Talk:Traditional heavy metal/Archive 1

These are the comments on the proposed merger of Classic metal with Glam metal.

The Discussion

I do disagree with this idea, many these bands listed on this article have little in common with Hair matal, if anything, Hair Metal should redirect to Glam Metal. Avador 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the proposition of merging is that Classic Metal bands are in themselfs mostly Hair Metal bands. The two articles also copy what the other says quite a lot. Merging would allow for a more comphrensive article that doesnt repeat another one. Leyasu 19:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

i mean geometry and alegbra overlap, but we shouldnt clump them into one group to save time should we?

Overlap is fine. But this just repeats another page, much alike Gothic Doom repeats Gothic Metal for half of it - its easier to share an article between to closely related genres, than to simply repeat each other and form confusion from that.

I disagree with the suggestion to merge this page with Hair Metal. There are many reasons for my opposition. First of all, Hair Metal was not Classic Metal. True, there are some similarities, but Hair Metal derived itself from Classic Metal to go more mainstream, just as Classic Metal or Metal as a genre distanced itself from Hard Rock. Hair Metal can also be called as a syncretised form of Classic Metal, 70s Glam Rock and Hard Rock. This doesnt mean it is the same as Classic Metal. Secondly, there are a few common bands which are both Classic Metal and Glam Metal, but it's because a few of these bands, under pressure from music companies and commercialization, turned to hair metal in the later stages of their career. However, there are exceptions, being Iron Maiden, Dio and Dokken. Thirdly, there is no reason to combine these pages as there are so many different genres of even rock, then why combine diffenrent genres of metal. Metal indo aryan, 13 December 2005

This is great information about Classic Metal that I find in Wikipedia. Great definition, great description and great lists of anthems and albums. I thank the Wikipedian contributors for sharing this information. As far as the merging is concerned, I would say, don't merge the two articles as invaluable information may be lost. Believe me, information about Classic Metal is very rare, even on the internet and if this article is merged, then that too would be lost. Either way, Classic Metal is a different genre from Hair Metal, atleast that's what I think, in fact,it is the genre of the musical era that preceded Hair Metal and commercial exploitation of Metal.

Do NOT merge the articles. New Rock Star 09:03, 13 December 2005

Merging the articles wouldnt neccesarily result in information being lost, but would allow for a more comphrensive article that would cover both equally, and also would explain the divide and connection between the two better. At the minute, the articles are clones of each other, seperated only by the fashion schemes of some bands. This is not what Wikipedia is about, and from an encycolpedic point of view, is wastefull. Combing the articles is both practical, and informative. Leyasu 13:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Leyasu, I too agree with the user that valuable information may be lost if the articles are merged. And why to merge those two articles. We can add some more inputs into these articles. And if you want to merge "similar" articles, then you can merge Speed metal and Thrash metal, Nu-metal and Rap Metal, Sludge Metal and Stoner Metal, which are both the SAME genres known by two different names. But Hair metal and Classic Metal are two DIFFERENT genres. Yes, they may be similar, but they are NOT the same. But the above-mentioned pairs are literally the SAME genres. So, it would be better if we direct our forces and energies on the merger of those pairs. Metal indo aryan 18:55, 13 December 2005

The thing is, the articles say the same thing. The onyl difference that ive seen between the two, in all honesty, is fashion sense. If the articles are not merged, they need to be seriously overhauled to be more definative of the connection, and divide, between the two genres. Leyasu 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Iron Maiden and Judas Priest do not belong in the same genre as Poison and Warrant.. the articles need to be seperate, however the Hair Metal article needs deleting and re-written with "Glam Metal" in its place Deathrocker 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Either the articles both need seriously heavy rewriting or to be merged. This is an encylcopedia, not a 'seperate bands by how much i like them' webspace. I also solved the Glam Metal/Hair Metal argument with one tiny little edit, so that warrants no more petty arguments. Again, they might be two different genres. But if ones only difference is fashion sense, then they should be merged into a split article. Leyasu 08:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If the articles say the same things then go and expand both articles with information specific to them. But don`t go merging them. That would be regression in my opinion. There is plenty of differences between the genres. The image (which in itself is more than a "fashion sense" i.e consider the album cover art or the music videos) being the most obvious, but then there is also the lyrics Glam Metal concerning itself with conventional themes only. Furthermore there was a difference in its audiences with a larger proportion of convinced metalheads (some of which acctually frowned Glam Metal) among the Classic Metal listeners than among listeners of Glam Metal that had more of the mainstream and more casuall listeners. Next the peak of Classic Metal`s popularity was the early to mid 1980s, but Glam Metal reached popularity only with 1983 and its peak was definetley in the late eighties. Also the declines in popularity of the genres came about differently, with Classic Metal`s simply fading with time while Glam Metal`s popularity dramaticaly lowered almost overnight with the emergance of Grunge. Finaly I can`t provide any additional argument other than that I like the music of say Ratt or Cinderella, but would find it strange to have them mentioned in an article titled `Classic Metal` .

Im starting to wonder if having an article called `Classic Metal` at all is of any value whatsoever. Half of the bands mentioned are Glam Metal bands and the other half are NWOBHM.

I think we must expand this article. Classic Metal is a GENRE which is highly different from Glam Metal. As far as NWOBHM is concerned, remember that Classic Metal is a GENRE, while NWOBHM was a movement of the late 70s & early 80s restricted to GREAT BRITIAN. So this article is valid and should be expanded.New Rock Star 05:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This isnt a genre, i have found nothing about it being a genre other than here. What i have come to find, is that this is nothing more than a term to encompass bands with a similar link, the same as Epic Metal and Dark Metal do. Classic Metal, as i have found, pertains to any, and all, Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal and Hair Metal (Glam Metal) bands, due to their place in time, and them being recognised as metal classics. This isnt a genre from what i can see, and ive found nothing to say otherwise, as such this needs to be merged, or greatly rewritten for factual accuracy. Leyasu 11:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This page needs to be expanded but not merged. Classic Metal is certainly a genre. Genre defined as high pitch vocals over fast thumping basslines, ektaal drumming and scorching lead breaks and riffs. As far as Glam metal is concerned, it's music was way too different. There were too many power ballads in Glam metal. Also the fashion, style, musical elements, were different. As far as thrah is concerned, it is mentioned in the article itlself that thrash was more aggressive and less melodious. Also thrash's musical style and lyrical theme was way too different. Also, thrash bands were not fashionable. Also, as someone said, "information must not be lost". So don't merge, but expand this article.

This is about 'Classic Metal' not Thrash Metal. If i wanted a run down of the differences between Hair Metal and Thrash Metal, i would read the Thrash Metal page. What you have said is nothing more than to prove this is just older bands in the Heavy Metal, Hair Metal and Thrash Metal catagorys, lumped together by timeline. This isnt a genre, just a term for grouping bands with similarity across genres. Again, merge, unless someone can give a good reason as to not to. Also merging wont lose information. Merging condenses the information into the same place, nothing more. Leyasu 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am very confused as to why this is an entry. I have never heard of Classical Metal before. I have heard of Neo-Classical Metal, but that is a completely different form of metal. Further, all of the bands supposedly in this genre fit much more easily into different genres. Plus the article seems to just make things up. I'd love to hear how Glam Metal and Thrash Metal have similar styles. Thankfully one of the authors had the sense to point out the diversity of the lyrical content of this supposed genre. Of course the content would be different since many of the bands played completely different forms of Heavy Metal. After googling "Classical Metal" I found 0 pages that had anthing to do with this article. Finally, how is AC/DC connected to this thing again? They aren't even Metal, let alone the definition of a Metal genre. I wouldn't merge this page with Glam Metal as it is complete trash. I am clueless as to what precise information would be lost with this page. My vote is for deletion. marnues 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is not Neo-Classical metal nor related to it. Classic Metal was a term coined in the late 80s/early 90s to differentiate early 80s heavy metal from late 80s hair metal and thrash metal. Secondly, you say you searched for Classical metal and got 0 results. That's because no such genre exists. This is Classic metal. Read the spelling carefully. And then complain. Another point being that even the term "Glam Metal" or "Hair Metal" was coined in the early 90s, after the grunge backlash. So this is a genre which has been described brilliantly in the article. Of course, the article needs to expanded, though. And marneusu, from next time, don't voice your opinions without checking the facts correctly. New Rock Star 09:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ive checked the facts, and other than the search on Google, i second everything that user Marnues said. Leyasu 10:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Weird, I definitely posted something a month ago and it isn't here or in the history...must not have saved it I guess. But in any case, I rechecked google on Classic Metal and it seems more like a radio classifications such as classic rock than a genre. marnues 08:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF??!

Is someone just going round and trying to fucking merge every Metal genra together? WTF? Someone should stop who evers messing with the articles. Its just not funny.

It seems like there was a time when everyone wanted to make every 'genre' they had ever dreamed up into an article. Now that they're pretty much all out there, other people are coming along and saying "wtf, that's not a genre." So now we're merging and deleting articles that don't make sense as an individual article. Check out the fun at Black Metal if you want to see this in action. marnues 08:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)