal provided a blueprint for the groove metal genre."

My question is, how can nu metal be part of a blueprint for groove metal? Portillo (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Nu Metal in the genre box as (mid) because Roots was mainly a Nu Metal album and it's one of their most popular albums and later albums had nu metal influences, though they were eventually abandoned with their most recent works.

I agree on the concern about the part about nu metal providing a blueprint for groove metal, it needs to be changed, but I don't know how to go about that. VanPunker (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed nu metal, since nu metal came out after groove metal, its not possible for nu metal to have provided a blueprint for groove. Portillo (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did not set the blue print for "groove metal"(whose article does have some notability problems.) The source from roadrunner specifically said "Offical Biography WIKI BIO" across the top of it's history of the group. Not valid. RG (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Davis?

[edit]

According to the Jon Davis article (Jonathan Davis is the lead vocalist for Korn) he his connected to this group, but I can't find any mention of him in the Sepultura article, so it leads me to believe that Jon and sepultura have never worked together, But I want to make sure. Does Jonathan Davis have any NOTABLE signficance to sepultura? KMFDM FAN (talk!)

Signficance regarding what? He appeared as guest in the album Roots, and just.--Cannibaloki 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] He made an appearance in the Roots song “Lookaway”. 21655 ταλκ/01ҁ 02:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So he's just appeared on a couple songs as a guest? Okay. (and by significance I meant if he was say, a replacement drummer, you know something of real importance.) I'll remove Sepultura from Jon Davis' related artists lists, because we don't need to list all the musicans Davis has done guest work with.--KMFDM FAN (talk!) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metalmania 2007 - Sepultura 04.jpg

[edit]

It makes no sense to have this in a section discussing the band when that was not the lineup. There is a commons link for such media or it needs to be worked in to related sections.Cptnono (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Member Almilcar Cristófaro

[edit]

I added Almilcar Cristófaro in the Touring Member section. Could someone cite the reference there? Got it off of Sepultura news on their official website, July 28, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.51.85.62 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Information

[edit]

Hi All, just letting everyone know why I recently edited the lead paragraphs of this article. Somebody had written that Sepultura had recieved "multiple gold and platinum records worldwide," and as far as I can tell from the RIAA database and the Sepultura discography page on wikipedia, they have received no platinum records, only gold records. Feel free to revert this change if you can find a source that confirms they received a platinum record outside the United States, but make sure you add it to the Discography page too. :) Shugurim (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Sepultura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sepultura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name etymology

[edit]

Native Brazilian Portuguese speaker here. "Sepultura" in Portuguese actually means "grave", not "burial".

187.111.23.86 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sepultura was labeled as death metal in 1986.

[edit]

I knew the metal scene in 1986, and Sepultura was called death metal then. Death metal was different from thrash metal because of the drums, that's what people and magazines used to say/write at that time. Bestial Devastation and Possessed's Seven Churches have only months of difference in their time of release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandre E Gomes (talk • contribs) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black metal era

[edit]

I think that black metal should have been among Sepultura's early genres. I don't understand why is not there anymore. Loyal to Metal (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause that was only one album with minor black metal influences, hardly an "era" --FMSky (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their most successful records

[edit]

The reference for claiming their most successful records are those from 1989 to 1996 dates from 1997 (Colmatti 1997). Perhaps someone could find more up-to-date information? Or just delete the sentence. Pixolives (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sepultura&oldid=1252179295"