![]() | This 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The image File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I Believe it happens, just because LED ZEPPELIN isn't a Heavy Metal Band.....And I believe that even its name should be , removed from these page, because there's no consense about any one of these bands mentioned at the beginning. It's reasonalbe doubt. In doubt, don't accept.
Thank You, deep Peace
Ricknupp ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknupp Ricknupp ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I realise that the aim of this article isn't to list every single metal band, but surely the Swedish group Opeth should be mentioned? Their fusion of death metal with prog elements is largely unique and highly innovative, and has been a big commercial success in much of the world.-- MartinUK ( talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While they are a notable metal band, I don't see any real reason to mention them in the article. Xanthic-Ztk ( talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Opeth have incorporated softer elements such as use of acoustic guitars and clean vocals mixed with death-metal style growls and heavy riffing [1] which has not been seen much earlier. Surely that merits them a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.34.174 ( talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Dissection have been doing it a lot longer than Opeth, Opeth weren't really doing anything "innovative". Just prog metal with death metal vocals. ThePerfectVirus ( talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I love Opeth, but I don't see why they should be listed in this article. Mason092 ( talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Opeth weren't really doing anything 'innovative'". Hahahaha. Peak of ignorance. If Tool are mentioned, Opeth should be mentioned. Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not rooting for either, but he's got a point. If a band like Tool is included - which is more associated to alternative rock than Heavy Metal - than why not Opeth. I personally would include neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 04:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Even though grunge music does hold roots from Heavy Metal, I believe it is considered more alternative rock than metal. I don't think it should even be in the fusion genre category, for metal was only used as a mere inspiration for the genre.
UberHeadbanger ( talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (EST)
Grunge should make his article, easily. They've been included in metal-lists since their start. Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that Funk metal doesn't have it's own section here. Anyone mind if I take care of that? Rockgenre ( talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Funk metal already has its own section under the Funk rock article. Content doesn't need to be duplicated twice on 2 different pages.
Fair Deal (
talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock
Rockgenre (
talk)
22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You fail to take note that Power Metal is immensly popular in European countries, Japan and so forth. Stratovarius, Helloween, HammerFall, Iced Earth, Rhapsody and Sonata Arctica, to name a few, have achieved varied degrees of succes and media exposure. I could stay here for an hour naming various bands belonging to the genre and still have examples popping into my head. You mention only Living Colour. Yes there are others and I'm aware of them but can you sit here and enumerate tons of bands described as Funk Metal? Even then, most of these bands fit into the Alternative Metal category as well, maybe even more so.
EDIT: Also, there's an argument about breaking racial boundaires? When does the nationality of a performer ever create a genre? Here's a practical example; The sub-genre of Thrash Metal breaks out mid-80s, a mostly American phenomenon. Shortly after, a similar style emerges in Germany with common traits that differentiate it from its American counterparts. It gains the monikers German Thrash or Teutonic Thrash as a style. Later, South American bands gain a Thrash scene of their own, most notably examplified by the brazilian Sepultura. The nuance here is that all 3, despite their slight musical differences and distinct cultural flavors, are considered Thrash Metal as a whole. The breaking of racial boundaries, as you call it, is rather a mark of unique STYLE(a personal variation to a pre-existing genre), than in itself a SUB-GENRE(a full fledged movement with a local scene, possesing a notably different musical aesthetic and format, having many bands composing in a similar vein and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to put this up on the talk page as to why Queen should be mentioned in the introduction of the article along with Judas Priest. This is quite simple; Queen also spurred Heavy Metal's evolution by discarding much of its Blues influence, along with Judas Priest. Why it should only be Judas I have no idea; especially when my justification is sourced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/biography ( RockDrummerQ ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
Agreed, we can't generalise Queen as heavy metal when they made a handful of songs vaguely related to the genre. More often than not they made rock songs, progressive rock, pop influenced four-part vocal showcases, broadway style piano pieces etc. Second, the number of Metal bands being influenced by Queen's music doesn't make them Metal either, its misunderstanding the statement. Many early Rock n Rollers were influenced by delta blues artist Robert Johnson; that doesn't make Johnson's music become Rock n Roll.
Indeed Judas Priest are very highly rated, that's probably why they need to be monetioned in the lead, right?. That's not the issue here. I can place a bet that any book about heavy metal history that's worth its money mentions Judas Priest somewhere in there. Yes, because they are very-well known and have sold many albums; but more importantly because the bulk of their music itself is in majority straight in line with heavy metal music tradition. Similarly, compare Black Sabbath and Jethro Tull...who is a full-time heavy metal band and who simply dabbles with it occasionaly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please help this rewrite: "With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness."
I changed "overall loudness" to: "increased (above-average) acoustic decibel levels." which I thought was pretty straightforward, yet it was reverted by User: DCGeist with this notation: (rv nonidiomatic, awkward rewrite) But may I remind you Mr. DCguiest that we use encylopedic terms here, not idiomatic ones such as "overall loudness." Yes, my rewrite was a bit awkward, but it was by far less awkward than "overall loudness." The usage of these generic terms would not be advisable by any music scholar by any means... perhaps "frequency" would be a better word than "decibel." Nonetheless, I'm asking you editors to consider a better prossibility than "overall loudness"... (any type of music can be played loudly.) Wolfpeaceful ( talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And as I have not reverted it yet, I'm reverting again, for now... but I would like someone to help with this, thank you... Wolfpeaceful ( talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Referring to decibels and frequency in relation to music is not a barbarism (linguistics)... since music deals with sound... and those are academic terms related to features of sound. I disagree that "loudness" is truly conveying the intended conotation here... Rock and Roll has "overall loudness"... anyone blaring their speakers with Rap music has "overall loudness..."... With the above proposed (or perhaps even something better) phraseology you are referring specifically to what gives Heavy Metal its unique "Overall loud" sound. Also, as being an experienced and published writer, "write for the intellectual, but uninformed reader." {Yes, I realize to relay information to the layman, but simeteonously this is NOT the "Simple English" article.} Or... perhaps its just better to omit this line altogether? Or perhaps we should copy the Simple English: "Heavy metal songs are loud and powerful-sounding, and have strong rhythms that are repeated." 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- In live performance, loudness—an "onslaught of sound," in sociologist Deena Weinstein's description—is considered vital. [2] In his book Metalheads, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett refers to heavy metal concerts as "the sensory equivalent of war." [3] Following the lead set by Jimi Hendrix, Cream and The Who, early heavy metal acts such as Blue Cheer set new benchmarks for volume. As Blue Cheer's Dick Peterson put it, "All we knew was we wanted more power." [4] A 1977 review of a Motörhead concert noted how "excessive volume in particular figured into the band’s impact." [5] Weinstein makes the case that in the same way that melody is the main element of pop and rhythm is the main focus of house music, powerful sound, timbre, and volume are the key elements of metal. She argues that the loudness is designed to "sweep the listener into the sound" and to provide a "shot of youthful vitality." [2]
Touchy subject here, how about trying the phrasing...loud dynamics? As a lot of heavy metal plays its loud parts by setting up "light and shade"... "tension and release", "start stop rythms" etc. Constant, unrelenting loudness is more a general trait of punk rock, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the article has a tag reading "Note: Do not add "hard rock" here. As described in article, "heavy metal" and "hard rock" were synonymous for a decade—one did not precede the other." I disagree with this, and feel that use of the term (heavy metal) throughout the '70s was largely consistent with modern standards, and much of the crossing of "hard rock" and "heavy metal" very probably arose from the fact that many hard rock bands of the time did a few metal songs. There are even exceptions to this (particularly ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foghat, and Meat Loaf). I'd also like to note that there obviously was hard rock before there was heavy metal (though I'm not absolute on whether or not Cream, Hendrix, and certain Kinks songs were considered such at the time), and early metal and hard rock/heavy metal acts were influenced by it. ( Albert Mond ( talk) 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
Found a pretty well-done article from 1979 covering multiple genres of rock (heavy metal being very much among them). If anyone wants to use it, | here it is. ( Albert Mond ( talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
This article will never be good or accurate as long as it has one fundamental error: Black Sabbath. They're gravely underappreciated here. They practically single-handedly created this genre, light-years away from Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, playing slow and detuned, discarding the blues-influence before Judas Priest (Master of Reality, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, Vol 4). They should get their own paragraph in the very beginning. Less focus on magazine lists! This is a serious encyclopedia! Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Compared to other genres' evolutions Black Sabbath are gravely underrated, and you both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary. Blue Cheer? Led Zeppelin did one doomy song in the 60s? It can't hold a candle to "Black Sabbath" or anything from "Master Of Reality". I don't know why you persist, if you can't see how they discarded blues... well, please do listen to the albums I mentioned, among them "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", and tell me that you notive the slightest blues in it. I say that no band even touched Sabbath's importance, even in doing "similar stuff" around that time. Sabbath deserve their own paragraph in the introduction. Revan ltrl ( talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Have you read wikipedia's article on Black Sabbath? There's plenty of sources there that back my thesis up. Btw, your smug comment on OK Computer's discussion page needs elaboration. Revan ltrl ( talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know, but these articles are about music, not rocket science; something you can't scrape down on paper, in figures. Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike? I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing. You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention. So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano. Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing? That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album. About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary. The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'. I'll take into consideration that you dedicated editors are dismissive to the flaws of this ugly side of wikipedia, but who decides this anyway? Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, how insulting... Albert? What you want to prove with this outburst is confusing; what you do try to achieve, seemingly, is dismissing practically everything that backs my statement; be it magazines, reviews, general "misconception" or wikipedia-articles. And how do you manage this? How do you know Black Sabbath's importance is false, a myth? You just know it, do you? OK then, let me roll over on my back, defeated. I'm overwhelmed. But seriously, once again you prove nothing in your rambles, mr omniscience. Your rhetorics are as shallow as earlier, though more desperate in the unnecessary quoting. Nice try at patronizing. Black Sabbath should still have their own paragraph, and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is still not bluesy. I know it. And yeah, it is an exaggeration saying that Houses of the Holy discards blues as much as Sabbath Bloody Sabbath! And saying it's a "truth" (another smug dismissal, or possibly hubris?) that Sabbath Bloddy Sabbath is blues is just another example of your desperation. Cool it, Albert. Revan ( talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You obviously feel offended. Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say? You keep saying that Sabbath didn't invent it singlehandedly; I mentioned it once initially, but my point kept being that they need their own paragraph due to their importance, which is greater than Zeppelin's and Purple's. What this article needs, apparently, is an empirical study on the matter or something like that. Not our opinions, or what we think is an elevated, false, bloated misconception. I said that your blues comments were crap because I really, genuinely think they are. And I wouldn't say I'm out of line, I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics. Well, I assure you, many agree with me. And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous, but everyone's entitled to their opion, just like Radiohead are to their lousy musical tastes. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The subtle insults are dearly noted, and your complete resignation to sounding and thinking like androids is either frightening or impressive, though undoubtedly a result of the devotion put into this second hand source page. Revan ltrl ( talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Albert. Amuse me. Name one bluesy part in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Wakeman's piano licks don't count, because the background isn't blues. Shouldn't be so hard, you being a musician, as well. Revan ( talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree on that, Albert. It seems both you and your friends are amateur musicians. The softer parts are soft; neither the chord progressions, the song melodies, the guitar licks, or anything, contain any clear blues influences. They contain no blues influences at all, basically, and your already stated example is, as said, very poor. The soft parts can be compared to the soft parts of an Opeth or Tool song (both bands two prominent prog metal bands, heavily influenced by Sabbath and especially this album with its innovative heavy/soft approach), which, also, hold no blues influences. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, guys, this is an idea of what I mean: Traditional heavy metal. Notice how it says kind of exactly what I said. Just found it. Sabbath discarded blues. You: wrong. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Albert! You cursed! I've been addressed by the wikipedian authorities for less, you know! Are you supposed to be an experienced wikipedia editor? What about the link you, uh, linked? Isn't that an example of a source you and that Odd guy so desperately further? Is the link you, uh, linked the source for the 'Judas Priest discarding blues' passage in this article? If it is, or if the source is a similar one, it only takes the very same guy stating that Sabbath was the first heavy metal band to, you know, erase the fact that Judas Priest were it! Basic maths, maths this second hand source page needs, maths that makes music pages in this site look like jokes. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, your comment is a butterfly's wing beat proving the butterfly effect wrong. I know all of Sabbath's albums with Ozzy by heart, and I have never dismissed their blues influences in their first album, nor in "Paranoid" (I can link "Hand of Doom", if you like). And talking about their first album; the opening title track, named after the self-titled debut, is enough to make it clear to everyone that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal. What is the mention of Judas Priest referring to, anyway? An album? A song? A riff? Black Sabbath did all of those things way before Priest did; I was mainly referring to their fifth album "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", which, I strongly state, has no blues influences, hence, discarding blues in heavy metal before Judas Priest, which this article falsely states. And that is the point of why I initiated this discussion, and that's what Albert and Odd oppose in lack of professors definitive opinions on the matter. You'd know if you'd read the whole argument, but I understand why you haven't (this is where you debate with yourself whether you should confess or not that you actually have read the whole discussion).
Albert, the Odd guy is WesleyOdd, whom you assisted in this, our, argument. And, as I said, Albert, I have been addressed by the authorities because of less; I guess your self-exculpation gives me free rein in non-threatening usage of swear words. And since you've already so profoundly called me 'evil', what's to stop me? Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You've proved shit, Albert. And if you think you have, you are sadly mistaken. I have already remarked on your less knowledgeable status as a musician which is clearly visible; the final verses of "Black Sabbath" are in a minor scale and not bluesy in any way, but since you see them as blues, I kind of get where you're coming from. Basically everything that's played in a minor pentatonic scale (the final verses are in natural minor, the common minor scale, which is used by guys like Beethoven, for example) is blues to you, and that's a very amateur approach, I must say. And I didn't get offended one bit by you swearing, I just satirized wikipedian policy.
And Led Zeppelin are often called folk rock! I would definitely call their fourth album more folk rock than heavy metal, and I'm not only referring to "Stairway To Heaven", but also to "The Battle of Evermore" and "Going To California"; three folk rock songs against zero heavy metal songs clarify.
Your 'evil' mention was on the discussion further down, by the way, and no, I wasn't offended by that, either. Revan ltrl ( talk) 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have your own criteria about what is 'bluesy'. The article is flawed. I don't know, your sentence maybe could have been better composed, but I get the meaning now. And I disagree; I don't think everyone's evil and accuse everyone, I just think wikipedia editors, in general, develop tunnel vision, arrogance, and the emotional spectrum of an android. Don't take it personally, that needn't apply to you. I also wouldn't call "Gypsy" or "Paranoid" bluesy; it takes more than the interval of a minor third to make something blues. I'm thinking chords (the blues 12), for example. Blues didn't invent the minor scale. My strong siding with Sabbath might look like I dismiss Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, but I don't. I think "Physical Graffiti" is very heavy in a very metal way, and it is one of my favorite albums. But I definitely don't think they are as important as Sabbath in that genre. They work as influence, because they're a bigger band, but without Sabbath, bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer wouldn't see the light of day. The article is weak. Revan ltrl ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph where Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin are mentioned as pioneers of the genre is invalid; it states that all three bands were reviled by critics. First off, Deep Purple met indifference in their start, which is not the same as being reviled, which their albums never were. With their success that followed in the U.S., they were, however, acclaimed.
Secondly, Led Zeppelin never met criticism like that of Black Sabbath; Zeppelin were, instead, criticized for not being as good as, according to Rolling Stone in the review of their first album, like The Jeff Beck Group, and Robert Plant was compared condescendingly to Rod Stewart. Basically, not the same kind of criticism Black Sabbath got.
Sabbath were persistently rejected until their fifth album (I dislike referring to wikipedia articles, but this is backed by the articles for all their first five albums) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. The criticism was a direct result of their alien-sounding music, which clashed with the current, which was blues-inspired Hard rock, like Zeppelin, Purple, Iron Butterfly etc.
To conclude, the introduction falters and misleads, and should be rewritten more accurately. An idea is what this article does: Traditional heavy metal. Even though I fail to see the meaning of that article, and how it contradicts this one, it is more accurate in its depict of the musical interrelations of the early bands, with emphasis on Black Sabbath.. but hey, that's the case with a few 100,000 articles here on this second hand source page. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You fail to see the essence of what I'm stating, Albert. Maybe Grand Funk Railroad were reviled because they never were any good? Thought of that? Even now, in retrospect, they aren't hailed or remembered as innovators, by anyone. There's a difference between 'plain suck'- and 'misunderstood genius'-criticism. Have fun dividing Railroad and Sabbath into the different categories. Same goes for Led Zeppelin III; it has always been seen as a relative downfall in the middle of Zeppelin II and Zeppelin IV, which were hailed from the start. And Zeppelin III's current five stars from Allmusicgiude (wikipedia's biggest misplaced trust) is pure hype, as we all know. I actually commented, just recently, on the Zeppelin article, where I criticized its overuse of reliance on Rolling Stone Magazine; it practically bases its whole introduction with hails from that tacky magazine that includes 20 Beatles albums in its top 10 of the greatest albums ever. Do I need to say that a smug-faced editor came and rejected everything with wikipedian policy and subtle insults that commented on my "regrettable" wikipedia history? Ha, guess not! Funny how you refer to Zeppelin as a 'metal band', Albert. And Jesus Christ Superstar is a metal opera.
About your advocacy, Odd. Good luck with that; seems it is the only thing you do here. What is it, advocating reliable research? You have little to say about music, on the other hand, which these articles are all about, but this is wikipedia, after all; we won't hear any jingles streaming out our speakers, haha!
Oh yeah, forgot. Check this out: Hard rock: which band is missing?? Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, you state certainties, except when you say that Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band. They have one foot in the hard rock genre, and the other in the blues genre, together with the influences you mention, and I would hesitantly include heavy metal among those influences, because none of their albums are actual heavy metal; they don't have it as an overhanging concept, but they do have heavy metal-ish (I'd say hard rock) songs in their albums, like "Whole Lotta Love" and "Immigrant Song". I am also aware of the differences in musicians' influences. Mikael Åkerfeldt's main influence in making Opeth's latest album "Watershed" were Scott Walker's The Drift, and The Zombie's Odessey & Oracle, two non-metal albums. Today I listened to Alice In Chains and Kate Bush. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they're listed, but clearly as a parenthesis, whereas, not really accurate for further mentioning in that article. And my dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is plenty relevant and accurate. I've never heard of them, and neither have Black Sabbath, I'm sure. I don't know what your source is that they were called "heavy metal" back then in the 60s(!). It may be true or not, I choose to believe it another day when I see it myself, but I am more familiar with Sabbath's influences, and I've seen Ozzy on interview saying that "there was no such thing as heavy metal back then"; it was on a heavy metal documentary called "From Black Sabbath to System of a Down", outlining a timeline for heavy metal. It was quite MTV-flashy, but surprisingly accurate, and it mentioned how Black Sabbath were set aside bands like Zeppelin and Purple because of their very different style, and stressed their sole importance. This site: http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_metal-art.html also shows the same thing. I know it probably isn't a reliable source, but they're knowledgeable, whoever do these lists, even though, on most of the categories, they follow a cliché pattern. But the metal page is quite good, and closer to a general consensus is hard found; it's forum decided, but I know, no reliable source. I see Grand Funk Railroad on 11th place on the list of bands that influenced metal, after bands like Pink Floyd and The Doors.
You probably like them alot, but comparing them to Sabbath is just vain; many would call, and do, Black Sabbath one of the best rock bands through all times! Unlike GFR, in which you are right.
And yeah yeah, I don't know how wikipedia works and whatever, but I sure don't like it. AMG, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, whatever; really unstable platforms to base music articles on. Just saying. I don't like blogs, either, and I make more use condemning wikipedia here than on a petty blog. Revan ltrl ( talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the original point, I think there is a problem in how the sentence infers that these specific bands were reviled by critics, when the point is supposed to be metal as a whole was derided. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ozzy said that "there was no such thing as 'heavy metal' back then"; he didn't say they were the first, but that the term didn't exist back then. It is very easy for someone like Don Brewer to say they were heavy metal in retrospect, though. No, I haven't heard of them. They might be grand in America, but I'm European, and not everyone makes it on both sides of the Atlantic. I looked them up when you mentioned them first, and they were what I expected; very similar to Zeppelin, very blues-influenced, and not heavy metal at all, but understandably influential, even if Sabbath never heard them. I don't disrespect them, but one can't really compare them with a band that's generally considered one of the best rock bands through all times. And Halford also says that Iommi "created the metal riff", as extra information.
Do you want my honest opinion when you ask about my view on Purple and Sabbath, or is it a rhetorical question? i don't remember saying that Deep Purple were bluesier than Sabbath. Actually, neither one of the bands were as bluesy as Zeppelin, I would say. Purple's dismissal of blues is clear, but blues is still ever-present in every album, and they don't take a clear step away from it like Sabbath does in "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Purple never were heavy metal album-wise before Sabbath, though, they were hard rock through and through. They became heavy metal first when David Coverdale became a member, in Burn, I would say. In the songs you mention, there is a standstill in the blues difference. Speaking of heavy metal, on the other hand, Sabbath has the advantage. "Sweet Leaf" is groundbreaking in a groundbreaking album; notice the riffing in between the verses, and the riffs after the guitar solo; they are but a taste of what is a norm in metal music from then on; the breaking of common scales, and heavy usage of alternative intervals, like semitones and the tritone. "Burn" came later, and is kind of metal, but made when the genre already was established by Sabbath. The other songs are a little more similar in heaviness, but it's important acknowledging that Paranoid is relatively light in Sabbath's music, while Highway Star is particularly heavy in Purple's. Purple has no candidate for comparison with War Pigs, for example.
I can't help but feel that your justification of AMG is extremely elitist. I can be, too, in music, but not when it comes to justifying a site where a person works as a reliable source, and the masses' opinions are dismissed as flies; it is the closest one comes to a general consensus. I understand how you find the masses' opinion resentful, but still, it's mainly a musician's prejudice.
As WesleyOdd says, about getting back to point. There's tons of musical evidence that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal, and I'm strongly pro that Sabbath are set aside Zeppelin and Purple in the article. Revan ltrl ( talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, looks like I was wrong about GFR, but I just spoke hypothetically and didn't really disrespect them. My respects to them, then. Let's look at the blues matter from another angle: what does Judas Priest sound like? I'm assuming this article credits their "discarding" of blues in their classic "British Steel" (another weakness is this article's vagueness), which is their sixth album? I don't think the preceding ones are really deemed as classics. I've heard "British Steel" several times, and, in my opinion, I don't think it strays from the blues one inch more than Black Sabbath. To the contrary, it's closer to blues than much of Sabbath's music, and definitely bluesier than "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Without source or clarity, this source states this and I don't know who the hell to ask for elaboration, and if I changed it, there would be hell to pay. I know Anthrax's drummer said exactly what the article says about Judas Priest, and he is just one hell of a source! Why not write that Iommi created the metal riff, as Halfrod says? Sabbath's discarding of blues is musical hard evidence, on the other hand, so I don't why anyone would oppose it so harshly. Important to acknowledge is the metal genre's norms, many of which were created by Sabbath. The norms follow Sabbath extensively, meaning artwork, song titles, lyrics, 'sound, and their music in general. Another point why they had superior superiority.
We've made it a matter of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple, about who was more influential, but my other point is a Sabbath-Priest comparison about blues-discarding. And it's hard evidence, basically, that Sabbath discarded it. Hell, "Fluff" is a Bach prelude for christ sakes! The songs' structures are as progressive as anything, and the riffing is nowhere near the blues scale. Listen to "Breaking the Law" from "British Steel"; total blues standard in comparison. Revan ltrl ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your article sucks you have no idea what you are talking about. Whale Biologist calls em likes I sees em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.136.87 ( talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the lyric topics it mentions "Nuclear annihilation was addressed in later metal songs..." citing Iron Maiden's Two Minutes To Midnight
Black Sabbath's Electric Funeral was already speaking of the subject in 1970, and so was Flower Travellin' Band's Hiroshima in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, don't expect any less from this bullshit article. Revan ltrl ( talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV, and has been ignoring repeated warnings against his behavior and referrals to sources which contradict the source he has been trying to push to back up his own opinion. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Note: I changed the section title per the Talk page guidelines. This user in the above post is WesleyDodds. - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This slow motion edit war is not improving the article. Might I suggest that a request for comment be filed? - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV". No, I was was reverting to what the source said, per verifiability guidelines. I have no attachment to System of a Down or how they are classified. Also, Ibaranoff has not been assuming good faith with me, instead assuming that I had a POV agenda.
Now, as for sources. The MTV article cited describes SOAD as a nu metal band and provides a context for them within the genre. Furthermore, one of the primary metal histories used a source for the article, Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, describes them as nu metal as well, in a chapter largely devoted to nu metal (I just double checked the book this instant). Aside from that, many of the sources Ibaranoff points to at Talk:System of a Down are album/live reviews. Reviews aren't the same as histories or biographies; they are critical commentary/opinion, and do not have authoritative weight on the histories and biogrpahies cover, because that's not what they are intended to cover. They are criticism, not research. What Ibaranoff needs to provide is a reliable source (or several) that explain why System of a Down shouldn't be classified as nu metal; providing sources that simply don't say the words "nu metal" isn't the same thing. So far I only see one source that would classify as such, that being this. Also, the methodology used on Talk:System of a Down worries me. We don't determine article content by tallying how many times a phrase is or isn't mentioned in a handful of online articles (and that is a handful; that's nowhere near the amount of press coverage the band has had in its career). WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
System of a Down is alternative metal which is a subgenre of nu metal. Saying System of a Down is alternative metal and not nu metal is like saying Limp Bizkit is rap metal instead of nu metal. Nu metal is just an umbrella term used to describe all metal bands that add elements of alternative or rap music to their music. Metalfan72 ( talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any recent sources for this? Jon Pareles' 1988 quote doesn't describe much of the successful metal of the 2000s. The Priest lyrics incident should definitely be covered, but is it really representative of attitudes towards metal today? Something about problems between metal and various religious organisations might be more useful here - black metal fans burning churches for example.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
someone should add the band aerosmith or at least "back in the saddle" cauz thats defiinetly metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.19.46 ( talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
aerosmith is definitely and absolutely not metal at all ,but glam rock ,only people born in the 18th century would consider them as heavy! Val hallen ( talk) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes go to the wiki site glam rock,aeorosmith is not metal,metal is Megadeth,Metallica,Pantera,Black Sabbath,and Black Label Society.
This article is called heavy metal music,however,it talks about metal in general,so I think the title should be changed to "Metal music",as the term "heavy metal" refers to bands such as Sabbath,Maiden,Priest,Motorhead,Saxon,Manowar,Accept and other traditional metal bands,and all of them have heavy metal listed as their genre,yet cases where this could be applied as an umbrella term are pretty rare. The Great Duck ( talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
78.3.126.90 ( talk) 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be called metal music instead of heavy metal music. Heavy metal and metal are both used as titles of the whole genre but heavy metal also refers to traditional heavy metal while metal only refers the overall genre. I also don't think someone who listens to only death metal and black metal would refer to their music as heavy metal. Metalfan72 ( talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Allmusic describe related genres of "heavy metal" to be "Hard Rock, Hardcore Punk, Grunge, Arena Rock, and Album Rock". They do not seem to recognise a separate brand of "metal", although if search style for "metal", you get a list of various sub-genres, "funk metal", "rap-metal", etc. So if there is an overall genre called "metal" distinct from "heavy metal", I don't think it exists except as a shorthand for "heavy metal", which has been around as a term since 1968/69. Rodhull andemu 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then what subgenre would be used to classify bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio and Black Label Society who play heavy metal that does not fit into any other subgenre? Metalfan72 ( talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The image File:Led Zeppelin Whole Lotta Love.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I Believe it happens, just because LED ZEPPELIN isn't a Heavy Metal Band.....And I believe that even its name should be , removed from these page, because there's no consense about any one of these bands mentioned at the beginning. It's reasonalbe doubt. In doubt, don't accept.
Thank You, deep Peace
Ricknupp ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)ricknupp Ricknupp ( talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I realise that the aim of this article isn't to list every single metal band, but surely the Swedish group Opeth should be mentioned? Their fusion of death metal with prog elements is largely unique and highly innovative, and has been a big commercial success in much of the world.-- MartinUK ( talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
While they are a notable metal band, I don't see any real reason to mention them in the article. Xanthic-Ztk ( talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Opeth have incorporated softer elements such as use of acoustic guitars and clean vocals mixed with death-metal style growls and heavy riffing [1] which has not been seen much earlier. Surely that merits them a mention in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.34.174 ( talk) 22:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Dissection have been doing it a lot longer than Opeth, Opeth weren't really doing anything "innovative". Just prog metal with death metal vocals. ThePerfectVirus ( talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I love Opeth, but I don't see why they should be listed in this article. Mason092 ( talk) 23:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Opeth weren't really doing anything 'innovative'". Hahahaha. Peak of ignorance. If Tool are mentioned, Opeth should be mentioned. Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not rooting for either, but he's got a point. If a band like Tool is included - which is more associated to alternative rock than Heavy Metal - than why not Opeth. I personally would include neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 04:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Even though grunge music does hold roots from Heavy Metal, I believe it is considered more alternative rock than metal. I don't think it should even be in the fusion genre category, for metal was only used as a mere inspiration for the genre.
UberHeadbanger ( talk) 18:15, 23 March 2009 (EST)
Grunge should make his article, easily. They've been included in metal-lists since their start. Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that Funk metal doesn't have it's own section here. Anyone mind if I take care of that? Rockgenre ( talk) 23:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Funk metal already has its own section under the Funk rock article. Content doesn't need to be duplicated twice on 2 different pages.
Fair Deal (
talk) 01:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock
Rockgenre (
talk)
22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You fail to take note that Power Metal is immensly popular in European countries, Japan and so forth. Stratovarius, Helloween, HammerFall, Iced Earth, Rhapsody and Sonata Arctica, to name a few, have achieved varied degrees of succes and media exposure. I could stay here for an hour naming various bands belonging to the genre and still have examples popping into my head. You mention only Living Colour. Yes there are others and I'm aware of them but can you sit here and enumerate tons of bands described as Funk Metal? Even then, most of these bands fit into the Alternative Metal category as well, maybe even more so.
EDIT: Also, there's an argument about breaking racial boundaires? When does the nationality of a performer ever create a genre? Here's a practical example; The sub-genre of Thrash Metal breaks out mid-80s, a mostly American phenomenon. Shortly after, a similar style emerges in Germany with common traits that differentiate it from its American counterparts. It gains the monikers German Thrash or Teutonic Thrash as a style. Later, South American bands gain a Thrash scene of their own, most notably examplified by the brazilian Sepultura. The nuance here is that all 3, despite their slight musical differences and distinct cultural flavors, are considered Thrash Metal as a whole. The breaking of racial boundaries, as you call it, is rather a mark of unique STYLE(a personal variation to a pre-existing genre), than in itself a SUB-GENRE(a full fledged movement with a local scene, possesing a notably different musical aesthetic and format, having many bands composing in a similar vein and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 03:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to put this up on the talk page as to why Queen should be mentioned in the introduction of the article along with Judas Priest. This is quite simple; Queen also spurred Heavy Metal's evolution by discarding much of its Blues influence, along with Judas Priest. Why it should only be Judas I have no idea; especially when my justification is sourced: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/queen/biography ( RockDrummerQ ( talk) 20:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC))
Agreed, we can't generalise Queen as heavy metal when they made a handful of songs vaguely related to the genre. More often than not they made rock songs, progressive rock, pop influenced four-part vocal showcases, broadway style piano pieces etc. Second, the number of Metal bands being influenced by Queen's music doesn't make them Metal either, its misunderstanding the statement. Many early Rock n Rollers were influenced by delta blues artist Robert Johnson; that doesn't make Johnson's music become Rock n Roll.
Indeed Judas Priest are very highly rated, that's probably why they need to be monetioned in the lead, right?. That's not the issue here. I can place a bet that any book about heavy metal history that's worth its money mentions Judas Priest somewhere in there. Yes, because they are very-well known and have sold many albums; but more importantly because the bulk of their music itself is in majority straight in line with heavy metal music tradition. Similarly, compare Black Sabbath and Jethro Tull...who is a full-time heavy metal band and who simply dabbles with it occasionaly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 04:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please help this rewrite: "With roots in blues-rock and psychedelic rock, the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos, emphatic beats, and overall loudness."
I changed "overall loudness" to: "increased (above-average) acoustic decibel levels." which I thought was pretty straightforward, yet it was reverted by User: DCGeist with this notation: (rv nonidiomatic, awkward rewrite) But may I remind you Mr. DCguiest that we use encylopedic terms here, not idiomatic ones such as "overall loudness." Yes, my rewrite was a bit awkward, but it was by far less awkward than "overall loudness." The usage of these generic terms would not be advisable by any music scholar by any means... perhaps "frequency" would be a better word than "decibel." Nonetheless, I'm asking you editors to consider a better prossibility than "overall loudness"... (any type of music can be played loudly.) Wolfpeaceful ( talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
And as I have not reverted it yet, I'm reverting again, for now... but I would like someone to help with this, thank you... Wolfpeaceful ( talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Referring to decibels and frequency in relation to music is not a barbarism (linguistics)... since music deals with sound... and those are academic terms related to features of sound. I disagree that "loudness" is truly conveying the intended conotation here... Rock and Roll has "overall loudness"... anyone blaring their speakers with Rap music has "overall loudness..."... With the above proposed (or perhaps even something better) phraseology you are referring specifically to what gives Heavy Metal its unique "Overall loud" sound. Also, as being an experienced and published writer, "write for the intellectual, but uninformed reader." {Yes, I realize to relay information to the layman, but simeteonously this is NOT the "Simple English" article.} Or... perhaps its just better to omit this line altogether? Or perhaps we should copy the Simple English: "Heavy metal songs are loud and powerful-sounding, and have strong rhythms that are repeated." 70.61.247.31 ( talk) 00:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- In live performance, loudness—an "onslaught of sound," in sociologist Deena Weinstein's description—is considered vital. [2] In his book Metalheads, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett refers to heavy metal concerts as "the sensory equivalent of war." [3] Following the lead set by Jimi Hendrix, Cream and The Who, early heavy metal acts such as Blue Cheer set new benchmarks for volume. As Blue Cheer's Dick Peterson put it, "All we knew was we wanted more power." [4] A 1977 review of a Motörhead concert noted how "excessive volume in particular figured into the band’s impact." [5] Weinstein makes the case that in the same way that melody is the main element of pop and rhythm is the main focus of house music, powerful sound, timbre, and volume are the key elements of metal. She argues that the loudness is designed to "sweep the listener into the sound" and to provide a "shot of youthful vitality." [2]
Touchy subject here, how about trying the phrasing...loud dynamics? As a lot of heavy metal plays its loud parts by setting up "light and shade"... "tension and release", "start stop rythms" etc. Constant, unrelenting loudness is more a general trait of punk rock, but that's just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.33.6 ( talk) 04:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the article has a tag reading "Note: Do not add "hard rock" here. As described in article, "heavy metal" and "hard rock" were synonymous for a decade—one did not precede the other." I disagree with this, and feel that use of the term (heavy metal) throughout the '70s was largely consistent with modern standards, and much of the crossing of "hard rock" and "heavy metal" very probably arose from the fact that many hard rock bands of the time did a few metal songs. There are even exceptions to this (particularly ZZ Top, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Foghat, and Meat Loaf). I'd also like to note that there obviously was hard rock before there was heavy metal (though I'm not absolute on whether or not Cream, Hendrix, and certain Kinks songs were considered such at the time), and early metal and hard rock/heavy metal acts were influenced by it. ( Albert Mond ( talk) 10:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
Found a pretty well-done article from 1979 covering multiple genres of rock (heavy metal being very much among them). If anyone wants to use it, | here it is. ( Albert Mond ( talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC))
This article will never be good or accurate as long as it has one fundamental error: Black Sabbath. They're gravely underappreciated here. They practically single-handedly created this genre, light-years away from Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, playing slow and detuned, discarding the blues-influence before Judas Priest (Master of Reality, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, Vol 4). They should get their own paragraph in the very beginning. Less focus on magazine lists! This is a serious encyclopedia! Revan ltrl ( talk) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Compared to other genres' evolutions Black Sabbath are gravely underrated, and you both have extremely weak evidence to the contrary. Blue Cheer? Led Zeppelin did one doomy song in the 60s? It can't hold a candle to "Black Sabbath" or anything from "Master Of Reality". I don't know why you persist, if you can't see how they discarded blues... well, please do listen to the albums I mentioned, among them "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", and tell me that you notive the slightest blues in it. I say that no band even touched Sabbath's importance, even in doing "similar stuff" around that time. Sabbath deserve their own paragraph in the introduction. Revan ltrl ( talk) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Have you read wikipedia's article on Black Sabbath? There's plenty of sources there that back my thesis up. Btw, your smug comment on OK Computer's discussion page needs elaboration. Revan ltrl ( talk) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
You ramble, man. You are clearly not a credible agent in this discussion about Black Sabbath, which you admit here. Maybe you recall correctly, maybe not, you don't know, but these articles are about music, not rocket science; something you can't scrape down on paper, in figures. Call it prejudice, but do you dedicated wiki editors develop some kind of deep-rooted persistence to something that is backed by common knowledge and opinion, shared by, what you call, reliable sources alike? I must stress that you are not credible in this discussion; your arguments amount to nothing. You own their three first albums and I predicted the 'Sabbra Cadabra' mention. So what, Rick Wakeman makes some bluesy licks on the piano. Did you notice the verses where he plays the synthesizer, creating a progressive aura in interplay with Iommis guitar riff and Ozzy's singing? That progressive flair is found throughout the album, making it the first progressive metal album. About it having heavy blues undertones spanning the rest of the album is mere crap, and you know it, such rhetorical filling is unnecessary. The compositions discard blues, ignoring it, having no inpiration from it whatsoever, just like the majority of 'Master of Reality' and 'Vol. 4'. I'll take into consideration that you dedicated editors are dismissive to the flaws of this ugly side of wikipedia, but who decides this anyway? Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Wow, how insulting... Albert? What you want to prove with this outburst is confusing; what you do try to achieve, seemingly, is dismissing practically everything that backs my statement; be it magazines, reviews, general "misconception" or wikipedia-articles. And how do you manage this? How do you know Black Sabbath's importance is false, a myth? You just know it, do you? OK then, let me roll over on my back, defeated. I'm overwhelmed. But seriously, once again you prove nothing in your rambles, mr omniscience. Your rhetorics are as shallow as earlier, though more desperate in the unnecessary quoting. Nice try at patronizing. Black Sabbath should still have their own paragraph, and Sabbath Bloody Sabbath is still not bluesy. I know it. And yeah, it is an exaggeration saying that Houses of the Holy discards blues as much as Sabbath Bloody Sabbath! And saying it's a "truth" (another smug dismissal, or possibly hubris?) that Sabbath Bloddy Sabbath is blues is just another example of your desperation. Cool it, Albert. Revan ( talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You obviously feel offended. Why would you think I care whether you ignore or analyse what I say? You keep saying that Sabbath didn't invent it singlehandedly; I mentioned it once initially, but my point kept being that they need their own paragraph due to their importance, which is greater than Zeppelin's and Purple's. What this article needs, apparently, is an empirical study on the matter or something like that. Not our opinions, or what we think is an elevated, false, bloated misconception. I said that your blues comments were crap because I really, genuinely think they are. And I wouldn't say I'm out of line, I'm a musician myself, and I've studied music and played it for years, and I've talked to many musicians and friends and teachers. Maybe I could do my own statistics. Well, I assure you, many agree with me. And I don't know who you've been talking to, but saying Sabbath isn't metal is kind of outrageous, but everyone's entitled to their opion, just like Radiohead are to their lousy musical tastes. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The subtle insults are dearly noted, and your complete resignation to sounding and thinking like androids is either frightening or impressive, though undoubtedly a result of the devotion put into this second hand source page. Revan ltrl ( talk) 19:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Albert. Amuse me. Name one bluesy part in Sabbath Bloody Sabbath, and Wakeman's piano licks don't count, because the background isn't blues. Shouldn't be so hard, you being a musician, as well. Revan ( talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree on that, Albert. It seems both you and your friends are amateur musicians. The softer parts are soft; neither the chord progressions, the song melodies, the guitar licks, or anything, contain any clear blues influences. They contain no blues influences at all, basically, and your already stated example is, as said, very poor. The soft parts can be compared to the soft parts of an Opeth or Tool song (both bands two prominent prog metal bands, heavily influenced by Sabbath and especially this album with its innovative heavy/soft approach), which, also, hold no blues influences. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, guys, this is an idea of what I mean: Traditional heavy metal. Notice how it says kind of exactly what I said. Just found it. Sabbath discarded blues. You: wrong. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Albert! You cursed! I've been addressed by the wikipedian authorities for less, you know! Are you supposed to be an experienced wikipedia editor? What about the link you, uh, linked? Isn't that an example of a source you and that Odd guy so desperately further? Is the link you, uh, linked the source for the 'Judas Priest discarding blues' passage in this article? If it is, or if the source is a similar one, it only takes the very same guy stating that Sabbath was the first heavy metal band to, you know, erase the fact that Judas Priest were it! Basic maths, maths this second hand source page needs, maths that makes music pages in this site look like jokes. Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, your comment is a butterfly's wing beat proving the butterfly effect wrong. I know all of Sabbath's albums with Ozzy by heart, and I have never dismissed their blues influences in their first album, nor in "Paranoid" (I can link "Hand of Doom", if you like). And talking about their first album; the opening title track, named after the self-titled debut, is enough to make it clear to everyone that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal. What is the mention of Judas Priest referring to, anyway? An album? A song? A riff? Black Sabbath did all of those things way before Priest did; I was mainly referring to their fifth album "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath", which, I strongly state, has no blues influences, hence, discarding blues in heavy metal before Judas Priest, which this article falsely states. And that is the point of why I initiated this discussion, and that's what Albert and Odd oppose in lack of professors definitive opinions on the matter. You'd know if you'd read the whole argument, but I understand why you haven't (this is where you debate with yourself whether you should confess or not that you actually have read the whole discussion).
Albert, the Odd guy is WesleyOdd, whom you assisted in this, our, argument. And, as I said, Albert, I have been addressed by the authorities because of less; I guess your self-exculpation gives me free rein in non-threatening usage of swear words. And since you've already so profoundly called me 'evil', what's to stop me? Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
You've proved shit, Albert. And if you think you have, you are sadly mistaken. I have already remarked on your less knowledgeable status as a musician which is clearly visible; the final verses of "Black Sabbath" are in a minor scale and not bluesy in any way, but since you see them as blues, I kind of get where you're coming from. Basically everything that's played in a minor pentatonic scale (the final verses are in natural minor, the common minor scale, which is used by guys like Beethoven, for example) is blues to you, and that's a very amateur approach, I must say. And I didn't get offended one bit by you swearing, I just satirized wikipedian policy.
And Led Zeppelin are often called folk rock! I would definitely call their fourth album more folk rock than heavy metal, and I'm not only referring to "Stairway To Heaven", but also to "The Battle of Evermore" and "Going To California"; three folk rock songs against zero heavy metal songs clarify.
Your 'evil' mention was on the discussion further down, by the way, and no, I wasn't offended by that, either. Revan ltrl ( talk) 05:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have your own criteria about what is 'bluesy'. The article is flawed. I don't know, your sentence maybe could have been better composed, but I get the meaning now. And I disagree; I don't think everyone's evil and accuse everyone, I just think wikipedia editors, in general, develop tunnel vision, arrogance, and the emotional spectrum of an android. Don't take it personally, that needn't apply to you. I also wouldn't call "Gypsy" or "Paranoid" bluesy; it takes more than the interval of a minor third to make something blues. I'm thinking chords (the blues 12), for example. Blues didn't invent the minor scale. My strong siding with Sabbath might look like I dismiss Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, but I don't. I think "Physical Graffiti" is very heavy in a very metal way, and it is one of my favorite albums. But I definitely don't think they are as important as Sabbath in that genre. They work as influence, because they're a bigger band, but without Sabbath, bands like Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Slayer wouldn't see the light of day. The article is weak. Revan ltrl ( talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph where Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin are mentioned as pioneers of the genre is invalid; it states that all three bands were reviled by critics. First off, Deep Purple met indifference in their start, which is not the same as being reviled, which their albums never were. With their success that followed in the U.S., they were, however, acclaimed.
Secondly, Led Zeppelin never met criticism like that of Black Sabbath; Zeppelin were, instead, criticized for not being as good as, according to Rolling Stone in the review of their first album, like The Jeff Beck Group, and Robert Plant was compared condescendingly to Rod Stewart. Basically, not the same kind of criticism Black Sabbath got.
Sabbath were persistently rejected until their fifth album (I dislike referring to wikipedia articles, but this is backed by the articles for all their first five albums) Sabbath Bloody Sabbath. The criticism was a direct result of their alien-sounding music, which clashed with the current, which was blues-inspired Hard rock, like Zeppelin, Purple, Iron Butterfly etc.
To conclude, the introduction falters and misleads, and should be rewritten more accurately. An idea is what this article does: Traditional heavy metal. Even though I fail to see the meaning of that article, and how it contradicts this one, it is more accurate in its depict of the musical interrelations of the early bands, with emphasis on Black Sabbath.. but hey, that's the case with a few 100,000 articles here on this second hand source page. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You fail to see the essence of what I'm stating, Albert. Maybe Grand Funk Railroad were reviled because they never were any good? Thought of that? Even now, in retrospect, they aren't hailed or remembered as innovators, by anyone. There's a difference between 'plain suck'- and 'misunderstood genius'-criticism. Have fun dividing Railroad and Sabbath into the different categories. Same goes for Led Zeppelin III; it has always been seen as a relative downfall in the middle of Zeppelin II and Zeppelin IV, which were hailed from the start. And Zeppelin III's current five stars from Allmusicgiude (wikipedia's biggest misplaced trust) is pure hype, as we all know. I actually commented, just recently, on the Zeppelin article, where I criticized its overuse of reliance on Rolling Stone Magazine; it practically bases its whole introduction with hails from that tacky magazine that includes 20 Beatles albums in its top 10 of the greatest albums ever. Do I need to say that a smug-faced editor came and rejected everything with wikipedian policy and subtle insults that commented on my "regrettable" wikipedia history? Ha, guess not! Funny how you refer to Zeppelin as a 'metal band', Albert. And Jesus Christ Superstar is a metal opera.
About your advocacy, Odd. Good luck with that; seems it is the only thing you do here. What is it, advocating reliable research? You have little to say about music, on the other hand, which these articles are all about, but this is wikipedia, after all; we won't hear any jingles streaming out our speakers, haha!
Oh yeah, forgot. Check this out: Hard rock: which band is missing?? Revan ltrl ( talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
RG, you state certainties, except when you say that Zeppelin are without a doubt a metal band. They have one foot in the hard rock genre, and the other in the blues genre, together with the influences you mention, and I would hesitantly include heavy metal among those influences, because none of their albums are actual heavy metal; they don't have it as an overhanging concept, but they do have heavy metal-ish (I'd say hard rock) songs in their albums, like "Whole Lotta Love" and "Immigrant Song". I am also aware of the differences in musicians' influences. Mikael Åkerfeldt's main influence in making Opeth's latest album "Watershed" were Scott Walker's The Drift, and The Zombie's Odessey & Oracle, two non-metal albums. Today I listened to Alice In Chains and Kate Bush. Revan ltrl ( talk) 21:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they're listed, but clearly as a parenthesis, whereas, not really accurate for further mentioning in that article. And my dismissal of Grand Funk Railroad is plenty relevant and accurate. I've never heard of them, and neither have Black Sabbath, I'm sure. I don't know what your source is that they were called "heavy metal" back then in the 60s(!). It may be true or not, I choose to believe it another day when I see it myself, but I am more familiar with Sabbath's influences, and I've seen Ozzy on interview saying that "there was no such thing as heavy metal back then"; it was on a heavy metal documentary called "From Black Sabbath to System of a Down", outlining a timeline for heavy metal. It was quite MTV-flashy, but surprisingly accurate, and it mentioned how Black Sabbath were set aside bands like Zeppelin and Purple because of their very different style, and stressed their sole importance. This site: http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/best_metal-art.html also shows the same thing. I know it probably isn't a reliable source, but they're knowledgeable, whoever do these lists, even though, on most of the categories, they follow a cliché pattern. But the metal page is quite good, and closer to a general consensus is hard found; it's forum decided, but I know, no reliable source. I see Grand Funk Railroad on 11th place on the list of bands that influenced metal, after bands like Pink Floyd and The Doors.
You probably like them alot, but comparing them to Sabbath is just vain; many would call, and do, Black Sabbath one of the best rock bands through all times! Unlike GFR, in which you are right.
And yeah yeah, I don't know how wikipedia works and whatever, but I sure don't like it. AMG, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, whatever; really unstable platforms to base music articles on. Just saying. I don't like blogs, either, and I make more use condemning wikipedia here than on a petty blog. Revan ltrl ( talk) 05:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Getting back to the original point, I think there is a problem in how the sentence infers that these specific bands were reviled by critics, when the point is supposed to be metal as a whole was derided. WesleyDodds ( talk) 12:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Ozzy said that "there was no such thing as 'heavy metal' back then"; he didn't say they were the first, but that the term didn't exist back then. It is very easy for someone like Don Brewer to say they were heavy metal in retrospect, though. No, I haven't heard of them. They might be grand in America, but I'm European, and not everyone makes it on both sides of the Atlantic. I looked them up when you mentioned them first, and they were what I expected; very similar to Zeppelin, very blues-influenced, and not heavy metal at all, but understandably influential, even if Sabbath never heard them. I don't disrespect them, but one can't really compare them with a band that's generally considered one of the best rock bands through all times. And Halford also says that Iommi "created the metal riff", as extra information.
Do you want my honest opinion when you ask about my view on Purple and Sabbath, or is it a rhetorical question? i don't remember saying that Deep Purple were bluesier than Sabbath. Actually, neither one of the bands were as bluesy as Zeppelin, I would say. Purple's dismissal of blues is clear, but blues is still ever-present in every album, and they don't take a clear step away from it like Sabbath does in "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Purple never were heavy metal album-wise before Sabbath, though, they were hard rock through and through. They became heavy metal first when David Coverdale became a member, in Burn, I would say. In the songs you mention, there is a standstill in the blues difference. Speaking of heavy metal, on the other hand, Sabbath has the advantage. "Sweet Leaf" is groundbreaking in a groundbreaking album; notice the riffing in between the verses, and the riffs after the guitar solo; they are but a taste of what is a norm in metal music from then on; the breaking of common scales, and heavy usage of alternative intervals, like semitones and the tritone. "Burn" came later, and is kind of metal, but made when the genre already was established by Sabbath. The other songs are a little more similar in heaviness, but it's important acknowledging that Paranoid is relatively light in Sabbath's music, while Highway Star is particularly heavy in Purple's. Purple has no candidate for comparison with War Pigs, for example.
I can't help but feel that your justification of AMG is extremely elitist. I can be, too, in music, but not when it comes to justifying a site where a person works as a reliable source, and the masses' opinions are dismissed as flies; it is the closest one comes to a general consensus. I understand how you find the masses' opinion resentful, but still, it's mainly a musician's prejudice.
As WesleyOdd says, about getting back to point. There's tons of musical evidence that Sabbath were first in discarding blues in heavy metal, and I'm strongly pro that Sabbath are set aside Zeppelin and Purple in the article. Revan ltrl ( talk) 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, looks like I was wrong about GFR, but I just spoke hypothetically and didn't really disrespect them. My respects to them, then. Let's look at the blues matter from another angle: what does Judas Priest sound like? I'm assuming this article credits their "discarding" of blues in their classic "British Steel" (another weakness is this article's vagueness), which is their sixth album? I don't think the preceding ones are really deemed as classics. I've heard "British Steel" several times, and, in my opinion, I don't think it strays from the blues one inch more than Black Sabbath. To the contrary, it's closer to blues than much of Sabbath's music, and definitely bluesier than "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath". Without source or clarity, this source states this and I don't know who the hell to ask for elaboration, and if I changed it, there would be hell to pay. I know Anthrax's drummer said exactly what the article says about Judas Priest, and he is just one hell of a source! Why not write that Iommi created the metal riff, as Halfrod says? Sabbath's discarding of blues is musical hard evidence, on the other hand, so I don't why anyone would oppose it so harshly. Important to acknowledge is the metal genre's norms, many of which were created by Sabbath. The norms follow Sabbath extensively, meaning artwork, song titles, lyrics, 'sound, and their music in general. Another point why they had superior superiority.
We've made it a matter of Sabbath-Zeppelin-Purple, about who was more influential, but my other point is a Sabbath-Priest comparison about blues-discarding. And it's hard evidence, basically, that Sabbath discarded it. Hell, "Fluff" is a Bach prelude for christ sakes! The songs' structures are as progressive as anything, and the riffing is nowhere near the blues scale. Listen to "Breaking the Law" from "British Steel"; total blues standard in comparison. Revan ltrl ( talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Your article sucks you have no idea what you are talking about. Whale Biologist calls em likes I sees em —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.136.87 ( talk) 03:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
In the lyric topics it mentions "Nuclear annihilation was addressed in later metal songs..." citing Iron Maiden's Two Minutes To Midnight
Black Sabbath's Electric Funeral was already speaking of the subject in 1970, and so was Flower Travellin' Band's Hiroshima in 1972. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.119.37 ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, don't expect any less from this bullshit article. Revan ltrl ( talk) 17:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV, and has been ignoring repeated warnings against his behavior and referrals to sources which contradict the source he has been trying to push to back up his own opinion. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Note: I changed the section title per the Talk page guidelines. This user in the above post is WesleyDodds. - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This slow motion edit war is not improving the article. Might I suggest that a request for comment be filed? - 2/0 ( cont.) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
"This user has been repeatedly reverting to the revision that best matches his own POV". No, I was was reverting to what the source said, per verifiability guidelines. I have no attachment to System of a Down or how they are classified. Also, Ibaranoff has not been assuming good faith with me, instead assuming that I had a POV agenda.
Now, as for sources. The MTV article cited describes SOAD as a nu metal band and provides a context for them within the genre. Furthermore, one of the primary metal histories used a source for the article, Ian Christe's Sound of the Beast, describes them as nu metal as well, in a chapter largely devoted to nu metal (I just double checked the book this instant). Aside from that, many of the sources Ibaranoff points to at Talk:System of a Down are album/live reviews. Reviews aren't the same as histories or biographies; they are critical commentary/opinion, and do not have authoritative weight on the histories and biogrpahies cover, because that's not what they are intended to cover. They are criticism, not research. What Ibaranoff needs to provide is a reliable source (or several) that explain why System of a Down shouldn't be classified as nu metal; providing sources that simply don't say the words "nu metal" isn't the same thing. So far I only see one source that would classify as such, that being this. Also, the methodology used on Talk:System of a Down worries me. We don't determine article content by tallying how many times a phrase is or isn't mentioned in a handful of online articles (and that is a handful; that's nowhere near the amount of press coverage the band has had in its career). WesleyDodds ( talk) 08:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
System of a Down is alternative metal which is a subgenre of nu metal. Saying System of a Down is alternative metal and not nu metal is like saying Limp Bizkit is rap metal instead of nu metal. Nu metal is just an umbrella term used to describe all metal bands that add elements of alternative or rap music to their music. Metalfan72 ( talk) 19:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Do we have any recent sources for this? Jon Pareles' 1988 quote doesn't describe much of the successful metal of the 2000s. The Priest lyrics incident should definitely be covered, but is it really representative of attitudes towards metal today? Something about problems between metal and various religious organisations might be more useful here - black metal fans burning churches for example.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
someone should add the band aerosmith or at least "back in the saddle" cauz thats defiinetly metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.19.46 ( talk) 01:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
aerosmith is definitely and absolutely not metal at all ,but glam rock ,only people born in the 18th century would consider them as heavy! Val hallen ( talk) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes go to the wiki site glam rock,aeorosmith is not metal,metal is Megadeth,Metallica,Pantera,Black Sabbath,and Black Label Society.
This article is called heavy metal music,however,it talks about metal in general,so I think the title should be changed to "Metal music",as the term "heavy metal" refers to bands such as Sabbath,Maiden,Priest,Motorhead,Saxon,Manowar,Accept and other traditional metal bands,and all of them have heavy metal listed as their genre,yet cases where this could be applied as an umbrella term are pretty rare. The Great Duck ( talk) 16:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
78.3.126.90 ( talk) 13:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be called metal music instead of heavy metal music. Heavy metal and metal are both used as titles of the whole genre but heavy metal also refers to traditional heavy metal while metal only refers the overall genre. I also don't think someone who listens to only death metal and black metal would refer to their music as heavy metal. Metalfan72 ( talk) 19:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Allmusic describe related genres of "heavy metal" to be "Hard Rock, Hardcore Punk, Grunge, Arena Rock, and Album Rock". They do not seem to recognise a separate brand of "metal", although if search style for "metal", you get a list of various sub-genres, "funk metal", "rap-metal", etc. So if there is an overall genre called "metal" distinct from "heavy metal", I don't think it exists except as a shorthand for "heavy metal", which has been around as a term since 1968/69. Rodhull andemu 22:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Then what subgenre would be used to classify bands like Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio and Black Label Society who play heavy metal that does not fit into any other subgenre? Metalfan72 ( talk) 23:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)