This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive from June 2006 to April 2008.
Alrighty, while I intend to do some of these, I think it would do us good to get a list going of what We think needs to be done to get Black Metal into 1.0 standards (it is as of today a B-)
1. Lead - Seems mostly ok, a bit ambigious already got a better wording for the parts I find so.
2. Genrebox - Pages need to be made for US Black Metal and Eastern Europe Black Metal, other than that seems ok. We might want to add something about Scandavian Black Metal as a regional scene? Or rather might move Viking to Regional, and retitle it Scandavian, though this leaves the beginings of NSBM out and implies that their bands were part of the same scene.
3. Characteristics - My main problem with Characteristics is the listing of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. Bands such as Slayer, Venom, Deicide, and Immolation overlap lyrically with black metal somewhat but are musically defined as death metal (Deicide, Immolation) or thrash metal (Slayer, Venom), however, Venom coined the term "Black Metal" and laid the foundations for later Black Metal alongsides Bathory and Celtic Frost." As there are Christian black metal bands by actual music styles Christian Black
As "black metal" refers to the occult in the first place, the lyrical content is as important as the musical content in defining something as "black metal." Thus, there is no such thing as "Christian black metal," as while they may musically style themselves as such, their lyrics are far and away from the occult and from any sort of "black"ness. -- Skullfission 08:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
4. History - What is in our history section after the third paragraph goes on a tangent about Norweigan NSBM (one that is repeated on about four pages), Additioanlly, the entire section seems to lack sources (or they are at least not cited), and to me needs to be rewritten.
5. Artists - Seems good to me.
6. Samples - We need to get some.
7. Misc - Can we take the NSBM section out? as a subgenre with its own page?-- Atechi 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
While we are discussing the possible deletion of some minor subgenres, there is one that seems to me to be sadly ignored, pagan metal. There are a number of relatively well known bands such as Primordial and Moonsorrow that fit into this category, but no section! Pagan metal presently redirects to Black Metal. There are about 20 articles that link to pagan metal ( [1]), so it must to have some significance, and should deserve a section at the least.
Back in December there was an AfD for pagan metal, the result of which was no concensus (3 keep, 2 delete, [2]). Strangely enough, I cannot find the article or section that was up for deletion. Would someone like to create this section? Or at least tell me why it shouldn't be (re?)created, if that's the case. Iron C hris | (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I got redirected here when I clicked on a link for 'troll metal'. I can't see why Troll Metal is more similar to Black Metal than it is Folk Metal or even Heavy Metal - Finntroll, Korpiklaani, TrollfesT - they don't sound very black metal to me.
Important Note:Oriental metal, neoclassical metal and symphonic metal are all real genres not just stylistic descriptions. However pagan metal usually refers to metal bands who have a similar style to viking metal or folk metal (sometimes black metal) but cannot call themselves viking metal because they are not from scandinavia. So it's not really a real genre. Oriental metal is on the border as well, actually. Symphonic and neoclassical are definite well established genres, though. Hackser ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I redirected Pagan Metal to point to Folk Metal, as it isn't strictly a type of Black Metal. -- Atechi 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, The Origins of Black Metal Publication > Articles > The Origins of Black Metal is a "dead" link.
Someone should explain why they all wear black and white face paint...
There should be a short section on face painting (from kiss to mayhem and then it many bands gave it up etc.) and on clothing (black clothes, bullets, pikes etc.)
That's fine as long as it's encyclopedic and verifiable. Whatever was put up yesterday on this subject was not. Scskowron 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It is misleading to have the section labeled History start off with the Norweigian DRA.MA. I would suggest to either start off the history section with Venom, Bathory, ect or to rename the History to Early Norweigan Scene or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.181.90 ( talk • contribs) .
Not sure where else to post this. I remember a friend telling me of a metal artist, who if I recall correctly was Burzum, which would seem right, as I remember him telling me of him being in prison (Though he said he synthesizes music from inside the prison now, and let me hear a clip of it. Much less agressive now, as would be obvious.) I just remembered a quote that I thought would be interesting to add. My friend says that somebody tried to kill Burzum, and defending himself, he killed the person. My friend said that in an interview, he said, completely casually and nonchalantly, something along the lines of, "He tried to kill me, and he failed miserably, so I killed him." Does anybody have any information on this, or know if there was a quote like this at all? From reading the history, I could see where some of it may have been misinterpreted or something somewhere, by my friend, but I'd like to know for sure and have it clarified. 4.234.30.224 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is getting excessively long (133 kilobytes, the recommended maximum being 32). Would someone like to archive some of the old discussions? It's getting kind of a pain to read and edit, not to mention that some particularly old browsers (if they still exist) might have difficulties showing or editing such long pages. Iron C hris | (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is War Metal? And why is it included on the Black Metal page? If it would be included any black metal subgenre it would be NSBM or Viking Metal. War metal it's just a stupid tag that some stupid fuck invented in order to earn some status. It's just stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viriatus ( talk • contribs) .
At the very least, it would seem from it would be better to place this with Thrash or Death metal, most of the bands listed as influance are death/thrash and in the section description it is listed as a Death/Thrash fusion. Atechi
Deleted War Metal due to lack of objectives.
"Black metal is a sub-genre of extreme metal" Extreme metal? I never heard of this as being a real genre. BM is a kind of extreme metal but I don't think extreme metal by itself is a genre. And the Extreme metal page is a low quality page. Refering to extreme metal is not a good idea imo.
"It garnered criticism from mainstream media because black metal supposedly embraces anti-Christianity, misanthropy, nihilism and sometimes racism and nationalism though not all musicians considered black metal necessarily support these ideologies, especially not the latter two (they are almost exclusive to the sub-genre of National Socialist black metal), perhaps because standard black metal ideology is influenced by anti-idealist philosophers who often regarded racism as a form of idealism or philanthropy." This is a very long sentence. I think this could be more readable.
"A distinct "rasped" vocal style..." & "Screeching vocals" I think one could be deleted
"Standard tuned guitars (In contrast to death metal which is typically dropped D and down-tuned.)" In Death it's not common to play in dropped D. Downtuning is common, 'dropped D' isn't. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Litany's : I agree that the article should cover the origins of the second wave wore widely, but except for Bathory (which is already covered in the article), the Swedish black metal scene was very small in the late-80's / early-90's and the bigger Swedish bands only started after black metal was already "popular". Claiming bands such as Lord Belial, Dark Funeral and Mörk Gryning as a major influence or originator is just a factual inaccuracy and blatant fanboyism, as these formed in 1993/1994. If you want to make the section to cover some important non-Norwegian bands too, please do so, but don't only add your favourite bands from your own country and make it look like Sweden was a key scene together with Norway. Most sources agree the second wave originated from Norway. Prolog 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to emphasize the significnce of Dead's suicide to second wave of black metal as after the attention black metal got through it, death metal bands started to be more interested in BM. These bands include Thou Shalt Suffer (pre-Emperor), Black Death (pre-Darkthrone), Amputation (pre-Immortal) and partly Old Funeral (Varg Vikernes used to play in the band before Burzum). Ofcourse some of the bands changed their name already before the suicide, but their style suddenly turned into more BM after it.
Also I wanted to ask if anybody here considers the Black War (the so-called "BM war" between Norway & Finland in the c. 92-93) worth of a mention? I could write about the incident. After all it had a effect on Finnish black metal scene (espescially Impaled Nazarene & Beherit).
Just a quick note; something I noticed, but didn't Dead's suicide note read "Sorry for all the blood" and not "Excuse all the blood"? Or is this just due to different translation (as I'm not sure if it was written in English or not).
I'm not sure there really is a third wave, but there are definately modern BM bands which are not second wave. Compare bands like Negura Bunget, Nokturnal Mortem or Arcturus with Transylvanian Hunger... Huge difference. I think something needs to be said about modern/"third wave" BM bands.
I agree, there's been lots of talk about French band recently, I'd like to see some more development on the paragraph about these "third wave" bands and the similiarities and differences. 41214 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not hugely familiar with modern black metal, but to me it seems like releases from bands starting in the late 90's and early 2000's differ greatly from early to mid 90's black metal. Bands such as Wykked Wytch (sp?) and others are being lumped into the black metal category, and recent releases from groups such as Enslaved, Satyricon and Dimmu Borgir suggest a much different sound than what they were 10 years ago. I personally feel, from my own observation, that black metal groups that are embracing more commercial or accessible sounds, or prog-oriented sounds (such as in Enslaved) or avant garde/ambient sounds (such as Blut Aus Nord) should be considered part of a third wave.
This is post-black, rather than a new wave.
there are some who belive that any band past 1995 is the third wave. but since many bands choose to sound raw like second wave black metal its har to say... maybe bands like dimmu borgir could be considerd third wave. but genre conflictions could prove otherwise...(malacath)
Unless anyone objects, I am going to add a brief section about performance, saying how most black metal bands do not play live. It's rather critical to black metal, which I don't think you'd get from reading the article. -- scskowron 09:41 15 December 2006(UTC)
I added a note about Death SS to the first wave section. There is also some inconsistency between the opening paragraph and the first wave section. The opening paragraph states that Venom only had an influence because they influenced Celtic Frost. The First Wave section makes it seem like Venom had a huge influence and doesn't even mention hellhammer/celtic frost (I just added one line that needs to be expanded). Olliegrind 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up this whole section (First Wave), but it could use a total rewrite by someone intricately familiar with the history of black metal. I just cleaned up the language a bit. Skjald 13:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I've analysed some black metal recently and I think there should be a section on the tonality and harmony used in black metal, i.e. uses the Diminished scale, often rather than using diminished and minor chords it uses ambiguous parallel minor thirds to create a very dark and grim atmosphere. A progression typical of the styl would go something like this:
I-II-I-IV-III
Although this sort of things is a common feature, it is not a universal one.
If you want to add it, go ahead, just make sure you provide specifics and can back it up with a song. Maybe "Funeral Fog" would be a good one?
Scskowron
06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's needed references about Mercyful Fate on the article, even if some radicals don't see the band as a influence for the entire style, but think about the tributes to Mercryful Fate/King Diamond and the presence of bands like Emperor, Dark Funeral and others.
I found an article on Black ambient and I thought I'd mention it in case you guys wanted to add it to the list or something. I wrote an article for Payasage d'Hiver and I might do one for Darkspace as well. I am not an expert on the Ambient side of Black Metal but if anybody wants to help me then by all means. Lord of nothing 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope nobody here thinks I'm a jackass for doing this, but I put the page through dozens of edits (many of which could have been done at one time had I thought of them). HOWEVER, it should be realized that, despite the long list of edits on the history page, no information was lost or vandalized in any way.
I simplified the "History" section (renamed it) and split up all the information for an easier read. All the info from before is still there (and more, actually, like the Faust incident), but I made it an overall easier read for anyone who wants to learn about black metal's history for the first time. Before, it was mashed together and who was who became impossible to tell for anyone who doesn't know their stuff already.
I also removed redundant information. A lot of stuff, like definitions on what corpse paint was, was repeated upwards three times. I defined it once, using much of what was already here, and put it where it belonged. Some stuff in the opening section was merged as well (why repeat things and draw them out?). I also fixed some grammar issues, such as "LaVey-satanism", which is actually written as "LeVayen Satanism" (I'm sure the originaly scribe meant well).
A picture of the stave church was also added for visual effect, as well as a picture depicting Dead and Euronymous to help demonstrate corpse paint. A link to an interview with Mayhem shortly after Dead's suicide has been added as well in one of the paragraphs under "Historical Events in Black Metal". It was also somehow lost that the usage of Dead's pictures on "Dawn of the Black Hearts" was never done by the band itself, at least not officially, and the photographs were in fact stolen to make this cover. Aarseth also didn't actually eat the brains, and the scan of the interview linked there shows this. It should also be noted that, even though one of my source links leads to a Yahoo! Music page, all biographical info on that page is actually from the All Music Guide (AMG, which probably hightens the credibility in some people's eyes).
I'm a huge music and metal fan in general (not just black metal), and I feel black metal is still not getting its story told cohesively or with credit. That's why I all did all this and hopefully, upon inspection, you will all agree the page is much better now. Thanks. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205
The work is good. At first I was about to flip out when I saw all those edits but they were all well-done and verifiable. They make a good addition to the page. Scskowron 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for the compliments. Your initial skepticism is understandable. I imagine this page gets defiled a lot by uneducated youths. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205
Aside that it is largely unsourced, I ran across the following issues with this article:
Spearhead 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, as far as your last comment... yes! Well, okay, I'm kidding, it's not entirely about looks, but yes, looks must be emphasized, as in black metal image perhaps exceeds music (let's be honest here) than any other subgenre.
No, there is not enough evidence to claim there is a "third wave" per say, despite the fact that the genre still remains somewhat alive today. Saying there is a "Third wave" is pretty a profound statement and we have yet to see that happen.
Yes, the "First Wave" is basically "blackened thrash metal", as black metal builds off thrash itself! But the term "blackened thrash metal" was coined AFTER black metal, and became useful only after the "second wave" took the genre in a different direction, what with punk-like drums and even symphonic elements, so the term "blackened thrash" then became somewhat of a necessity.
I agree with the Venom statement, the individual who wrote that must be comparing them to Norwegian styles, so it does seem confusing. But they did in fact coin the term "black metal", and introduced the heavy emphasis on anti-Right Hand Path sentiment in music.
And lastly, I myself am "casually interested", and am in no way trying to make things complicated. In fact, I've been the one grouping and simplifying things on this page for the sake of the uneducated for weeks now! -- 68.4.207.20
Scskowron 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Where should i place the band Tormentor? i've already added them to the first wave section (now deleted), as they played BM in the late 80s (and later, even without knowing about the Norwegian scene). Several bands (from early second wave) stated them as influence.
One also deleted the entry (with a linked source [4]) that Mayhem chose Attila for 'De Mysteriis..' _becouse_ Tormentor was one of Dead's favourite bands. I think this kind of fact has much more to do with black metal (the music) then bone fragments.
--- Dukey42 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed a couple of redirects to www.metalreview.com in the main text. I have removed this, as this is blatant advertising. Instead, since it seems to be a genuine metal site, I have moved it to external links.
FSHero 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally unecessary copy/paste from my talk page removed. I explain why below (*). Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
would like some third opinions on the current version of the article made by me, and also some criticism from LD. what needs to stay in the idealogy section (give me quotes followed by the reason) that i have removed, and why?
86.149.59.252
"To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description" - why? wouldn't they want to know?
also nice to see the page locked. go listen to cradle of filth you complete tits, you're all untermensch 86.154.174.199
What the hell is pendulum strumming? No other article mentions it. And the part about characteristics is in more than one way hard to digest for people without Ph.d.'s in music science..! Please! TheEsb 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Is black metal brutal at all? Since many death metal fans disses black metal and thinking ball pinced bitches screaming, can i have an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why in hell Tiamat and their precedessor Treblinka is not a mentioned? Because Sumerian Cry is certainly not death! And their scene mates Grotesque??? Altought they are best known as a leaders of the Sweden's black metal scene along with godfathers Bathory in the end of 1980.
I have put a paragraph concerning "black ambient" in the "modern black metal" section. If I have not put it in the right place, feel free to move it. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a great addition to the page and I think it's at the best place possible, without adding another boldface segment. A few of the other bm veterans here and I have been trying to keep things compact without disregarding informative details; I think you wrote that perfectly and it's probably at the best location. Logical Defense 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Which one came first? There seems to be a debate about this. Any facts to support either??? User5802 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a glaring error. Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash. Also: I hate citing a Wikipedia article as reference, but Thrash is largely an American phenomena: Anthrax, Metallica, Testament, Megadeth... They are the product of NWOBHM meets Hardcore punk; so, how can Venom be a part of something that came after them?
Anyone of you ever heard Venom's Skeletons in the Closet ( 1994) compilation? Listen to the last track, "Radio Venom": they're dissing Thrash! I mean, these guys had HUGE egos... they would never diss themselves. (Just for the record: back in the day they did tours with Metallica, Slayer and Exodus).
And for those of you who still aren't convinced, I'd say you're probably infected by Norwegian fanboyism. Venom invented Extreme Metal. So, be it Doom, Thrash, Death - or even newer stuff like " Metalcore" or Post-metal - they all have something of Venom. By calling the band " Thrash", that someone is actually limiting the extent of their influence.
Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so. And denying that by judging a style not by it's creators, but by it's followers? Not smart. Musicaindustrial 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "Teutonic Thrash" trio are truly important: Sodom, Kreator and Destruction. I fully agree on that. But weren't they influenced by American Thrash from the start? (Except for Sodom's first EP, of course). These three were putting out their first records in 1984- 1985; that's 1-2 years later than the debuts of Slayer and Metallica (and I'm not counting on Metallica's demos).
But... that's that. And what about Venom? Does anybody else agree that they're not Thrash metal? Musicaindustrial 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
" Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash." Later, you say " Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so." Wait... Venom isnt black metal, either. Because Venom came around before thrash, and black metal came from thrash metal. So how can Venom be part of a genre that didnt exist at that time? Prepare to be Mezmerized ! 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's somewhat ridiculous to try and draw up some kind of organized chronological history of metal sub-genres, as there wasn't a straight line of evolution across the board, and in the early '80s everything was a giant melting pot of bands in embryonic stages anyway.
In any case, the problem with this faulty blanket statement ("black metal came from thrash metal") is that it totally negates several bands, most notably Hellhammer and Bathory. What "thrash" was Tom Warrior listening to in 1982? How about Quorthon? Depending on whether to choose to believe him or not, he was either inspired by punk and hard rock or the biggest Venom plagiarist ever. Thrash was never in the early equation. I think some bands just took some of the occult topics present in the NWOBHM to the extreme, and subsequent bands expanded on that. Were many later black metal bands inspired by thrash or coming out of thrash backgrounds? You bet. But saying black metal was born of thrash is iffy.
I have an idea. Lets allow Cronos to tell us what Venom is. In the 2007 documentary Black MEtal by Bill Zebub, he states Venom is Black Metal. And Black Metal is all the extreme metals put together. Its Death metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal ect. All the metals. Its an experiment in Heaviness" User: FromByond Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FromByond ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Allowing bands to define their own genre by what they say is a terrible idea. H.I.M defines itself as love metal. Think we should listen to that? Scskowron ( talk) 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well allowing fans, who mostly are not even muscians to define the genre is an even worse idea. If we did that NOTHING would ever be solved or properly documented. For an exampe - 50% say Cradle of Filth is BM, and 50% say they are not. If we let Cradle speak for themselves they clearly state "we are not BM, but extreme Metal". 69.47.128.166 ( talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it help to call them blackend thrash metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malacath ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You reverted basically everything I did so I'll just try to go through things one at at a time. First of all, why did you re-add this sentence: "Bård was interviewed for a black metal mini-documentary that accompanied the DVD release of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey."? I'm sure he's been interviewed many times over the years so why is this worth noting? How does it enhance the reader's understanding understanding of black metal at all, let alone enough to justify writing it in this article rather than in Bård Faust? P4k 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The mention of speculation regarding whether or not Varg took the picture alludes to the conspiracy that surrounded that very question at the time of release of Aske, via the Norwegian press. Your citation tag, however, was accidentally reverted in the group of things and I hadn't noticed until now; I'll fix that, along with the Headbanger's Journey cite tag, which at first appeared absent because it only appeared at the end of the paragraph (when fixing, I'll post twice to avoid potential third-party speculation; and trust me, it's happened). So first off, sorry about that, it wasn't intentional.
Additionally, under the NSBM section, it was important to keep a universal perspective regarding some of the generalization that befalls all black metal acts, besides just Burzum. The wording regarding Aarseth and Dead's brain was phrased the way it was because it wasn't Aarseth himself necessarily who raised such claims first. The removal of the addition of the comic book edit (which I explored after you post) seemed like much of a stretch and didn't hold strong ties to actual black metal music. Your header adjustment to "Dead's suicide" was fine; I merely took it a little more literal by referencing Ohlin by his birthname. Also, you make a good point about the sentence at the end of the section regarding Bard, and quite frankly, I don't know how that one got reverted in the midst of things. If it seemed like a personal smearing against your edits, I apologize, I just didn't want any details to get lost. As mentioned eariler, I'll restore your efforts put forth with the cite tags. Thanks. Logical Defense 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In the genrebox it states that the mainstream popularity "varies in Scandanavia," which is correct but I have also added South America to that statement as Black Metal is actually extremely popular on the underground in countries like Brazil. Hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Note - Sorry, I didn't really make a point. My point is that the popularity does not vary in North America. It's all underground. At least in Scandinavia and certain areas or South American and Asia is can get more popular. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please speak out here [5]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Will someone please tell FromByond to stop editing the black metal article and adding "combat metal" and American black metal as subgenres. Combat metal doesn't exist as far as I know and American black metal is not an actual subgenre. There are tons of countries with black metal and they all have their own style, should we add every single country's style as a subgenre? I mean war metal doesn't even have a section on this article (war metal actually redirects to black metal) and it is arguably a real subgenre...more so than the two FromByond wants to add. Navnløs ( talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As to countries with Black metal, while that doesnt consitute a Genre it is a "Scene", and each Scene, has its own look, sound, influences, and end product, and deserves its own entry, if their is enough bands and fans to consitute a "Scene". So not every country or area would have its own BM Scene. Each Scene adds to the evolution of the genre and should contribute - I would saying proving this lagisticaly is the hard part. The USA black metal scene has a differant sound to the Norwegian scene for example, as not only have the bands been influenced by Venom, Bathory and others, but also Thrash, Speed, and Death metal, as well as the early Norwegian scene, and other Extreme metal bands that are on the borderline of Black Metal. The early Norwegian scene has obvious Motorhead influences, Venom, Bathory, and Death metal, as most of the early bands were playing Death metal first, and have no influence from the bands postdating themselves. FromByond ( talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is written from a Bias point of view almost exclusivly from a Norwegian standpoint. Anyone that doesnt agree, need only watch Bill Zebubs new documentary on black metal called "The Black Metal Documentary". This interesting interview with Cronos, will shock many of the Norwegian fans. First he is asked "if in his opinion that the term "Black Metal" is bastardised these days" - his responce is that "many people are using the term Black metal WHO SHOULDNT be". he states "Like the NORWEGIANS. They are not black metal. They should call themselves "Corpse Paint Metal" or "Norwegian Metal" but not Black Metal, as Black Metal ~IS~ Venom. " He further elaborates and states " Black Metal is Venoms style of music. It includes ALL the Extreme metal styles like Death metal, Thrash metal, Speed Metal ect. Its an experiment in heaviness"
So according to the founder of the term "Black Metal", the Norwegian bands are not Black metal nor should they even use the term.
Further more, during the entire documentary which includes interviews with not only Enslaved, Venom, Gloomy Grim, Gorgoroth and others, everyone agrees on several core points, that MOST Black Metal fans have completly lost sight of.
Black Metal is about free will and individuality, not following what others are doing or trying to sound like a band from 20 years ago. Thus anyone trying to freeze a style and sound to BM goes against what ALL the creators and evolvers of the genre stand for. Each commented on how thinking one needed corspe paint to be "true' were rediculous. Several commented on the absurdity of thinking one had to use Lo Fi recording to be "true' and were actualy called "Traitors to the genre". Thus as the early scene, had everyone looking and sounding unique, they than continued to evolve and still sound unique, while fans have tried to freeze things in time and space to the early period.
Also fans completly misinterpret the idiology of Satanism, but this is a differant discussion completly. Suffice it to say, true Satanism has nothing to do with Anton Le Vey, Black Magic or Devil Worship. FromByond ( talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had issues learning how to work within the Wiki framework because of all the guidelines. But than I finaly start getting the hang of it, and i get discouraging posts like: "you are so just totally filled up by your own POV that it's frustrating." - Well good. We frustrate each other as the facism here and that you help exhibit, is going to make myself and many others run in the opposite direction, which is your loss. And really this place could use some more intelligent people to contribute to articles, IF the collective of thumb twittlers, would stop banding together and blockade something just because they dont agree(Even if there is real time proof)or they dont want to be showed up. How disappointing!Byondthis 69.47.128.166 ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Neutrality warning. The editor is just Pov pushing. 209.107.117.197 ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gorgorothvid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the section on church burnings starts about church burnings, then halfway moves straight onto euronymous' murder, which makes no sense at all. Could someone sort this out, because i dont know that much about it Nick227 ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good that editors are compassionate about the quality of articles about subjects close to their heart, or topics they in other ways are passionate about, as long as this doesn't begin to manifest as sentiments of article ownership. Blanket reverts of some contributions I have made over the past few days appear to me not to be reasonable as User:Logical Defense does not argue the actual changes which these edits constitute, merely that they "bastardized content and removed vital historical info." I'd like to have these assertions expounded. But first I shall list the changes inherent in my edits:
In a remarkable display of article ownership and bad faith User:Logical Defense leaves the following edit summary: "Somehow, at some point, with the temporary absense of the most rational contributors of this article... this page got totally raped." Apart from the attitude inherent in this comment itself which in my opinion suggests that this editor has a marginal capacity to function on a collaborative, consensus-driven project like Wikipedia, several changes also attest to bad or lacking judgment:
Upon this I revert User:Logical Defense, leaving this in the edit summary: "Use talk page instead of blanket reversal of constructive good faith edits." This spurs User:Logical Defense to revert back commenting: "With all do respect, we've been guarding this page for months before you stumbled upon it. If anything, your so called "good faith" edits have bastardized content and removed vital historical info." Apart from the token display of "due respect" this again reveals arrogance and prejudice in assessing the qualifications of other editors to make reasoned edits, and the attitude that these are rather encroaching on someone else's legitimate turf. The substance part about "bastardizing content" and "removing vital historical info" are assertions that have to be explained. What changes do these characterizations refer to? This is not self-evident.
Then User:Logical Defense in a change of heart decides to allow the "main article" referral to Early Norwegian black metal scene, but strangely circumvents the previous name change of that article in making it link to Black Metal Inner Circle which is a redirect to the former.
I'm sure it can be argued that Cooper is silly and that Dunn's characterization if way off the mark. That is irrelevant. We are not here to argue views presented in our articles but present notable opinions from reliable sources. A feature length documentary on Heavy Metal which is widely referred to in Wikipedia's articles on this subject area cannot be dismissed at any one editor's whim.
The reverting of a cleanup of duplicating footnotes is just plain destructive.
I'd like to see some comments on the specifics of this post as well as the general issue of how this article is edited in a collaborative way and not by a select clique of über-editors. __ meco ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Logical Defense is a little blunt but the guy knows what he's talking about. His edits are good. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be no mention of LLN and the bands involved, viz., Mutiilation, Vlad Tepes, etc. I guess they are important, as there are a fairly large number of bands involved here. Weltanschaunng 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
These guys need mention.
I've heard the term used in relation to black metal, but I have no idea what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.86.114 ( talk) 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The page is currently up for deletion as no reliable sources have been or can be found. A reliable source in this case would be a book or commercially published music magazine. If anyone can find such sources, please add them to the article. If they cannot be found, the article may well need to be deleted. Either way, if people could offer their opinions on the deletion page that would be really useful. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I meant "releases" not "albums". I agree that there needs to be a lot of improving, though. We'll see what happens. I don't plan on getting on much. Hackser ( talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Both are real genres but I can understand the argument with war metal. Norsecore, though, is a real genre and should be recognized. Just as grindcore is the extreme of death metal (pretty much), norsecore is the extreme of black metal. One of the defining elements in norsecore is the usage of blast beats (almost constantly) and usually (though not always) even shittier production and rawer sound. Just look at the results herefor a google search. Now not all of those pages are right, but I'm sure once could find sources for norsecore. Hackser ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've only ever heard norsecore used as a derogatory term. Inhumer ( talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It usually is used as a derogatory term. But it also implies that a band basically plays blast beats throughout their music and have an emphasis on the raw bm sound. Grindcore may not be technically the extreme of death metal, but many consider it as such seeing as how they are highly influenced by dm but try to be more "extreme" sounding (i.e. blast beats, cookie monster vocals that are usually super fucked up, repetitive simplistic playing at high speeds, etc). Just for the record I'm not a fan of any core genres or anything else that's gay that masquerades as anything even closely associated with metal. Hackser ( talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a userbox related to black metal.(highlight to read text)
ist krieg!! | This user likes black metal. |
the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
okay.....i was just throwing it out there. where do yousuggest it belongs? the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is one thing. It is black colour for infobox. It isn't very important, but I think most of people would agree, that it looks much more apposite. Why? Heavy Metal includes bands such as Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix and Sepultura or Mayhem. These bands are musically pretty really very different, so these subgenres should have another colour. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours as black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres". It is 100% allowed to do it. But some people (unlogged) just have a problem with it and delete it unreasonably as a POV making pure edit war, what is POV by itself. So I would collect some people that want black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres", which would help to keep it...--Lykantrop ( Talk) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I made it so it now rediredts to dark ambient#black ambient instead of black metal#modern black metal which didn't make a lot of sense in the first place. Black ambient is a type of ambient music (dark ambient to be specific) and is definitely not a sub genre of black metal or metal at all. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, just out of curiosity, why the hell is the unblack metal article almost as long as the black metal article? It used to be a lot shorter. It just seems wierd that they would be even close to the same length. I think the people over on the unblack metal page have been going more in depth and writing a lot more stuff. Perhaps the black metal page should go more in depth and add some info in the spirit of competition? Also, the fact that there should be WAY more info on black metal than unblack. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are (as of March 12, 2008) 443 bands in Encyclopaedia Metallum described as some sort of "raw black metal". Why isn't that subgenre of raw black metal mentioned in this page? B T C 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Raw" black metal is just a description. I hear many bm fans call bands "atmospheric" black metal, "depressive" black metal and so on. It's not an actual genre, though. Just a description. Raw black metal would be something like Darkthrone (or at least the earlier stuff) whereas Burzum might be considerd atmospheric black metal. Just an adjective, not a genre. Some fans are idiots. I've seen plenty of stupid crap on MA. People call bands like Sigh post-black metal. At least their newer stuff. But there's no such genre. It's just avant garde black metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article needs music. Even the unblack metal article has music clips and so do most of the metal subgenres. We should probabaly put at least a few different clips in to the article. One or two from the First Wave and one or two from the Second Wave. Then maybe one or two more modern bm bands. This will improve the article greatly. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The First and Second wave of black metal are only an original research described by few references. They should be deleted. -- Born Again 83 ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I respect your opinion but there are plenty of sources supporting the first/second wave of bm arguement and it is accpeted by everyone I know in the black metal community. I know this is POV, but everyone I know who likes black metal (and I know quite a few of them) know of the first and second wave distinction and they didn't get their info from wikipedia or Ian Christe. Yes, some do say there is a third wave, but it is not well defined so there's not much written about it and so it stays out of this article. This supposed "third wave" is generally considered to consist of more symphonic black metal bands, but there is not much agreement on the issue. Some people would consider this "3rd wave" to just be almost all bm bands after the mid 90's or so. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal listed as subgenres. The only way these few bands differ from "traditonal" black metal is lyrically. Even then, "traditional" black metal bands hold many different ideologies. Both this article and their own articles agree that there is no method of playing black metal in a Christian/Nazi way. Therefore, I would suggest they be regarded as black metal "scenes", or put in the "other topics" section instead. Opinions? ... Superfopp ( talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that the portuguese wikipedia had a war metal article: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_metal. At first this made me think even more that there should be something about war metal in this article at the very least, but then I saw there black metal article. Not a very well done article with some inaccuracies I could see right away. So we won't be making that war metal article, I guess. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we include keyboards as part of the black metal instrumentation section of the infobox? Keyboards aren't just for goth pseudo-black metal bands like CoF and lame Russian bands. Respectable BM bands that use keyboards include: Abigor, Arcturus, Blut Aus Nord, Borknagar, Burzum, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Illnath, Ishtar, Limbonic Art, Obsidian Gate, Opera IX, Samael, Satyricon, Windir, Xasthur....just to name a few. I know some of those bands are crossover, but if you can't consider most of those as BM, then I don't know what BM is.
"Black metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is typically abrasive and characterized by the use of fast tempos, high-pitched electric guitars often played with tremolo picking, high-pitched shrieking vocals, and unconventional song structures."
All true except for the tempo? That's just a stereotype outsiders have of black metal. Whether something is black metal is pretty much irrelevant of the tempo. If you show even the fastest projects like Sethereal down to an eight of their original tempo it would still be clearly recognizable as black metal. And there are tonnes of black metal projects which operate on such tempos, take: Trist, Nortt, Vinterriket, Wyrd, Amesoeurs, Xasthur, Life is Pain, Ekstasis. The latter three having had a great portion of their tracks with no drums at all still clearly black metal with the last not having made any tracks with drums as of yet. Niarch ( talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This new sentence, "It is prone to experimentation and certain elements typical to black metal are not always used by every band within the subgenre" is pretty redundant. You can say that about ANY type of music. Have you ever heard of a type of music that was not prone to experimentation and in which every band demonstrated every single characteristic of that genre? The sentence needs to be removed. The "usually" word from the first sentence is also redundant because it says "typically" right before it in the same sentence! The "typically" is the antecedent for both parts of that phrase. Obviously if something like that "typically" it's also like that "usually".
Furthermore, I wish to claim that black metal IS typically characterized by fast-tempos. I have not heard of any black metal bands that use exclusively slow tempos. Nortt may lay claim having black metal characteristics, but I would hardly classify him as a typical black metal artist; he is more fringe BM. All his songs are slow, and there is something missing from his music that enables it to be placed wholeheartedly in the BM category. (I love Nortt by the way). Same thing with Bethlehem. On the other hand, every single major black metal band (Immortal, Burzum, Mayhem, Darkthrone, Celtic Frost, Venom, Bathory, 1349, Dimmu Borgir, Gorgoroth, Samael), all thrive on speed. Perhaps speed does not define nearly all or even most of their songs, but it is fair to say that without speed those bands would not be where they are, and they would likely be considered fringe black metal if black metal at all. Additionally, it is agreed that black metal stemmed from NWOHBM, Speed Metal, and Thrash Metal, and each of these genres have speed as one of their main characteristics. It is certainly possible to deviate from an ancestral genre by eliminating a certain characteristic as speed, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the general path within the black metal community.
Therefore, I am suggesting we remove any references that suggest that high-tempos in BM are not the standard, though make mention that songs are not exclusively performed at high tempo. Well-argued responses welcomed. Scskowron ( talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive from June 2006 to April 2008.
Alrighty, while I intend to do some of these, I think it would do us good to get a list going of what We think needs to be done to get Black Metal into 1.0 standards (it is as of today a B-)
1. Lead - Seems mostly ok, a bit ambigious already got a better wording for the parts I find so.
2. Genrebox - Pages need to be made for US Black Metal and Eastern Europe Black Metal, other than that seems ok. We might want to add something about Scandavian Black Metal as a regional scene? Or rather might move Viking to Regional, and retitle it Scandavian, though this leaves the beginings of NSBM out and implies that their bands were part of the same scene.
3. Characteristics - My main problem with Characteristics is the listing of "Lyrics that take the form of pessimistic, Satanic, Pagan, or occult themes which blaspheme Christianity. Bands such as Slayer, Venom, Deicide, and Immolation overlap lyrically with black metal somewhat but are musically defined as death metal (Deicide, Immolation) or thrash metal (Slayer, Venom), however, Venom coined the term "Black Metal" and laid the foundations for later Black Metal alongsides Bathory and Celtic Frost." As there are Christian black metal bands by actual music styles Christian Black
As "black metal" refers to the occult in the first place, the lyrical content is as important as the musical content in defining something as "black metal." Thus, there is no such thing as "Christian black metal," as while they may musically style themselves as such, their lyrics are far and away from the occult and from any sort of "black"ness. -- Skullfission 08:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
4. History - What is in our history section after the third paragraph goes on a tangent about Norweigan NSBM (one that is repeated on about four pages), Additioanlly, the entire section seems to lack sources (or they are at least not cited), and to me needs to be rewritten.
5. Artists - Seems good to me.
6. Samples - We need to get some.
7. Misc - Can we take the NSBM section out? as a subgenre with its own page?-- Atechi 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
While we are discussing the possible deletion of some minor subgenres, there is one that seems to me to be sadly ignored, pagan metal. There are a number of relatively well known bands such as Primordial and Moonsorrow that fit into this category, but no section! Pagan metal presently redirects to Black Metal. There are about 20 articles that link to pagan metal ( [1]), so it must to have some significance, and should deserve a section at the least.
Back in December there was an AfD for pagan metal, the result of which was no concensus (3 keep, 2 delete, [2]). Strangely enough, I cannot find the article or section that was up for deletion. Would someone like to create this section? Or at least tell me why it shouldn't be (re?)created, if that's the case. Iron C hris | (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Yo, I got redirected here when I clicked on a link for 'troll metal'. I can't see why Troll Metal is more similar to Black Metal than it is Folk Metal or even Heavy Metal - Finntroll, Korpiklaani, TrollfesT - they don't sound very black metal to me.
Important Note:Oriental metal, neoclassical metal and symphonic metal are all real genres not just stylistic descriptions. However pagan metal usually refers to metal bands who have a similar style to viking metal or folk metal (sometimes black metal) but cannot call themselves viking metal because they are not from scandinavia. So it's not really a real genre. Oriental metal is on the border as well, actually. Symphonic and neoclassical are definite well established genres, though. Hackser ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I redirected Pagan Metal to point to Folk Metal, as it isn't strictly a type of Black Metal. -- Atechi 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, The Origins of Black Metal Publication > Articles > The Origins of Black Metal is a "dead" link.
Someone should explain why they all wear black and white face paint...
There should be a short section on face painting (from kiss to mayhem and then it many bands gave it up etc.) and on clothing (black clothes, bullets, pikes etc.)
That's fine as long as it's encyclopedic and verifiable. Whatever was put up yesterday on this subject was not. Scskowron 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It is misleading to have the section labeled History start off with the Norweigian DRA.MA. I would suggest to either start off the history section with Venom, Bathory, ect or to rename the History to Early Norweigan Scene or something similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.181.90 ( talk • contribs) .
Not sure where else to post this. I remember a friend telling me of a metal artist, who if I recall correctly was Burzum, which would seem right, as I remember him telling me of him being in prison (Though he said he synthesizes music from inside the prison now, and let me hear a clip of it. Much less agressive now, as would be obvious.) I just remembered a quote that I thought would be interesting to add. My friend says that somebody tried to kill Burzum, and defending himself, he killed the person. My friend said that in an interview, he said, completely casually and nonchalantly, something along the lines of, "He tried to kill me, and he failed miserably, so I killed him." Does anybody have any information on this, or know if there was a quote like this at all? From reading the history, I could see where some of it may have been misinterpreted or something somewhere, by my friend, but I'd like to know for sure and have it clarified. 4.234.30.224 09:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is getting excessively long (133 kilobytes, the recommended maximum being 32). Would someone like to archive some of the old discussions? It's getting kind of a pain to read and edit, not to mention that some particularly old browsers (if they still exist) might have difficulties showing or editing such long pages. Iron C hris | (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is War Metal? And why is it included on the Black Metal page? If it would be included any black metal subgenre it would be NSBM or Viking Metal. War metal it's just a stupid tag that some stupid fuck invented in order to earn some status. It's just stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Viriatus ( talk • contribs) .
At the very least, it would seem from it would be better to place this with Thrash or Death metal, most of the bands listed as influance are death/thrash and in the section description it is listed as a Death/Thrash fusion. Atechi
Deleted War Metal due to lack of objectives.
"Black metal is a sub-genre of extreme metal" Extreme metal? I never heard of this as being a real genre. BM is a kind of extreme metal but I don't think extreme metal by itself is a genre. And the Extreme metal page is a low quality page. Refering to extreme metal is not a good idea imo.
"It garnered criticism from mainstream media because black metal supposedly embraces anti-Christianity, misanthropy, nihilism and sometimes racism and nationalism though not all musicians considered black metal necessarily support these ideologies, especially not the latter two (they are almost exclusive to the sub-genre of National Socialist black metal), perhaps because standard black metal ideology is influenced by anti-idealist philosophers who often regarded racism as a form of idealism or philanthropy." This is a very long sentence. I think this could be more readable.
"A distinct "rasped" vocal style..." & "Screeching vocals" I think one could be deleted
"Standard tuned guitars (In contrast to death metal which is typically dropped D and down-tuned.)" In Death it's not common to play in dropped D. Downtuning is common, 'dropped D' isn't. Emmaneul 03:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding Litany's : I agree that the article should cover the origins of the second wave wore widely, but except for Bathory (which is already covered in the article), the Swedish black metal scene was very small in the late-80's / early-90's and the bigger Swedish bands only started after black metal was already "popular". Claiming bands such as Lord Belial, Dark Funeral and Mörk Gryning as a major influence or originator is just a factual inaccuracy and blatant fanboyism, as these formed in 1993/1994. If you want to make the section to cover some important non-Norwegian bands too, please do so, but don't only add your favourite bands from your own country and make it look like Sweden was a key scene together with Norway. Most sources agree the second wave originated from Norway. Prolog 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to emphasize the significnce of Dead's suicide to second wave of black metal as after the attention black metal got through it, death metal bands started to be more interested in BM. These bands include Thou Shalt Suffer (pre-Emperor), Black Death (pre-Darkthrone), Amputation (pre-Immortal) and partly Old Funeral (Varg Vikernes used to play in the band before Burzum). Ofcourse some of the bands changed their name already before the suicide, but their style suddenly turned into more BM after it.
Also I wanted to ask if anybody here considers the Black War (the so-called "BM war" between Norway & Finland in the c. 92-93) worth of a mention? I could write about the incident. After all it had a effect on Finnish black metal scene (espescially Impaled Nazarene & Beherit).
Just a quick note; something I noticed, but didn't Dead's suicide note read "Sorry for all the blood" and not "Excuse all the blood"? Or is this just due to different translation (as I'm not sure if it was written in English or not).
I'm not sure there really is a third wave, but there are definately modern BM bands which are not second wave. Compare bands like Negura Bunget, Nokturnal Mortem or Arcturus with Transylvanian Hunger... Huge difference. I think something needs to be said about modern/"third wave" BM bands.
I agree, there's been lots of talk about French band recently, I'd like to see some more development on the paragraph about these "third wave" bands and the similiarities and differences. 41214 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not hugely familiar with modern black metal, but to me it seems like releases from bands starting in the late 90's and early 2000's differ greatly from early to mid 90's black metal. Bands such as Wykked Wytch (sp?) and others are being lumped into the black metal category, and recent releases from groups such as Enslaved, Satyricon and Dimmu Borgir suggest a much different sound than what they were 10 years ago. I personally feel, from my own observation, that black metal groups that are embracing more commercial or accessible sounds, or prog-oriented sounds (such as in Enslaved) or avant garde/ambient sounds (such as Blut Aus Nord) should be considered part of a third wave.
This is post-black, rather than a new wave.
there are some who belive that any band past 1995 is the third wave. but since many bands choose to sound raw like second wave black metal its har to say... maybe bands like dimmu borgir could be considerd third wave. but genre conflictions could prove otherwise...(malacath)
Unless anyone objects, I am going to add a brief section about performance, saying how most black metal bands do not play live. It's rather critical to black metal, which I don't think you'd get from reading the article. -- scskowron 09:41 15 December 2006(UTC)
I added a note about Death SS to the first wave section. There is also some inconsistency between the opening paragraph and the first wave section. The opening paragraph states that Venom only had an influence because they influenced Celtic Frost. The First Wave section makes it seem like Venom had a huge influence and doesn't even mention hellhammer/celtic frost (I just added one line that needs to be expanded). Olliegrind 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up this whole section (First Wave), but it could use a total rewrite by someone intricately familiar with the history of black metal. I just cleaned up the language a bit. Skjald 13:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I've analysed some black metal recently and I think there should be a section on the tonality and harmony used in black metal, i.e. uses the Diminished scale, often rather than using diminished and minor chords it uses ambiguous parallel minor thirds to create a very dark and grim atmosphere. A progression typical of the styl would go something like this:
I-II-I-IV-III
Although this sort of things is a common feature, it is not a universal one.
If you want to add it, go ahead, just make sure you provide specifics and can back it up with a song. Maybe "Funeral Fog" would be a good one?
Scskowron
06:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It's needed references about Mercyful Fate on the article, even if some radicals don't see the band as a influence for the entire style, but think about the tributes to Mercryful Fate/King Diamond and the presence of bands like Emperor, Dark Funeral and others.
I found an article on Black ambient and I thought I'd mention it in case you guys wanted to add it to the list or something. I wrote an article for Payasage d'Hiver and I might do one for Darkspace as well. I am not an expert on the Ambient side of Black Metal but if anybody wants to help me then by all means. Lord of nothing 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope nobody here thinks I'm a jackass for doing this, but I put the page through dozens of edits (many of which could have been done at one time had I thought of them). HOWEVER, it should be realized that, despite the long list of edits on the history page, no information was lost or vandalized in any way.
I simplified the "History" section (renamed it) and split up all the information for an easier read. All the info from before is still there (and more, actually, like the Faust incident), but I made it an overall easier read for anyone who wants to learn about black metal's history for the first time. Before, it was mashed together and who was who became impossible to tell for anyone who doesn't know their stuff already.
I also removed redundant information. A lot of stuff, like definitions on what corpse paint was, was repeated upwards three times. I defined it once, using much of what was already here, and put it where it belonged. Some stuff in the opening section was merged as well (why repeat things and draw them out?). I also fixed some grammar issues, such as "LaVey-satanism", which is actually written as "LeVayen Satanism" (I'm sure the originaly scribe meant well).
A picture of the stave church was also added for visual effect, as well as a picture depicting Dead and Euronymous to help demonstrate corpse paint. A link to an interview with Mayhem shortly after Dead's suicide has been added as well in one of the paragraphs under "Historical Events in Black Metal". It was also somehow lost that the usage of Dead's pictures on "Dawn of the Black Hearts" was never done by the band itself, at least not officially, and the photographs were in fact stolen to make this cover. Aarseth also didn't actually eat the brains, and the scan of the interview linked there shows this. It should also be noted that, even though one of my source links leads to a Yahoo! Music page, all biographical info on that page is actually from the All Music Guide (AMG, which probably hightens the credibility in some people's eyes).
I'm a huge music and metal fan in general (not just black metal), and I feel black metal is still not getting its story told cohesively or with credit. That's why I all did all this and hopefully, upon inspection, you will all agree the page is much better now. Thanks. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205
The work is good. At first I was about to flip out when I saw all those edits but they were all well-done and verifiable. They make a good addition to the page. Scskowron 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, thanks for the compliments. Your initial skepticism is understandable. I imagine this page gets defiled a lot by uneducated youths. -- 15 February 2007 68.5.56.205
Aside that it is largely unsourced, I ran across the following issues with this article:
Spearhead 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
lol, as far as your last comment... yes! Well, okay, I'm kidding, it's not entirely about looks, but yes, looks must be emphasized, as in black metal image perhaps exceeds music (let's be honest here) than any other subgenre.
No, there is not enough evidence to claim there is a "third wave" per say, despite the fact that the genre still remains somewhat alive today. Saying there is a "Third wave" is pretty a profound statement and we have yet to see that happen.
Yes, the "First Wave" is basically "blackened thrash metal", as black metal builds off thrash itself! But the term "blackened thrash metal" was coined AFTER black metal, and became useful only after the "second wave" took the genre in a different direction, what with punk-like drums and even symphonic elements, so the term "blackened thrash" then became somewhat of a necessity.
I agree with the Venom statement, the individual who wrote that must be comparing them to Norwegian styles, so it does seem confusing. But they did in fact coin the term "black metal", and introduced the heavy emphasis on anti-Right Hand Path sentiment in music.
And lastly, I myself am "casually interested", and am in no way trying to make things complicated. In fact, I've been the one grouping and simplifying things on this page for the sake of the uneducated for weeks now! -- 68.4.207.20
Scskowron 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Where should i place the band Tormentor? i've already added them to the first wave section (now deleted), as they played BM in the late 80s (and later, even without knowing about the Norwegian scene). Several bands (from early second wave) stated them as influence.
One also deleted the entry (with a linked source [4]) that Mayhem chose Attila for 'De Mysteriis..' _becouse_ Tormentor was one of Dead's favourite bands. I think this kind of fact has much more to do with black metal (the music) then bone fragments.
--- Dukey42 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I noticed a couple of redirects to www.metalreview.com in the main text. I have removed this, as this is blatant advertising. Instead, since it seems to be a genuine metal site, I have moved it to external links.
FSHero 11:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Totally unecessary copy/paste from my talk page removed. I explain why below (*). Logical Defense 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
would like some third opinions on the current version of the article made by me, and also some criticism from LD. what needs to stay in the idealogy section (give me quotes followed by the reason) that i have removed, and why?
86.149.59.252
"To someone who is a non-listener, the fact that black metal has an uncompromising ideology is rather useless as a description" - why? wouldn't they want to know?
also nice to see the page locked. go listen to cradle of filth you complete tits, you're all untermensch 86.154.174.199
What the hell is pendulum strumming? No other article mentions it. And the part about characteristics is in more than one way hard to digest for people without Ph.d.'s in music science..! Please! TheEsb 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Is black metal brutal at all? Since many death metal fans disses black metal and thinking ball pinced bitches screaming, can i have an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why in hell Tiamat and their precedessor Treblinka is not a mentioned? Because Sumerian Cry is certainly not death! And their scene mates Grotesque??? Altought they are best known as a leaders of the Sweden's black metal scene along with godfathers Bathory in the end of 1980.
I have put a paragraph concerning "black ambient" in the "modern black metal" section. If I have not put it in the right place, feel free to move it. ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a great addition to the page and I think it's at the best place possible, without adding another boldface segment. A few of the other bm veterans here and I have been trying to keep things compact without disregarding informative details; I think you wrote that perfectly and it's probably at the best location. Logical Defense 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Which one came first? There seems to be a debate about this. Any facts to support either??? User5802 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a glaring error. Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash. Also: I hate citing a Wikipedia article as reference, but Thrash is largely an American phenomena: Anthrax, Metallica, Testament, Megadeth... They are the product of NWOBHM meets Hardcore punk; so, how can Venom be a part of something that came after them?
Anyone of you ever heard Venom's Skeletons in the Closet ( 1994) compilation? Listen to the last track, "Radio Venom": they're dissing Thrash! I mean, these guys had HUGE egos... they would never diss themselves. (Just for the record: back in the day they did tours with Metallica, Slayer and Exodus).
And for those of you who still aren't convinced, I'd say you're probably infected by Norwegian fanboyism. Venom invented Extreme Metal. So, be it Doom, Thrash, Death - or even newer stuff like " Metalcore" or Post-metal - they all have something of Venom. By calling the band " Thrash", that someone is actually limiting the extent of their influence.
Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so. And denying that by judging a style not by it's creators, but by it's followers? Not smart. Musicaindustrial 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the "Teutonic Thrash" trio are truly important: Sodom, Kreator and Destruction. I fully agree on that. But weren't they influenced by American Thrash from the start? (Except for Sodom's first EP, of course). These three were putting out their first records in 1984- 1985; that's 1-2 years later than the debuts of Slayer and Metallica (and I'm not counting on Metallica's demos).
But... that's that. And what about Venom? Does anybody else agree that they're not Thrash metal? Musicaindustrial 18:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
" Venom are part of the NWOBHM, which happened before Thrash." Later, you say " Venom is Black Metal - and rightly so." Wait... Venom isnt black metal, either. Because Venom came around before thrash, and black metal came from thrash metal. So how can Venom be part of a genre that didnt exist at that time? Prepare to be Mezmerized ! 22:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
It's somewhat ridiculous to try and draw up some kind of organized chronological history of metal sub-genres, as there wasn't a straight line of evolution across the board, and in the early '80s everything was a giant melting pot of bands in embryonic stages anyway.
In any case, the problem with this faulty blanket statement ("black metal came from thrash metal") is that it totally negates several bands, most notably Hellhammer and Bathory. What "thrash" was Tom Warrior listening to in 1982? How about Quorthon? Depending on whether to choose to believe him or not, he was either inspired by punk and hard rock or the biggest Venom plagiarist ever. Thrash was never in the early equation. I think some bands just took some of the occult topics present in the NWOBHM to the extreme, and subsequent bands expanded on that. Were many later black metal bands inspired by thrash or coming out of thrash backgrounds? You bet. But saying black metal was born of thrash is iffy.
I have an idea. Lets allow Cronos to tell us what Venom is. In the 2007 documentary Black MEtal by Bill Zebub, he states Venom is Black Metal. And Black Metal is all the extreme metals put together. Its Death metal, Thrash Metal, Speed Metal ect. All the metals. Its an experiment in Heaviness" User: FromByond Dec 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FromByond ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Allowing bands to define their own genre by what they say is a terrible idea. H.I.M defines itself as love metal. Think we should listen to that? Scskowron ( talk) 04:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well allowing fans, who mostly are not even muscians to define the genre is an even worse idea. If we did that NOTHING would ever be solved or properly documented. For an exampe - 50% say Cradle of Filth is BM, and 50% say they are not. If we let Cradle speak for themselves they clearly state "we are not BM, but extreme Metal". 69.47.128.166 ( talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it help to call them blackend thrash metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malacath ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You reverted basically everything I did so I'll just try to go through things one at at a time. First of all, why did you re-add this sentence: "Bård was interviewed for a black metal mini-documentary that accompanied the DVD release of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey."? I'm sure he's been interviewed many times over the years so why is this worth noting? How does it enhance the reader's understanding understanding of black metal at all, let alone enough to justify writing it in this article rather than in Bård Faust? P4k 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The mention of speculation regarding whether or not Varg took the picture alludes to the conspiracy that surrounded that very question at the time of release of Aske, via the Norwegian press. Your citation tag, however, was accidentally reverted in the group of things and I hadn't noticed until now; I'll fix that, along with the Headbanger's Journey cite tag, which at first appeared absent because it only appeared at the end of the paragraph (when fixing, I'll post twice to avoid potential third-party speculation; and trust me, it's happened). So first off, sorry about that, it wasn't intentional.
Additionally, under the NSBM section, it was important to keep a universal perspective regarding some of the generalization that befalls all black metal acts, besides just Burzum. The wording regarding Aarseth and Dead's brain was phrased the way it was because it wasn't Aarseth himself necessarily who raised such claims first. The removal of the addition of the comic book edit (which I explored after you post) seemed like much of a stretch and didn't hold strong ties to actual black metal music. Your header adjustment to "Dead's suicide" was fine; I merely took it a little more literal by referencing Ohlin by his birthname. Also, you make a good point about the sentence at the end of the section regarding Bard, and quite frankly, I don't know how that one got reverted in the midst of things. If it seemed like a personal smearing against your edits, I apologize, I just didn't want any details to get lost. As mentioned eariler, I'll restore your efforts put forth with the cite tags. Thanks. Logical Defense 05:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In the genrebox it states that the mainstream popularity "varies in Scandanavia," which is correct but I have also added South America to that statement as Black Metal is actually extremely popular on the underground in countries like Brazil. Hope everyone agrees. Navnløs 18:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Note - Sorry, I didn't really make a point. My point is that the popularity does not vary in North America. It's all underground. At least in Scandinavia and certain areas or South American and Asia is can get more popular. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Please speak out here [5]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information. Hoponpop69 ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Will someone please tell FromByond to stop editing the black metal article and adding "combat metal" and American black metal as subgenres. Combat metal doesn't exist as far as I know and American black metal is not an actual subgenre. There are tons of countries with black metal and they all have their own style, should we add every single country's style as a subgenre? I mean war metal doesn't even have a section on this article (war metal actually redirects to black metal) and it is arguably a real subgenre...more so than the two FromByond wants to add. Navnløs ( talk) 22:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As to countries with Black metal, while that doesnt consitute a Genre it is a "Scene", and each Scene, has its own look, sound, influences, and end product, and deserves its own entry, if their is enough bands and fans to consitute a "Scene". So not every country or area would have its own BM Scene. Each Scene adds to the evolution of the genre and should contribute - I would saying proving this lagisticaly is the hard part. The USA black metal scene has a differant sound to the Norwegian scene for example, as not only have the bands been influenced by Venom, Bathory and others, but also Thrash, Speed, and Death metal, as well as the early Norwegian scene, and other Extreme metal bands that are on the borderline of Black Metal. The early Norwegian scene has obvious Motorhead influences, Venom, Bathory, and Death metal, as most of the early bands were playing Death metal first, and have no influence from the bands postdating themselves. FromByond ( talk) 00:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is written from a Bias point of view almost exclusivly from a Norwegian standpoint. Anyone that doesnt agree, need only watch Bill Zebubs new documentary on black metal called "The Black Metal Documentary". This interesting interview with Cronos, will shock many of the Norwegian fans. First he is asked "if in his opinion that the term "Black Metal" is bastardised these days" - his responce is that "many people are using the term Black metal WHO SHOULDNT be". he states "Like the NORWEGIANS. They are not black metal. They should call themselves "Corpse Paint Metal" or "Norwegian Metal" but not Black Metal, as Black Metal ~IS~ Venom. " He further elaborates and states " Black Metal is Venoms style of music. It includes ALL the Extreme metal styles like Death metal, Thrash metal, Speed Metal ect. Its an experiment in heaviness"
So according to the founder of the term "Black Metal", the Norwegian bands are not Black metal nor should they even use the term.
Further more, during the entire documentary which includes interviews with not only Enslaved, Venom, Gloomy Grim, Gorgoroth and others, everyone agrees on several core points, that MOST Black Metal fans have completly lost sight of.
Black Metal is about free will and individuality, not following what others are doing or trying to sound like a band from 20 years ago. Thus anyone trying to freeze a style and sound to BM goes against what ALL the creators and evolvers of the genre stand for. Each commented on how thinking one needed corspe paint to be "true' were rediculous. Several commented on the absurdity of thinking one had to use Lo Fi recording to be "true' and were actualy called "Traitors to the genre". Thus as the early scene, had everyone looking and sounding unique, they than continued to evolve and still sound unique, while fans have tried to freeze things in time and space to the early period.
Also fans completly misinterpret the idiology of Satanism, but this is a differant discussion completly. Suffice it to say, true Satanism has nothing to do with Anton Le Vey, Black Magic or Devil Worship. FromByond ( talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have had issues learning how to work within the Wiki framework because of all the guidelines. But than I finaly start getting the hang of it, and i get discouraging posts like: "you are so just totally filled up by your own POV that it's frustrating." - Well good. We frustrate each other as the facism here and that you help exhibit, is going to make myself and many others run in the opposite direction, which is your loss. And really this place could use some more intelligent people to contribute to articles, IF the collective of thumb twittlers, would stop banding together and blockade something just because they dont agree(Even if there is real time proof)or they dont want to be showed up. How disappointing!Byondthis 69.47.128.166 ( talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Neutrality warning. The editor is just Pov pushing. 209.107.117.197 ( talk) 20:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Gorgorothvid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the section on church burnings starts about church burnings, then halfway moves straight onto euronymous' murder, which makes no sense at all. Could someone sort this out, because i dont know that much about it Nick227 ( talk) 19:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good that editors are compassionate about the quality of articles about subjects close to their heart, or topics they in other ways are passionate about, as long as this doesn't begin to manifest as sentiments of article ownership. Blanket reverts of some contributions I have made over the past few days appear to me not to be reasonable as User:Logical Defense does not argue the actual changes which these edits constitute, merely that they "bastardized content and removed vital historical info." I'd like to have these assertions expounded. But first I shall list the changes inherent in my edits:
In a remarkable display of article ownership and bad faith User:Logical Defense leaves the following edit summary: "Somehow, at some point, with the temporary absense of the most rational contributors of this article... this page got totally raped." Apart from the attitude inherent in this comment itself which in my opinion suggests that this editor has a marginal capacity to function on a collaborative, consensus-driven project like Wikipedia, several changes also attest to bad or lacking judgment:
Upon this I revert User:Logical Defense, leaving this in the edit summary: "Use talk page instead of blanket reversal of constructive good faith edits." This spurs User:Logical Defense to revert back commenting: "With all do respect, we've been guarding this page for months before you stumbled upon it. If anything, your so called "good faith" edits have bastardized content and removed vital historical info." Apart from the token display of "due respect" this again reveals arrogance and prejudice in assessing the qualifications of other editors to make reasoned edits, and the attitude that these are rather encroaching on someone else's legitimate turf. The substance part about "bastardizing content" and "removing vital historical info" are assertions that have to be explained. What changes do these characterizations refer to? This is not self-evident.
Then User:Logical Defense in a change of heart decides to allow the "main article" referral to Early Norwegian black metal scene, but strangely circumvents the previous name change of that article in making it link to Black Metal Inner Circle which is a redirect to the former.
I'm sure it can be argued that Cooper is silly and that Dunn's characterization if way off the mark. That is irrelevant. We are not here to argue views presented in our articles but present notable opinions from reliable sources. A feature length documentary on Heavy Metal which is widely referred to in Wikipedia's articles on this subject area cannot be dismissed at any one editor's whim.
The reverting of a cleanup of duplicating footnotes is just plain destructive.
I'd like to see some comments on the specifics of this post as well as the general issue of how this article is edited in a collaborative way and not by a select clique of über-editors. __ meco ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Logical Defense is a little blunt but the guy knows what he's talking about. His edits are good. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 06:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be no mention of LLN and the bands involved, viz., Mutiilation, Vlad Tepes, etc. I guess they are important, as there are a fairly large number of bands involved here. Weltanschaunng 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
These guys need mention.
I've heard the term used in relation to black metal, but I have no idea what it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.86.114 ( talk) 02:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The page is currently up for deletion as no reliable sources have been or can be found. A reliable source in this case would be a book or commercially published music magazine. If anyone can find such sources, please add them to the article. If they cannot be found, the article may well need to be deleted. Either way, if people could offer their opinions on the deletion page that would be really useful. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My bad, I meant "releases" not "albums". I agree that there needs to be a lot of improving, though. We'll see what happens. I don't plan on getting on much. Hackser ( talk) 21:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Both are real genres but I can understand the argument with war metal. Norsecore, though, is a real genre and should be recognized. Just as grindcore is the extreme of death metal (pretty much), norsecore is the extreme of black metal. One of the defining elements in norsecore is the usage of blast beats (almost constantly) and usually (though not always) even shittier production and rawer sound. Just look at the results herefor a google search. Now not all of those pages are right, but I'm sure once could find sources for norsecore. Hackser ( talk) 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I've only ever heard norsecore used as a derogatory term. Inhumer ( talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It usually is used as a derogatory term. But it also implies that a band basically plays blast beats throughout their music and have an emphasis on the raw bm sound. Grindcore may not be technically the extreme of death metal, but many consider it as such seeing as how they are highly influenced by dm but try to be more "extreme" sounding (i.e. blast beats, cookie monster vocals that are usually super fucked up, repetitive simplistic playing at high speeds, etc). Just for the record I'm not a fan of any core genres or anything else that's gay that masquerades as anything even closely associated with metal. Hackser ( talk) 21:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I created a userbox related to black metal.(highlight to read text)
ist krieg!! | This user likes black metal. |
the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
okay.....i was just throwing it out there. where do yousuggest it belongs? the juggreserection IstKrieg! 15:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is one thing. It is black colour for infobox. It isn't very important, but I think most of people would agree, that it looks much more apposite. Why? Heavy Metal includes bands such as Led Zeppelin or Jimi Hendrix and Sepultura or Mayhem. These bands are musically pretty really very different, so these subgenres should have another colour. I added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours as black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres". It is 100% allowed to do it. But some people (unlogged) just have a problem with it and delete it unreasonably as a POV making pure edit war, what is POV by itself. So I would collect some people that want black for "Extreme Metal or Heavy Metal subgenres", which would help to keep it...--Lykantrop ( Talk) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I made it so it now rediredts to dark ambient#black ambient instead of black metal#modern black metal which didn't make a lot of sense in the first place. Black ambient is a type of ambient music (dark ambient to be specific) and is definitely not a sub genre of black metal or metal at all. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, just out of curiosity, why the hell is the unblack metal article almost as long as the black metal article? It used to be a lot shorter. It just seems wierd that they would be even close to the same length. I think the people over on the unblack metal page have been going more in depth and writing a lot more stuff. Perhaps the black metal page should go more in depth and add some info in the spirit of competition? Also, the fact that there should be WAY more info on black metal than unblack. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are (as of March 12, 2008) 443 bands in Encyclopaedia Metallum described as some sort of "raw black metal". Why isn't that subgenre of raw black metal mentioned in this page? B T C 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Raw" black metal is just a description. I hear many bm fans call bands "atmospheric" black metal, "depressive" black metal and so on. It's not an actual genre, though. Just a description. Raw black metal would be something like Darkthrone (or at least the earlier stuff) whereas Burzum might be considerd atmospheric black metal. Just an adjective, not a genre. Some fans are idiots. I've seen plenty of stupid crap on MA. People call bands like Sigh post-black metal. At least their newer stuff. But there's no such genre. It's just avant garde black metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The article needs music. Even the unblack metal article has music clips and so do most of the metal subgenres. We should probabaly put at least a few different clips in to the article. One or two from the First Wave and one or two from the Second Wave. Then maybe one or two more modern bm bands. This will improve the article greatly. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The First and Second wave of black metal are only an original research described by few references. They should be deleted. -- Born Again 83 ( talk) 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I respect your opinion but there are plenty of sources supporting the first/second wave of bm arguement and it is accpeted by everyone I know in the black metal community. I know this is POV, but everyone I know who likes black metal (and I know quite a few of them) know of the first and second wave distinction and they didn't get their info from wikipedia or Ian Christe. Yes, some do say there is a third wave, but it is not well defined so there's not much written about it and so it stays out of this article. This supposed "third wave" is generally considered to consist of more symphonic black metal bands, but there is not much agreement on the issue. Some people would consider this "3rd wave" to just be almost all bm bands after the mid 90's or so. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have Unblack metal and National Socialist black metal listed as subgenres. The only way these few bands differ from "traditonal" black metal is lyrically. Even then, "traditional" black metal bands hold many different ideologies. Both this article and their own articles agree that there is no method of playing black metal in a Christian/Nazi way. Therefore, I would suggest they be regarded as black metal "scenes", or put in the "other topics" section instead. Opinions? ... Superfopp ( talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that the portuguese wikipedia had a war metal article: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_metal. At first this made me think even more that there should be something about war metal in this article at the very least, but then I saw there black metal article. Not a very well done article with some inaccuracies I could see right away. So we won't be making that war metal article, I guess. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we include keyboards as part of the black metal instrumentation section of the infobox? Keyboards aren't just for goth pseudo-black metal bands like CoF and lame Russian bands. Respectable BM bands that use keyboards include: Abigor, Arcturus, Blut Aus Nord, Borknagar, Burzum, Dimmu Borgir, Emperor, Illnath, Ishtar, Limbonic Art, Obsidian Gate, Opera IX, Samael, Satyricon, Windir, Xasthur....just to name a few. I know some of those bands are crossover, but if you can't consider most of those as BM, then I don't know what BM is.
"Black metal is an extreme heavy metal subgenre. It is typically abrasive and characterized by the use of fast tempos, high-pitched electric guitars often played with tremolo picking, high-pitched shrieking vocals, and unconventional song structures."
All true except for the tempo? That's just a stereotype outsiders have of black metal. Whether something is black metal is pretty much irrelevant of the tempo. If you show even the fastest projects like Sethereal down to an eight of their original tempo it would still be clearly recognizable as black metal. And there are tonnes of black metal projects which operate on such tempos, take: Trist, Nortt, Vinterriket, Wyrd, Amesoeurs, Xasthur, Life is Pain, Ekstasis. The latter three having had a great portion of their tracks with no drums at all still clearly black metal with the last not having made any tracks with drums as of yet. Niarch ( talk) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This new sentence, "It is prone to experimentation and certain elements typical to black metal are not always used by every band within the subgenre" is pretty redundant. You can say that about ANY type of music. Have you ever heard of a type of music that was not prone to experimentation and in which every band demonstrated every single characteristic of that genre? The sentence needs to be removed. The "usually" word from the first sentence is also redundant because it says "typically" right before it in the same sentence! The "typically" is the antecedent for both parts of that phrase. Obviously if something like that "typically" it's also like that "usually".
Furthermore, I wish to claim that black metal IS typically characterized by fast-tempos. I have not heard of any black metal bands that use exclusively slow tempos. Nortt may lay claim having black metal characteristics, but I would hardly classify him as a typical black metal artist; he is more fringe BM. All his songs are slow, and there is something missing from his music that enables it to be placed wholeheartedly in the BM category. (I love Nortt by the way). Same thing with Bethlehem. On the other hand, every single major black metal band (Immortal, Burzum, Mayhem, Darkthrone, Celtic Frost, Venom, Bathory, 1349, Dimmu Borgir, Gorgoroth, Samael), all thrive on speed. Perhaps speed does not define nearly all or even most of their songs, but it is fair to say that without speed those bands would not be where they are, and they would likely be considered fringe black metal if black metal at all. Additionally, it is agreed that black metal stemmed from NWOHBM, Speed Metal, and Thrash Metal, and each of these genres have speed as one of their main characteristics. It is certainly possible to deviate from an ancestral genre by eliminating a certain characteristic as speed, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the general path within the black metal community.
Therefore, I am suggesting we remove any references that suggest that high-tempos in BM are not the standard, though make mention that songs are not exclusively performed at high tempo. Well-argued responses welcomed. Scskowron ( talk) 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |