Jump to content

Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

GA comments

I like the article. It's well-referenced, no unsourced statements, the text is pretty well-formatted. A couple of things, though, the images Slipknot logo.svg and Slipknot - Vol. 3- (The Subliminal Verses) Special Edition.jpg should be scaled down to a size that is both covered by fair use and workable in the context of use in the article (400px or smaller), and the latter, which is linked in the article Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), should have a rationale of fair use written up for the main band article, as the image only has a fair use rationale for the album page. I honestly don't have any advice for getting this one up to FA quality. With the FA articles I've worked on, I basically just wait it out and keep adding to, updating, correcting, and experimenting with articles until they look FA-quality. Try to find some non-web sources. I've seen a few books that discuss the band. Look around Google Books to see if anything has any useful information to add. Good luck! (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Music clips

Today I added 3 music clips of the band to the article, I was wondering what the rest of you guys thought of the addition? Do you guys think it's a good addition? Or maybe you have some suggestions for more clips that could be included in the article? I would like to know what you guys think. Rezter (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe get some music samples of material they made w/ Anders, since that stuff is pretty rare. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner
There is a clip of "Slipknot" which has Anders on it. That's from MFKR. Rezter TALK 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
...and it's pretty good stuff, too! Man, their sound has really changed since their earliest days. Maybe they should bring back a little of their funky side with their fourth album. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

WikiProject: Slipknot?

Are there enough people here who would be interested in creating a WikiProject devoted to Slipknot? I understand that there aren't a ton of articles about them, but there is always room for improvment. Maggots Unite! Blackngold29 (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally would be interested in further developing articles around the band, I'm not sure it demands a WikiProject but I would probably join if one was created. I feel for now however that editors should try focus on this core article and maybe get it as a featured article. Rezter (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in joining a Wikiproject. ThundermasterTRUC 08:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would join RPI 18:43 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Slipknot

A proposal as been made here. All interested Wikipedians visit and check out the project. ThundermasterTRUC 09:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Death metal?

Should this be there or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchey (talk • contribs) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Slipknot is not death-metal. They have some influences of that genre with their roaring vocals, but that's about it. Slipknot is most frequently classified as a nu-metal/alternative metal band. If you want examples of death-metal bands, then see Cannibal Corpse, Death or Morbid Angel. I hope this clears things up for you. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Agreed, they are not a death metal band, but the inlfuence of the genre on their sound is firstly obvious and secondly (and more importantly) easily sourced... off the top of my head I could name Mudrian's Choosing Death and Kahn-Harris' Extreme Metal, as well as reviews and retrospectives in Terrorizer and Kerrang! and I'm sure I could come up with dozens of others if necessary. As such, it seems ludicrous to me that this hasn't been mentioned under the 'influence and style' section. However, I have a sneaking suspicious if I add anything, even if it's sourced, it'll get removed by some purist or other. But - that's not assuming good faith so I'll stick something in and see how it goes :-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it should be mentioned and that section is perfect for it. As long as it's correctly sourced I'm sure it will be fine. Rezter TALK 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
That is a good area for it as they do have elements of death-metal. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

References regarding death metal and Slipknot:

  • Terrorizer 68 (July 1999), review of Slipknot by then-editor Nick Terry: "It was surely only a matter of time before some bright spark twigged to a New Metal / Death Metal crossover and, more importantly, did it properly. I'm not talking about bandwagoneers dusting off their Gothic Death Metal cobwebs in favour of baggy pants and bouncy tunes, rather I'm referring to Iowa's Slipknot. I mean, c'mon, you don't expect to hear a record produced by Ross Robinson, he of Korn fame, whose first song 'Sic' begins with a Death Metal speed-break more Suffocation than Spineshank." (there's more but that's probably enough for the purposes of this discussion)
  • Terrorizer 73 (December 1999), interview with Slipknot conducted by Ian Glasper: "Just how did Slipknot become this year's runaway extreme Metal success story? With over 22,000 copies of their debut album sold in the UK already and over 100,000 Stateside, it's a question that many are asking. Was it the band's blend of death metal and Nineties crossover, or was it the subtle marketing of their label Roadrunner?" "This is some seriously twisted shit that successfully combines the quirkiness of new metal with the detuned ferociousness of primal death."
  • Terrorizer 148 (September 2006), Death Metal Special: A Brief History Part 2, written by Paul Schwarz: "Underlying many of the most popular bands in the world (perhaps most notably Slipknot) is the extremity and heaviness DM originally helped bring to the table at the beginning of the decade." (there are dozens of other Terrorizer references if people want them)
  • Extreme Metal, Joel McIver (2000), Omnibus Press, ISBN 0-7119-8040-3: "The metal success story of 1999, the nine-man, masked, overalled death / hip-hop / groovecore outfit Slipknot emerged from the bleak environs of Des Moines, Iowa with an album that has whipped up a frenzy of media coverage like no other metal act in recent years." "Jordison and Gray came from the death metal band Anal Blast, while Thompson had played in the grindcore outfit Body Pit, and the death influences in the Slipknot sound were immediately obvious."
  • Choosing Death, Albert Mudrian (2004), Feral House, ISBN 1-932595-04-X: "[...]the band infused their music with strong influences from the death metal and grindcore records that shaped Jordison's youth." And citing David Vincent (p.258): ""Slipknot's totally a death metal band - all the elements are there [...]They don't call themselves death metal, but I'm very impressed with them."" Citing Ross Dolan (Immolation): ""If you listen to their music, there are many elements of death metal in there [...]There's the blast. There's the down-tuned guitars. There's the vocals.""

I can dig out more if you like, but I think a couple of professionally published books and a commerically published magazine of the stature of Terrorizer should be good enough reliable sources for the purposes of this article... certianly more so than editor opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another couple of book reference for you (you can tell I'm bored, can't you?).
  • Heavy Metal Thunder: Album Covers That Rocked The World, Neil Aldis and James Sherry (2006), Mitchell Beazley, ISBN 1-84533-195-8: (p.230-232) "Slipknot, on the other hand, make it easy on themselves by choosing to appear as a unit dressed only in boiler suits, and their now instantly recognizable masks, as seen on their 1999 debut album Slipknot, proves that death metal is not dead just yet.'" (the book's focus is on album art but the writers have credits writing for Metal Hammer, Indiecator, Rock World, Terrorizer and Kerrang! going back to the late 80s and early 90s)
  • Brave Nu World, Tommy Udo (2002), Sanctuary Publishing, ISBN 1-86074-415-X: (p.124) "They weren't a nu metal band, a death metal band or an anything else band anymore. They were Slipknot. Full stop. [...]There was [...]a rediscovery of the great 'lost' death metal bands in whose music Slipknot were rooted." And on p.130, quoting Joey Jordison: ""If you listen to a song like "Eeyore", which is a bonus track on the record, or if you listen to "Get This" from the digipack or "Surfacing" or "[sic]" or even like fucking "Scissors", the roots are death metal, thrash, speed metal, and I could go on and on about all those bands."" (the last reference is interesting as the book was charting the history and popularity of nu metal and makes the point that whilst no-one is going to call Slipknot an out-and-out death metal band, they are playing a mixture of nu and death metal - just as Glasper and Terry were in the above references)

I'd hope that any real controversy over this issue should be answered by these references. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added something to the lead with references. However, I'm still getting used to protocol when it comes to actually listing the sources... if someone could tidy up the citations for me I'm be very grateful. Cheers, guys! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work, I have mentioned death metal briefly in the lead-in and the influences section. I only used one of your sources as I think that's all that was need. If you need any help regarding editing you might like to look at the guidelines set by the Slipknot Wikiproject here, they are not as extensive as some other guides on Wikipedia and may help you. Rezter TALK 14:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm adding the Mudrian reference to back up the words 'multiple times', and also because Udo was writing from the point of view of nu metal whereas Mudrian was coming at it from a death metal background and contains direct quotes from death metal scene leaders. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Slipknot

Project is now running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Slipknot. ThundermasterTRUC 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

About time too! Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Tour with Disturbed and Mudvayne 2008

I have no idea if this has been confirmed or not, but does anyone know if this is indeed the 2008 Family Values tour? I've heard rumors that these bands will be joining Another Animal, Chris Cornell, and of course Korn. But until someone puts some official info here, I'm just going to discard it as rumor. (Though I admit, this WOULD be an excellent show). Dark Executioner (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Alright, thank you, Jasca Ducato! I'll go ahead and create an article for this new tour. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

  • Just a note, Mudvayne is set to be on the tour yet, all this has to do with Mudvayne is that their old producer is producing the next Slipknot album. I've updated the Rockstar Mayhem tour article to reflect this, as well as sourcing the information properly. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be known that Slipknot made a statement claiming; "We're not ready to confirm or deny anything regarding touring and recording", which is shortly after the announcement of this tour so their place on the tour is in question but until it's completely denied I think that Billboard.com is still a sustainable source. Basically, I'm just saying that it's not guaranteed but until they completely deny their appearance, I think they should still be included in the article. Source Rezter TALK 16:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait. Worst case scenario, we just remove the info on Slipknot and reword the article around Disturbed, since they'll still be on it. I certainly hope that Slipknot stays on the festival, but nobody should dwell on this. It hasn't been officially denied yet. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner
    • I'm pretty new at actually contributing to Wikipedia, so excuse me if I'm a little off in how I word myself. I noticed that Slipknot has now come out with a new address regarding the "Rockstar Mayhem Tour", and it can be found in the "News" portion of the slipknot site found here. It goes on to say in summary that Slipknot and Disturbed will be on the tour, sharing the mainstage with Mastadon and Dragonforce. There will be two second stages, one hosted by Jagermeister which includes Sevendust, Airbourne, Five Finger Death Punch, 36 Crazy Fists, and an unnamed Jagermeister Battle Of The Bands Winner. The additional second stage will have Machinehead, Black Tide, Suicide Silence, The Red Chord and Walls of Jericho. Its brought to us by the same creative team that helped in "Vans Warped Tour". I figured fans would love to hear this news, and so I bring it here so it can hopefully be added in. Hypocracy (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Oh, thank you. Is there any possiblility that we could update it on the Slipknot wiki? The current statement says "Recently, as confirmed by Blabbermouth.com, the Rockstar Mayhem tour festival will be taking place in July and August 2008. Slipknot and Disturbed are the only bands that have been mentioned to be on the festival for its first year. However, Slipknot has not been officially confirmed or denied being a part of the Rockstar Mayhem festival, as reported by a later post on Blabbermouth." Perhaps say that Slipknot is confirmed band, possibly link people to the Mayhem Festival wiki? Hypocracy (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Member's numbers

Recently John removed the numbers from the band members list. I would just like to clarify their relevance. The band members are alternatively refered to by their numbers and they were not just there to show how many members they have. The numbers have significance for the band and their image and personalitys. For these reasons I feel they are more than relevant to the article. Rezter TALK 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure User:John does not listen to this band so I would not expect him to know this. It is however true that the band member numbering is significant to the band. I can see why the nunmbers would seem extraneous and perhaps a citation would be helpful in clarifying this for the future? I will start looking for one. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Received and understood. A citation would help assure us of the necessity of these numbers; otherwise they will likely be removed again. --John (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the Early years (pre-1998) section which is sourced as well as the Image and Identities section which is also source. I think the Image and Identities section describes the subject adequately and I don't think a source would be required just for the Band Members section. Rezter TALK 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I will agree with that. I actually just noticed that. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Crowz

The article of Crowz, has been deleted 3 times on the grounds of verifiability. Please refrain from additionally mentioning this rumoured album. The only sources of this information are fan websites, the creators of the website may well believe that the information is true but these are not reliable sources for information on Wikipedia. You can view the first two discussions of deletion here and here, the third deletion was a speedy deletion due to recreation of the same material. Rezter TALK 14:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


best week ever

the week of jan 20 had a clip called something like the most hardcore ear splitting fist pumping moment of the week featuring clips of metal bands and moshing, slipknot among them.Д narchistPig (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a page for discussing improvements to the article. It is not obvious in what sense you are contributing to that. Please refrain from commenting in future unless you have something useful to add. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BLackmetalbaz. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum! Zouavman Le Zouave 11:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
what im saying is maybe this should be mentioned in the article in the pop culture part or something.Д narchistPig (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a reliable source to back up the notability of this observation? If not, it has no place in the article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of members?

Though there are few pictures of the band avalible, would the article benifit from individual member pictures, there are a few already in the WikiCommons, and could easily be added. Would this be a good idea?Blackngold29 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to object that, since the pictures would be licensed under a free license. Zouavman Le Zouave 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Were would you think of putting them? They should be relevant to the subject of the section of the article, there's no point overloading the article with pictures without any relevance. While we're on the subject of photos, I actually bought 3 photos of Slipknot at Ozzfest '99 from a photographer on eBay, they are not commercial images, they were taking by the guy who was selling them, I was wondering because I bought them, does that give me the permission to release them under free license? because I think a picture of them from Ozzfest would look great in the Debut album section, here is a asmall sample of one of the images: link. Rezter TALK 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I suppose we could put them anywhere. Oh, here's a link. The ones of Mick or Corey seem like the best and I don't think we should use the Joey unmasked, since he hasn't appeared unmasked for Slipknot; but anything else would work I guess. As for your photos Rezter, I don't really know, but try looking around here some and you'll probably find something. Blackngold29 (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.: Album or Demo...

According to the official site:

"Just wondering, why don't Slipknot regard their first album (Mate, Feed, Kill, Repeat) as an actual album? For example, they called Subliminal Verses - Volume 3. And on the official website in the Albums section there are the albums Slipknot/IOWA/Subliminal Verses/9.0 Live only. I think they should at least publicize it because then people can know their roots in music.

MFKR is not technically an album. Also....only 1000 copies were ever released, at Clowns wishes. There are many fakes/bootlegs of it, especially on ebay. 99% of them are. A genuine copy recently sold for over $600 !!

As you point out...VOL.3...IS their 3rd album as they see it....they pointed this out themselves..hence the title. If the band wanted MFKR available to people, or if they wanted it to be included in their catalogue, then they would have called Sub.Verse vol4 instead...AND would have re-released MFKR by now. The fact that they HAVEN'T says it all really."

I don't know if it should be refered to as a demo or not, but it is not an album.Blackngold29 (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's all it ever was, a demo. They used it to send to record labels and try get signed. Granted they gave and sold some of them to fans but there was only 1000 for a reason, it was never going to be a commercial album. Rezter TALK 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There are dozens of albums that are no longer in print but are still albums. At the time, the band considered it an album, but sort of "disowned" it after the lineup change. Nobody spends two years recording something, hires a producer, has the product mastered and has a thousand copies pressed of a simple demo. On the MFKR site, it contains interviews with band members referring to MFKR as an album repeatedly - never a demo. It may be out of print, but it's still an album. 64.53.37.3 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That's great and everything, but neither www.mfkr1.com nor www.matefeedkillrepeat.com are official Slipknot websites. The quote I have above is from their official forums, that band members participate in. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Pantera? Is their first album Cowboys From Hell? Does that mean Projects in the Jungle, Metal Magic, I Am The Night and Power Metal are all demos? No.
1000 is the most common number of copies made for a CD released by an underground or a local band. Just because MFKR was disowned by the band (See: Pantera, again), and just because there were only 1000 copies made, it was still recorded and produced and released to the public. It was recorded in a studio, and released through an independent distributor. A demo is recorded for reference rather than for release. Demos can be recorded live, at home, and sometimes at a studio, but if they are released - most of the time it is self released (especially for a band that was back then an underground local act). This release was not recorded for reference, it was recorded for release, it was produced for release and distributed by -ismist recordings for release. It was released in 1000 copies for release, if it was to be just sent to labels and such, there wouldn't be 1000 copies of it in the first place. Another record label from my area, DRP records, does the same thing - all releases are initially released in 1000 copies, and 1000 more are printed. Joe Capricorn (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There were only 1000 copies made, there were only 1000 copies planned (at Clown's request). If a band produces an album , and they all sellout what band in their right mind doesn't make more copies? I understand Slipknot is not in it for the money but that is a little much. Who technically determines what it is anyway? Each man for himself? I don't think so, for clarification's sake it has to be the band, and to them it clearly is not an album (maybe not a demo either, but definately not an album).Blackngold29 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
http://metal-archives.com/release.php?id=39320 - Here is an example of a full length album strictly limited to 1000 copies. It was easy to find. It was released through a label, like MFKR, it was recorded in a studio, like MFKR, there will only be 1000 official copies in existence, like MFKR. What is different about MFKR? Joe Capricorn (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does Haemoth consider that an album? If they do great, but the fact remains Slipknot doesn't acknowledge MFKR as an album.Blackngold29 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They do. I never disputed the fact that Slipknot doesn't acknowledge MFKR as an album, I just pointed out that it doesn't fit any qualities of a demo either, and that it is as much an album as Pantera's first four albums, which are also out of print. Joe Capricorn (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is goddammit incredible discussion.. You are discussing if 1+1=2. Is a book that has 1000 copies not a book anymore? Does it BECOME a notebook? Does amount of releases have ANYTHING to do with "beeing an album"? Of course not! If Iowa would not be released, would it be a demo? Just read Demo (music) man... This "early albums section" in discography is a nonsence. Actually it has "Roadrunner Records Demo" under "Early albums"( :) ...), so there is only MFKR under this funny label "early albums". You can repair it if you want lead a battle against these slipknot-edit-warriors...--Lykantrop (Talk) 12:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The band don't consider it in the same vein as Slipknot, Iowa and Vol.3. That is why they called the Subliminal Verses; Vol.3. So it shouldn't be classed as an album, the priamry aims for MFKR were to have a product to hand out to record labels to help them get signed, it was never gonna be liek it they got signed MFKR was goign to be their debut album. That is why they consider Slipknot their debut album, because it is an ALBUM. At the time they may have called MFKR their "album" jsut as a general term but it is most deffinately a Demo. Yes it was made in a studio, that doesn't mean it's a refined product. Whenever they talk about their new album coming out this year they call it their "4th album". At the end of the day the band haven't "disowned" it, they just don't consider it to be in the saim vein as Slipknot, Iowa and Vol.3 so I don't think it should be represented as such on wikipedia. That is why I think "Demo" is a mroe adequate term for it. Rezter TALK 13:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It has no importance for Wikipedia what Slipknot considers about themselves. What you say is WP:OR and WP:POV. It is completely unimortant if they call their album "the 3rd" or "the 4th". They ignore the album on their official site what makes them even more unreliable as a source. They "do not agree" with this old album anymore so they ignore it. All your arguments are just original research, but this is an encyclopedia that works with facts, not with "who considered what, what shouldn't be, what was never gonna be, who calls something somehow". There are no questions about it. Wikipedia wants just a list of albums by the band. If the band "disowned" or "ignored" (what they with vol.3 did), Wikipedia just does not care. Is it their released full lenght studio album? Yes. Wikipedia does not care of it is refined or not, in the same vein as Slipknot and such statements. I is not "Studio albums in the same vein as "the new" Slipknot". There is no doubt if you keep Wikipedia rules and do not forget it is an encyclopedia and not a teen magazine.--Lykantrop (Talk) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nu-metal?

I have issues with calling Slipknot nu-metal, they cross over more into alt-metal than anything and I know a lot of other people don't consider them nu-metal. They're not death metal maybe, but I thought the accepted opinion was that they were alt-metal. (x)--HAXage--(x) (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

They span many genres, therefore, it is constantly argued what they are. Some people seem to say that they are one genre or another based on the other bands in that genre that they do or do not like, which, I think, is unfair and dumb. I'll check the official site, but I doubt there will be anything there. Blackngold29 (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is hard to put them into one genre. But didn't they say in an interview that they don't like being put into the nu metal genre? Their older records do have nu metal influence though, more so than Vol.3. I.E a turntablist. Vol.3 is more of an alternative metal sound, rather than nu metal. Although if you listen you can hear the nu metal influences. I don't think there will be any reliable sources to classify them as nu metal though, as they do reject it. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That is my vote for most ridiculous statement I've seen on Wikipedia today. Congratulations. Whether they reject it or not is irrelevant. We have dozens of sources to confirm that they are 'nu metal'. Ironically, all of the references I cited above to confirm the influence of death metal on their sound would probably suffice, particularly Tommy Udo's book Brave Nu World. Now, 'alternative metal' is a more interesting case; I may or may not agree with you (my opinion is also irrelevant) but would you mind providing a reliable source for this tag (book or commercially published magazine would be nice)? I've done my due diligence... care to do yours? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that directed towards me? Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was specifically directed at the comment 'I don't think there will be any reliable sources to classify them as nu metal though, as they do reject it', as reliable sources have been found in abundance for the use of the term 'nu metal' in association with Slipknot. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that class them as nu metal. What the band likes and doesn't like is irrelevant. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As Thundermaster clearly stated, there are myriads of sources classifying them as nu metal. Now I've got a question for you: How many nu metal bands are not also classified as alternative metal? If you look at the article Alternative metal, you will see that nu metal is listed as one of the subgenres or derivative forms of alternative metal. Why list alternative metal when we know that nu metal is a subgenre of it? Thrash metal is a subgenre of Heavy metal, but heavy metal doesn't have to be listed as one of a thrash metal band's genres since we know that thrash metal is a subgenre of heavy metal. Shouldn't it logically be the same with nu metal and alternative metal? Zouavman Le Zouave 11:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

However, many Slipknot songs are in the alternative metal style and not the nu metal style, including many songs from the album Vol.3. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 13:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal: Slipknot

Portal: Slipknot is up, but not quite running. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I (with a little help from Rezter) have gotten the Portal running. I plan to update it every Friday, but your input is very welcome. Keep it (sic) though! Blackngold29 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Slipknot AoF Voting

Following the great success of the Slipknot (album) article after receiving the attention of the Slipknot WikiProject's collaborative effort, the "Article of Focus" (read more) voting on the second article to recieve it's attention is now open. The articles nominated to choose from are Voliminal: Inside the Nine and Slipknot discography, please head over to AoF talk page to vote for which you think should recieve the AoF attention next. Voting ends on 06.02.08 at 8pm GMT. You do not need to be a member of the project to vote, but please consider joining the project as the aims are to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Slipknot and all articles associated with them. Rezter TALK 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Joey Jordison's side project

Is he still going to work with King ov Hell in a new side project? I haven't been able to find anything else about it ever since User:Megastrike14 told me about it. If somebody could fill me in here, then maybe we can add it to Joey's article as well.Dark Executioner (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.

Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. is a full lenght studio album released by the band Slipknot. Why isnt it in the disography? 1000 copies? Who cares how many copies? What is the difference?--Lykantrop (Talk) 13:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this article doesn't have a discography section it links to Slipknot Discography and that article has MFKR on it. Secondly, it is a continually contested issue wether the album is a demo album or a studio album and there is discussion voer at Talk:Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. so could everybody please divert any discussion about the album there. Rezter TALK 14:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I just red it quickly so the section Awards-Albums looked like the discography. So sorry. But this makes another questions: Why is not a list of studio albums in the article, as it every band on Wikipedia should have? And -at all- who made this funny Early albums and Studio albums section in the Slipknot discography? Are you sure that (generally) early albums are not studio albums? MFKR is not a studio album? Who is talking about 51:05 minutes long DEMO?!?!?!? goddammit funny boys you must be here in Slipknot discussion..--Lykantrop (Talk) 15:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the "Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.: Album or Demo..." section above for further info on that. Blackngold29 (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Originally that section was "Demo Albums" but somebody changed it to "Early Albums" and there has been a small edit war over it so that is why I requested comment on the MFKR talk page. Also, the main Slipknot article doesn't list any discography because all albums are mentioned in the main body and there is already a full article for the discography. Now please forward any further discussion about MFKR to that talk page. Rezter TALK 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Before I Forget" and "The Nameless" singles?

The rock radio station in Atlanta, Project 961, said that "Before I Forget" is Slpknot's most current single (and also is one of the only two Slipknot songs that they play, the other being "Duality"), but on Slipknot's discography page, it isn't listed as such. Is it truly a single, or has it just not been added yet? I have the same question for "The Nameless" - I saw a music video for it on MTV2's Headbanger's Ball, which leads me to believe that it, too, is a single. Dark Executioner (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I always thought they were singles. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 08:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The Nameless, Before I Forget and The Blister Exists are all singles, and were released in said order. So the raido station was wrong to suggest that Before I Forget was the last single Slipknot released. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slipknot_(band)/Archive_5&oldid=1137190440"