| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.5: The Gray Chapter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | .5: The Gray Chapter was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 17, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Without any valid links, please do not add any genres to the album until it has been released. This will be a genre war I can sense therefore in order to reach a common consensus, before you add any genre please provide an article, video or book source specific to this album and then we will change it. Kevon100 Talk! Mail 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the genre should be a general one, considering the band is a Heavy metal band it would make sense to simply use that, the album will be of this genre but any more specific or sub-genres should be left out until reliable sources can be provided to back these genres up. SilentDan ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
Kevon100
Talk!
Mail 23:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since there no citation for the general genre either, we are just going to keep getting it reverted. I'd say to leave genre out until we have citations. They will be easier to find once the album is officially released and reviewed properly. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
Kevon100
Talk!
Mail 23:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A general genre shouldn't NEED a citation, because so many people agree with it. When have you seen a song by Slipknot that wasn't some type of metal (excluding "Snuff")? Perhaps you're taking this a little too far. There aren't going to be many dead-giveaway citations because they expect their readers to know that kind of stuff. Until we do find one, which may take a while, why don't we just leave it at Metal and from there just leave it alone?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "so many people agree with it". Who? where? Can you find a rule anywhere that suggests that genres are void from
WP:RS and
WP:OR?
MOS:ALBUM even says we should have a section in each album article explaing the albums sounds and themes. If you can't find a source, leave it blank per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, but every one of the names of those genres suggested/disputed/etc. has "metal" at the end of it. An unlinked metal tag might work because metal music goes to heavy metal which isn't necessarily what they are.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you before, but just adding metal, especially without a source makes people think you don't need sources for genres. that leads to people adding their own additions to what they think is correct. I'd just leave it until a source can be found, like you would with any other information.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, well, if you're doing this to avoid wars, I suppose you have some points, but I honestly would prefer reverting them all myself until someone found one. And aren't we having that same battle now anyway? I feel like something there (metal tag) would make a little more of a difference, even being small.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree mostly, but I'd still say it's probably best to follow
WP:RS. Would like to hear what other editors think though.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have found references for genres. How does everyone think about alternative and nu metal?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Per
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, we don't use the Ultimate Guitar site as a source. So I had to remove it. :(
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you summarize why rather than looking through that text flood?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, original discussion was found here about it. Sounds legit! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 08:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you summarize why rather than looking through that text flood?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Per
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, we don't use the Ultimate Guitar site as a source. So I had to remove it. :(
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have found references for genres. How does everyone think about alternative and nu metal?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree mostly, but I'd still say it's probably best to follow
WP:RS. Would like to hear what other editors think though.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, well, if you're doing this to avoid wars, I suppose you have some points, but I honestly would prefer reverting them all myself until someone found one. And aren't we having that same battle now anyway? I feel like something there (metal tag) would make a little more of a difference, even being small.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you before, but just adding metal, especially without a source makes people think you don't need sources for genres. that leads to people adding their own additions to what they think is correct. I'd just leave it until a source can be found, like you would with any other information.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, but every one of the names of those genres suggested/disputed/etc. has "metal" at the end of it. An unlinked metal tag might work because metal music goes to heavy metal which isn't necessarily what they are.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "so many people agree with it". Who? where? Can you find a rule anywhere that suggests that genres are void from
WP:RS and
WP:OR?
MOS:ALBUM even says we should have a section in each album article explaing the albums sounds and themes. If you can't find a source, leave it blank per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A general genre shouldn't NEED a citation, because so many people agree with it. When have you seen a song by Slipknot that wasn't some type of metal (excluding "Snuff")? Perhaps you're taking this a little too far. There aren't going to be many dead-giveaway citations because they expect their readers to know that kind of stuff. Until we do find one, which may take a while, why don't we just leave it at Metal and from there just leave it alone?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- For fucksake. Just label it
Heavy metal,
alternative metal, and
nu metal. No one will have an issue with it trust me. If they do, they must not know Slipknot that well. These have the genres that the contributors have been most in favor of. And citations isn't necessary for something that was already in discussion. No would argue that
Slayer is not
thrash metal when its already common fact. No one would argue that
Dying Fetus or
Morbid Angel aren't
death metal, because its already talked about. Just like Slipknot, Im pretty sure everyone knows that those genres are what they are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs)
- I don't disagree with you. But like anything that's up to interpretation, you'll need a source per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE. But there are people who flat out out aren't familiar with these groups, and if the first place they came is here, we'd have to provide a source. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but sadly it's not the way we work here.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no automatic genre for a new album by an existing band. Any band can make a new album that goes a different direction than their previous ones. What is needed here is verifiable proof that the album's genre has been discussed in reliable publications. Binksternet ( talk) 12:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
-
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/slipknot/_5_the_gray_chapter/index.html <- Theres your source.
Nu metal,
alternative metal and
heavy metal. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- We generally don't go with the genres separated out and listed at the top or the side of a prose review. Instead, we go by the prose review itself for genres. That prose review was posted by the UG Team which is apparently the staff of the Ultimate Guitar website; staff reviews are typically accepted as good (rather than guest reviews). The UG Teams says the band is death metal dipping into commercial metal (whatever that is) but they don't say alt or nu metal. Binksternet ( talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you. But like anything that's up to interpretation, you'll need a source per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE. But there are people who flat out out aren't familiar with these groups, and if the first place they came is here, we'd have to provide a source. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but sadly it's not the way we work here.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- For fucksake. Just label it
Heavy metal,
alternative metal, and
nu metal. No one will have an issue with it trust me. If they do, they must not know Slipknot that well. These have the genres that the contributors have been most in favor of. And citations isn't necessary for something that was already in discussion. No would argue that
Slayer is not
thrash metal when its already common fact. No one would argue that
Dying Fetus or
Morbid Angel aren't
death metal, because its already talked about. Just like Slipknot, Im pretty sure everyone knows that those genres are what they are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs)
I am kinda short on time however some info in the Background section of the album can be moved over to a new Promotion section. They will be playing Knotfest the weekend the album comes out and then they'll head out on a tour with Korn and King 810 in North America dubbed the Prepare for Hell tour. Here are links if anyone is interested in adding it.
http://radio.com/2014/08/25/slipknot-new-album-gray-chapter-north-american-tour-prepare-for-hell/
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/slipknot-reveal-album-title-artwork-release-date-and-tour-dates.html Kevon100 Talk! Mail 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The Negative One is listed as the first single but Corey Taylor has stated it is not, it was just released as a "taster" of the album. The Devil In I is the first single. Can't remember where I read that first but it is mentioned here: [1]
\m/-Max-\m/ (
talk) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
MaxLees666
- This is a norm for Slipknot. This was done with the All Hope Is Gone song from the previous album as well as The Blister Exists on Vol 3 and they were listed as singles for the album. Kevon100 Talk! Mail 01:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that? Would it be appropriate to note what that meant below the tracklist? If so, how would we do it? Apparently I can't write it on the tracklist as just a small note (I didn't write it as part of the official title but I still got reverted), so what should we do? I know there are other album examples but I can't remember which ones they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyMusicEditor ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- A bit late in reply, but I don't see why it needs to be on the article at all. -- Jasca Ducato ( talk) 13:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it be a good thing to do since everyone on this page edits without discussing the changes first. And only allow some contributors. - User:PleaseConsider ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Prove it. So far I've found nothing but promo videos with possible cover art. It has been removed until proof is shown; do not change until you can source respective singles. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 20:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Their is no proof to be shown. We use sources here on the wiki. And these singles were released separately and individually. And what do you mean "possible cover art"? The artwork is what Slipknot put in themselves. -
PleaseConsider (
talk)
- I doubt they were released individually. Show me. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- And even if they did get an individual release they were not official singles they were promos so they should not be listed.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one here cares about your opinion. And do you not see the dates that the video were uploaded? Instead of wasting my time why don't you click the videos yourself, and see for yourself? Im not gonna keep telling you. Singles are singles. Enough said. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk)
- Stop using the "show me proof" as a way to defense to keep it your way. It doesn't work like that here.
- That's the thing. It DOES work like that here (partially). The thing about promos and video singles isn't opinion. I learned that from trying to list them myself. They can have their own article provided they have standard notability, but they don't go in the singles list. If they did, The Hunting Party would have " Wastelands" in the singles list. Now I know LP has nothing to do with Slipknot, but still, the LP album article series make good models. How we got away with adding them on .5 for so long is unknown to me. (And I used the "Sarcastrophe" video to follow your example - nothing giving away a true single. If it was a true single it'd be sold in stores/online for profit, aside from buying it as a part of an album.) DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stop using the "show me proof" as a way to defense to keep it your way. It doesn't work like that here.
- No one here cares about your opinion. And do you not see the dates that the video were uploaded? Instead of wasting my time why don't you click the videos yourself, and see for yourself? Im not gonna keep telling you. Singles are singles. Enough said. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk)
- The thing is that they WERE sold online. Spotfiy and iTunes made them available as soon as they were uploaded. And I cant use Spotify and iTunes links as resources. So I can't show you. This already common fact. Singles like
Disasterpiece Live were not sold in stores or anywhere for that matter. It was a promo single and its still considered a single. Either we come to an agreement now or Ill move this to the article.
- That link has absolutely nothing to do with the other singles. He's talking about how he doesn't consider The Negative One a single, but as a "gift". If you want to remove these non singles, you'd have to remove The Negative One. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You seem not to get that promotional singles are different from any other single on Wikipedia. "All Hope is Gone," "Disasterpiece" live and "The Negative One" don't really belong either, to be honest. When these singles were uploaded to iTunes and Spotify, they uploaded them as part of an album, not a standalone single. Like this, [2] if everything from track 7 on (with the exception of 11 and 13) were grayed out before the release (which they were), those were promotional singles (except for The Devil in I which we know is official). Video singles/promotional singles should be listed elsewhere on the album article, or, if still notable (they are), as a promotional single page. That has already been done. If they had their own pages on iTunes or even their own CD release as an official retail single, it would be labeled a single rather than a promo. True, they're still singles, but not the kind that get listed as official singles. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- That link has absolutely nothing to do with the other singles. He's talking about how he doesn't consider The Negative One a single, but as a "gift". If you want to remove these non singles, you'd have to remove The Negative One. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://loudwire.com/slipknot-corey-taylor-new-drummer-identity-secret-teases-new-single/
- ^ "iTunes - .5: The Gray Chapter". iTunes Previewer. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
Orphaned references in .5: The Gray Chapter
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of .5: The Gray Chapter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "US-Bubbling-Under-Hot-100-singles":
- From Slipknot discography: "Slipknot – Chart History: Bubbling Under Hot 100". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 2, 2013.
- From Korn: "Korn – Chart History: Bubbling Under Hot 100". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
Reference named "NLD":
- From All Hope Is Gone: "Search for: Slipknot". DutchCharts.nl. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
- From
Slipknot discography:
"Discografie Slipknot". dutchcharts.nl. Hung Medien. Retrieved August 29, 2008.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help)
Reference named "FRA":
- From
Slipknot discography:
"Discographie Slipknot". lescharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved August 29, 2008.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help) - From
Otep:
"Discographie Otep". lescharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved July 7, 2009.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's got an official music video, we need to decide whether this one should even be listed. I do know that normally on Wikipedia music videos don't count as official singles. I have looked for this in official single format and cannot find one; however I have seen some sources calling it a single and with a music video I think it's safe to call it as such, but what do you guys think? DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:.5: The Gray Chapter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Retrohead ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- "fifth major label studio album"–according to their wiki discography, it's their fifth overall studio album, so I would omit major-label here.
- Nothing in the quote from the Allmusic review describes the album as heavy metal. It describes it as a mixture of the "metal sound" of the first 2 albums and the melody of their later work, but does not explicitly says this is "heavy metal album".
- "Most critics noted and praised"–I think just praised would do fine.
- Can't you find a more reliable review than AntiHero Magazine? This is a Billboard no 1 album, there should be plenty of reviews to choose from. Also, Blabbermouth and Metal Hammer don't use star-reviews.
- Avoid capital letters in the reference section (check titles on refs 4, 5, 22, 39, and so.)
- How about expanding the 'Commercial performance' section? You can provide the second week US sales and chart position, and find a reference for the 310,000 copies sold by April 2015 (where–USA or worldwide?).
- I suggest placing the one sentence paragraph ("The Negative One" Grammy nomination) at the end of the critical reception.
- Is it necessary to list the release date in so many countries in the lead? Why not just released in October 2015, or released [day/month/year] in the United States.
- Can you paraphrase some of the quotes in the critical reception? It reads mostly like a quote-farm.
- Any particular songs from the album that debuted on the Knotfest or Prepare for Hell tour? How many shows the tour included, any particular incident, performance, or group jam at the concerts?
- —Since the nominator hasn't addressed the issues above, I'm closing the nomination as failed.--
Retrohead (
talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sales citations are done. They have since increased to 323,000. Unfortunately, they don't specify if it's in America or worldwide. I'm guessing it would be in America since Metal Insider mostly talks about US sales, and 323,000 albums worldwide would sound pretty dismal for a band like this. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The source I cited for the release date appears to suggest Custer got an actual release in October. It was released on the tenth of October, so I have changed it. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sixth single from .5: The Gray Chapter
I see the official site of New York rock radio station 100 XR added "Goodbye" by Slipknot on their current playlist. They also added "Lazarus" by David Bowie on the playlist. Later, Slipknot confirmed that "Goodbye" was planned as the sixth single from .5: The Gray Chapter. "Goodbye" itself is a tribute to their members Paul Gray (bassist) and Joey Jordison (drummer). Gray died in 2010 (the title of the album being a reference to his name) and Jordison departure of the band in late 2013. If this information is true, can you created article Goodbye (Slipknot song) beginning with infobox single? Wisnu Aji ( talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on .5: The Gray Chapter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819084230/http://www.kerrang.com/21493/slipknot-unveil-devil-in-i-artwork/ to http://www.kerrang.com/21493/slipknot-unveil-devil-in-i-artwork/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002161450/http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-slipknot-5-the-gray-chapter.html to http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-slipknot-5-the-gray-chapter.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030174158/http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1905 to http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1905
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151104120841/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/jim_root_seems_like_stone_sour_cant_even_write_a_new_record_they_lost_a_good_writer.html?no_takeover to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/jim_root_seems_like_stone_sour_cant_even_write_a_new_record_they_lost_a_good_writer.html?no_takeover
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
AOV, Sarcastrophe, Skeptic & The Negative One all feature Thrash Metal on their genre lists. There are also quotes backing up thrash as one of the main genres featured.
"The Gray Chapter shows off just how unexpectedly wide the band's range is, going from a plaintive, atmospheric ballad like album-opener "XIX" to a thrash-inspired pummeling like "Sarcastrophe" without missing a beat." [1] "'AOV' zips into some of the thrashiest tones Slipknot's yet delivered, but that breakneck velocity only applies to the intro and bridges." [2] "The sixth of what seemed like three-hundred singles from The Gray Chapter, AOV raises the thrash metal stakes and throws the Corey fans a bone – his rabid gibbering through the verses complement his obscenely huge clean vocals in the chorus." [3] "The next track, 'AOV', starts out of the gate with a blast-beat thrash riff which blends effortlessly with a half-time double kick drum feel of the verse sections. The chorus balances the aggression of the previous verses with layered melodic vocals." [4] "'AOV' is one of the fastest in Slipknot's arsenal, with Taylor spitting words over the rapid, thrash-fuelled verses and soaring high during the chorus." [5] The chunky, dirt-displacing low-end growl of “The Devil In I,” the pugnacious thrash of “Skeptic,” the relentless attack of “The Negative One,” the brief but tantalizing flash of ’80s shred in “Nomadic,”... [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxxyBoy ( talk • contribs)
References
-
^ Neila Owen (October 23, 2014).
"Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter".
Allmusic. Retrieved October 30, 2014.
The Gray Chapter shows off just how unexpectedly wide the band's range is, going from a plaintive, atmospheric ballad like album-opener "XIX" to a thrash-inspired pummeling like "Sarcastrophe" without missing a beat.
-
^ Van Horn, Ray, Jr.
"Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". Blabbermouth.net. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
'AOV' zips into some of the thrashiest tones Slipknot's yet delivered, but that breakneck velocity only applies to the intro and bridges.
{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) -
^ Chillingworth, Alec.
"Top 50 Best Slipknot Songs Ever". Loudersound. Metal Hammer. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
The sixth of what seemed like three-hundred singles from The Gray Chapter, AOV raises the thrash metal stakes and throws the Corey fans a bone – his rabid gibbering through the verses complement his obscenely huge clean vocals in the chorus.
{{ cite news}}: More than one of|author1=and|last1=specified ( help) -
^ Woroniak, Thomas.
"Album Review: Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". RockRevoltMagazine. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
The next track, 'AOV', starts out of the gate with a blast-beat thrash riff which blends effortlessly with a half-time double kick drum feel of the verse sections. The chorus balances the aggression of the previous verses with layered melodic vocals.
-
^ Brown, Dean (October 22, 2014).
"Reviews: Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". The Quietus. Retrieved 30 July 2015.
'AOV' is one of the fastest in Slipknot's arsenal, with Taylor spitting words over the rapid, thrash-fuelled verses and soaring high during the chorus.
-
^
"Review: Slipknot — .5: The Gray Chapter".
Revolver. 1 October 2014. Archived from
the original on 2 October 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
The chunky, dirt-displacing low-end growl of "The Devil In I," the pugnacious thrash of "Skeptic," the relentless attack of "The Negative One," the brief but tantalizing flash of '80s shred in "Nomadic,"...
- Overall album genres should come from sources talking specifically about the overall album genre. See WP:Verifiability. Album genres are not simply a collection of song genres, or genres referring to the artist. We can and should tell the reader that some songs on the album have been observed to be thrash metal, or have thrash elements. We can say that the album has thrash elements because of the thrash songs it contains. But the overall genre isn't thrash. Binksternet ( talk) 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.5: The Gray Chapter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| .5: The Gray Chapter was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 17, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Without any valid links, please do not add any genres to the album until it has been released. This will be a genre war I can sense therefore in order to reach a common consensus, before you add any genre please provide an article, video or book source specific to this album and then we will change it. Kevon100 Talk! Mail 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the genre should be a general one, considering the band is a Heavy metal band it would make sense to simply use that, the album will be of this genre but any more specific or sub-genres should be left out until reliable sources can be provided to back these genres up. SilentDan ( talk) 23:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
Kevon100
Talk!
Mail 23:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since there no citation for the general genre either, we are just going to keep getting it reverted. I'd say to leave genre out until we have citations. They will be easier to find once the album is officially released and reviewed properly. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
Kevon100
Talk!
Mail 23:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A general genre shouldn't NEED a citation, because so many people agree with it. When have you seen a song by Slipknot that wasn't some type of metal (excluding "Snuff")? Perhaps you're taking this a little too far. There aren't going to be many dead-giveaway citations because they expect their readers to know that kind of stuff. Until we do find one, which may take a while, why don't we just leave it at Metal and from there just leave it alone?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- "so many people agree with it". Who? where? Can you find a rule anywhere that suggests that genres are void from
WP:RS and
WP:OR?
MOS:ALBUM even says we should have a section in each album article explaing the albums sounds and themes. If you can't find a source, leave it blank per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, but every one of the names of those genres suggested/disputed/etc. has "metal" at the end of it. An unlinked metal tag might work because metal music goes to heavy metal which isn't necessarily what they are.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you before, but just adding metal, especially without a source makes people think you don't need sources for genres. that leads to people adding their own additions to what they think is correct. I'd just leave it until a source can be found, like you would with any other information.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, well, if you're doing this to avoid wars, I suppose you have some points, but I honestly would prefer reverting them all myself until someone found one. And aren't we having that same battle now anyway? I feel like something there (metal tag) would make a little more of a difference, even being small.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree mostly, but I'd still say it's probably best to follow
WP:RS. Would like to hear what other editors think though.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have found references for genres. How does everyone think about alternative and nu metal?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Per
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, we don't use the Ultimate Guitar site as a source. So I had to remove it. :(
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you summarize why rather than looking through that text flood?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, original discussion was found here about it. Sounds legit! Andrzejbanas ( talk) 08:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, but can you summarize why rather than looking through that text flood?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Per
WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, we don't use the Ultimate Guitar site as a source. So I had to remove it. :(
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have found references for genres. How does everyone think about alternative and nu metal?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 23:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree mostly, but I'd still say it's probably best to follow
WP:RS. Would like to hear what other editors think though.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, well, if you're doing this to avoid wars, I suppose you have some points, but I honestly would prefer reverting them all myself until someone found one. And aren't we having that same battle now anyway? I feel like something there (metal tag) would make a little more of a difference, even being small.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would have agreed with you before, but just adding metal, especially without a source makes people think you don't need sources for genres. that leads to people adding their own additions to what they think is correct. I'd just leave it until a source can be found, like you would with any other information.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 19:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, but every one of the names of those genres suggested/disputed/etc. has "metal" at the end of it. An unlinked metal tag might work because metal music goes to heavy metal which isn't necessarily what they are.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 19:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- "so many people agree with it". Who? where? Can you find a rule anywhere that suggests that genres are void from
WP:RS and
WP:OR?
MOS:ALBUM even says we should have a section in each album article explaing the albums sounds and themes. If you can't find a source, leave it blank per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 15:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A general genre shouldn't NEED a citation, because so many people agree with it. When have you seen a song by Slipknot that wasn't some type of metal (excluding "Snuff")? Perhaps you're taking this a little too far. There aren't going to be many dead-giveaway citations because they expect their readers to know that kind of stuff. Until we do find one, which may take a while, why don't we just leave it at Metal and from there just leave it alone?
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 14:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- For fucksake. Just label it
Heavy metal,
alternative metal, and
nu metal. No one will have an issue with it trust me. If they do, they must not know Slipknot that well. These have the genres that the contributors have been most in favor of. And citations isn't necessary for something that was already in discussion. No would argue that
Slayer is not
thrash metal when its already common fact. No one would argue that
Dying Fetus or
Morbid Angel aren't
death metal, because its already talked about. Just like Slipknot, Im pretty sure everyone knows that those genres are what they are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs)
- I don't disagree with you. But like anything that's up to interpretation, you'll need a source per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE. But there are people who flat out out aren't familiar with these groups, and if the first place they came is here, we'd have to provide a source. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but sadly it's not the way we work here.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- There is no automatic genre for a new album by an existing band. Any band can make a new album that goes a different direction than their previous ones. What is needed here is verifiable proof that the album's genre has been discussed in reliable publications. Binksternet ( talk) 12:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
-
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/reviews/compact_discs/slipknot/_5_the_gray_chapter/index.html <- Theres your source.
Nu metal,
alternative metal and
heavy metal. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs) 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- We generally don't go with the genres separated out and listed at the top or the side of a prose review. Instead, we go by the prose review itself for genres. That prose review was posted by the UG Team which is apparently the staff of the Ultimate Guitar website; staff reviews are typically accepted as good (rather than guest reviews). The UG Teams says the band is death metal dipping into commercial metal (whatever that is) but they don't say alt or nu metal. Binksternet ( talk) 23:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you. But like anything that's up to interpretation, you'll need a source per
WP:RS,
WP:OR and
WP:SUBJECTIVE. But there are people who flat out out aren't familiar with these groups, and if the first place they came is here, we'd have to provide a source. Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but sadly it's not the way we work here.
Andrzejbanas (
talk) 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- For fucksake. Just label it
Heavy metal,
alternative metal, and
nu metal. No one will have an issue with it trust me. If they do, they must not know Slipknot that well. These have the genres that the contributors have been most in favor of. And citations isn't necessary for something that was already in discussion. No would argue that
Slayer is not
thrash metal when its already common fact. No one would argue that
Dying Fetus or
Morbid Angel aren't
death metal, because its already talked about. Just like Slipknot, Im pretty sure everyone knows that those genres are what they are. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
PleaseConsider (
talk •
contribs)
I am kinda short on time however some info in the Background section of the album can be moved over to a new Promotion section. They will be playing Knotfest the weekend the album comes out and then they'll head out on a tour with Korn and King 810 in North America dubbed the Prepare for Hell tour. Here are links if anyone is interested in adding it.
http://radio.com/2014/08/25/slipknot-new-album-gray-chapter-north-american-tour-prepare-for-hell/
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/slipknot-reveal-album-title-artwork-release-date-and-tour-dates.html Kevon100 Talk! Mail 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The Negative One is listed as the first single but Corey Taylor has stated it is not, it was just released as a "taster" of the album. The Devil In I is the first single. Can't remember where I read that first but it is mentioned here: [1]
\m/-Max-\m/ (
talk) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
MaxLees666
- This is a norm for Slipknot. This was done with the All Hope Is Gone song from the previous album as well as The Blister Exists on Vol 3 and they were listed as singles for the album. Kevon100 Talk! Mail 01:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Anybody else notice that? Would it be appropriate to note what that meant below the tracklist? If so, how would we do it? Apparently I can't write it on the tracklist as just a small note (I didn't write it as part of the official title but I still got reverted), so what should we do? I know there are other album examples but I can't remember which ones they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyMusicEditor ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- A bit late in reply, but I don't see why it needs to be on the article at all. -- Jasca Ducato ( talk) 13:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it be a good thing to do since everyone on this page edits without discussing the changes first. And only allow some contributors. - User:PleaseConsider ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Prove it. So far I've found nothing but promo videos with possible cover art. It has been removed until proof is shown; do not change until you can source respective singles. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 20:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Their is no proof to be shown. We use sources here on the wiki. And these singles were released separately and individually. And what do you mean "possible cover art"? The artwork is what Slipknot put in themselves. -
PleaseConsider (
talk)
- I doubt they were released individually. Show me. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- And even if they did get an individual release they were not official singles they were promos so they should not be listed.
DannyMusicEditor (
talk) 04:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- No one here cares about your opinion. And do you not see the dates that the video were uploaded? Instead of wasting my time why don't you click the videos yourself, and see for yourself? Im not gonna keep telling you. Singles are singles. Enough said. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk)
- Stop using the "show me proof" as a way to defense to keep it your way. It doesn't work like that here.
- That's the thing. It DOES work like that here (partially). The thing about promos and video singles isn't opinion. I learned that from trying to list them myself. They can have their own article provided they have standard notability, but they don't go in the singles list. If they did, The Hunting Party would have " Wastelands" in the singles list. Now I know LP has nothing to do with Slipknot, but still, the LP album article series make good models. How we got away with adding them on .5 for so long is unknown to me. (And I used the "Sarcastrophe" video to follow your example - nothing giving away a true single. If it was a true single it'd be sold in stores/online for profit, aside from buying it as a part of an album.) DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stop using the "show me proof" as a way to defense to keep it your way. It doesn't work like that here.
- No one here cares about your opinion. And do you not see the dates that the video were uploaded? Instead of wasting my time why don't you click the videos yourself, and see for yourself? Im not gonna keep telling you. Singles are singles. Enough said. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk)
- The thing is that they WERE sold online. Spotfiy and iTunes made them available as soon as they were uploaded. And I cant use Spotify and iTunes links as resources. So I can't show you. This already common fact. Singles like
Disasterpiece Live were not sold in stores or anywhere for that matter. It was a promo single and its still considered a single. Either we come to an agreement now or Ill move this to the article.
- That link has absolutely nothing to do with the other singles. He's talking about how he doesn't consider The Negative One a single, but as a "gift". If you want to remove these non singles, you'd have to remove The Negative One. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- You seem not to get that promotional singles are different from any other single on Wikipedia. "All Hope is Gone," "Disasterpiece" live and "The Negative One" don't really belong either, to be honest. When these singles were uploaded to iTunes and Spotify, they uploaded them as part of an album, not a standalone single. Like this, [2] if everything from track 7 on (with the exception of 11 and 13) were grayed out before the release (which they were), those were promotional singles (except for The Devil in I which we know is official). Video singles/promotional singles should be listed elsewhere on the album article, or, if still notable (they are), as a promotional single page. That has already been done. If they had their own pages on iTunes or even their own CD release as an official retail single, it would be labeled a single rather than a promo. True, they're still singles, but not the kind that get listed as official singles. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- That link has absolutely nothing to do with the other singles. He's talking about how he doesn't consider The Negative One a single, but as a "gift". If you want to remove these non singles, you'd have to remove The Negative One. -
User:PleaseConsider (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added 16:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ http://loudwire.com/slipknot-corey-taylor-new-drummer-identity-secret-teases-new-single/
- ^ "iTunes - .5: The Gray Chapter". iTunes Previewer. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
Orphaned references in .5: The Gray Chapter
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of .5: The Gray Chapter's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "US-Bubbling-Under-Hot-100-singles":
- From Slipknot discography: "Slipknot – Chart History: Bubbling Under Hot 100". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved March 2, 2013.
- From Korn: "Korn – Chart History: Bubbling Under Hot 100". Billboard. Prometheus Global Media. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
Reference named "NLD":
- From All Hope Is Gone: "Search for: Slipknot". DutchCharts.nl. Retrieved 2008-02-07.
- From
Slipknot discography:
"Discografie Slipknot". dutchcharts.nl. Hung Medien. Retrieved August 29, 2008.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help)
Reference named "FRA":
- From
Slipknot discography:
"Discographie Slipknot". lescharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved August 29, 2008.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help) - From
Otep:
"Discographie Otep". lescharts.com. Hung Medien. Retrieved July 7, 2009.
{{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|work=( help)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Now that it's got an official music video, we need to decide whether this one should even be listed. I do know that normally on Wikipedia music videos don't count as official singles. I have looked for this in official single format and cannot find one; however I have seen some sources calling it a single and with a music video I think it's safe to call it as such, but what do you guys think? DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:.5: The Gray Chapter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Retrohead ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- "fifth major label studio album"–according to their wiki discography, it's their fifth overall studio album, so I would omit major-label here.
- Nothing in the quote from the Allmusic review describes the album as heavy metal. It describes it as a mixture of the "metal sound" of the first 2 albums and the melody of their later work, but does not explicitly says this is "heavy metal album".
- "Most critics noted and praised"–I think just praised would do fine.
- Can't you find a more reliable review than AntiHero Magazine? This is a Billboard no 1 album, there should be plenty of reviews to choose from. Also, Blabbermouth and Metal Hammer don't use star-reviews.
- Avoid capital letters in the reference section (check titles on refs 4, 5, 22, 39, and so.)
- How about expanding the 'Commercial performance' section? You can provide the second week US sales and chart position, and find a reference for the 310,000 copies sold by April 2015 (where–USA or worldwide?).
- I suggest placing the one sentence paragraph ("The Negative One" Grammy nomination) at the end of the critical reception.
- Is it necessary to list the release date in so many countries in the lead? Why not just released in October 2015, or released [day/month/year] in the United States.
- Can you paraphrase some of the quotes in the critical reception? It reads mostly like a quote-farm.
- Any particular songs from the album that debuted on the Knotfest or Prepare for Hell tour? How many shows the tour included, any particular incident, performance, or group jam at the concerts?
- —Since the nominator hasn't addressed the issues above, I'm closing the nomination as failed.--
Retrohead (
talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sales citations are done. They have since increased to 323,000. Unfortunately, they don't specify if it's in America or worldwide. I'm guessing it would be in America since Metal Insider mostly talks about US sales, and 323,000 albums worldwide would sound pretty dismal for a band like this. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The source I cited for the release date appears to suggest Custer got an actual release in October. It was released on the tenth of October, so I have changed it. DannyMusicEditor ( talk) 19:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Sixth single from .5: The Gray Chapter
I see the official site of New York rock radio station 100 XR added "Goodbye" by Slipknot on their current playlist. They also added "Lazarus" by David Bowie on the playlist. Later, Slipknot confirmed that "Goodbye" was planned as the sixth single from .5: The Gray Chapter. "Goodbye" itself is a tribute to their members Paul Gray (bassist) and Joey Jordison (drummer). Gray died in 2010 (the title of the album being a reference to his name) and Jordison departure of the band in late 2013. If this information is true, can you created article Goodbye (Slipknot song) beginning with infobox single? Wisnu Aji ( talk) 06:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on .5: The Gray Chapter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819084230/http://www.kerrang.com/21493/slipknot-unveil-devil-in-i-artwork/ to http://www.kerrang.com/21493/slipknot-unveil-devil-in-i-artwork/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141002161450/http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-slipknot-5-the-gray-chapter.html to http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-slipknot-5-the-gray-chapter.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030174158/http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1905 to http://www.fimi.it/main/chart_id/1905
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151104120841/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/jim_root_seems_like_stone_sour_cant_even_write_a_new_record_they_lost_a_good_writer.html?no_takeover to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/jim_root_seems_like_stone_sour_cant_even_write_a_new_record_they_lost_a_good_writer.html?no_takeover
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
AOV, Sarcastrophe, Skeptic & The Negative One all feature Thrash Metal on their genre lists. There are also quotes backing up thrash as one of the main genres featured.
"The Gray Chapter shows off just how unexpectedly wide the band's range is, going from a plaintive, atmospheric ballad like album-opener "XIX" to a thrash-inspired pummeling like "Sarcastrophe" without missing a beat." [1] "'AOV' zips into some of the thrashiest tones Slipknot's yet delivered, but that breakneck velocity only applies to the intro and bridges." [2] "The sixth of what seemed like three-hundred singles from The Gray Chapter, AOV raises the thrash metal stakes and throws the Corey fans a bone – his rabid gibbering through the verses complement his obscenely huge clean vocals in the chorus." [3] "The next track, 'AOV', starts out of the gate with a blast-beat thrash riff which blends effortlessly with a half-time double kick drum feel of the verse sections. The chorus balances the aggression of the previous verses with layered melodic vocals." [4] "'AOV' is one of the fastest in Slipknot's arsenal, with Taylor spitting words over the rapid, thrash-fuelled verses and soaring high during the chorus." [5] The chunky, dirt-displacing low-end growl of “The Devil In I,” the pugnacious thrash of “Skeptic,” the relentless attack of “The Negative One,” the brief but tantalizing flash of ’80s shred in “Nomadic,”... [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoxxyBoy ( talk • contribs)
References
-
^ Neila Owen (October 23, 2014).
"Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter".
Allmusic. Retrieved October 30, 2014.
The Gray Chapter shows off just how unexpectedly wide the band's range is, going from a plaintive, atmospheric ballad like album-opener "XIX" to a thrash-inspired pummeling like "Sarcastrophe" without missing a beat.
-
^ Van Horn, Ray, Jr.
"Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". Blabbermouth.net. Retrieved 22 July 2015.
'AOV' zips into some of the thrashiest tones Slipknot's yet delivered, but that breakneck velocity only applies to the intro and bridges.
{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link) -
^ Chillingworth, Alec.
"Top 50 Best Slipknot Songs Ever". Loudersound. Metal Hammer. Retrieved 1 April 2022.
The sixth of what seemed like three-hundred singles from The Gray Chapter, AOV raises the thrash metal stakes and throws the Corey fans a bone – his rabid gibbering through the verses complement his obscenely huge clean vocals in the chorus.
{{ cite news}}: More than one of|author1=and|last1=specified ( help) -
^ Woroniak, Thomas.
"Album Review: Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". RockRevoltMagazine. Retrieved 23 July 2015.
The next track, 'AOV', starts out of the gate with a blast-beat thrash riff which blends effortlessly with a half-time double kick drum feel of the verse sections. The chorus balances the aggression of the previous verses with layered melodic vocals.
-
^ Brown, Dean (October 22, 2014).
"Reviews: Slipknot – .5: The Gray Chapter". The Quietus. Retrieved 30 July 2015.
'AOV' is one of the fastest in Slipknot's arsenal, with Taylor spitting words over the rapid, thrash-fuelled verses and soaring high during the chorus.
-
^
"Review: Slipknot — .5: The Gray Chapter".
Revolver. 1 October 2014. Archived from
the original on 2 October 2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
The chunky, dirt-displacing low-end growl of "The Devil In I," the pugnacious thrash of "Skeptic," the relentless attack of "The Negative One," the brief but tantalizing flash of '80s shred in "Nomadic,"...
- Overall album genres should come from sources talking specifically about the overall album genre. See WP:Verifiability. Album genres are not simply a collection of song genres, or genres referring to the artist. We can and should tell the reader that some songs on the album have been observed to be thrash metal, or have thrash elements. We can say that the album has thrash elements because of the thrash songs it contains. But the overall genre isn't thrash. Binksternet ( talk) 22:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)