Talk:Heavy metal

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Excuse me for being an old git who can remember when Iron Maiden actually started, but what's corpse paint? Totnesmartin 14:02, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

The stuff that these guys are wearing. It's possible to make it effective, but most bands using it just end up looking like clowns. Some get away with it by playing well, others (Dimmu Borgir?) play like clowns too. Totally necro clowns of Satan, but still clowns. -Sρΐяαl.Дгсђıτέςτstand up and shout 04:03, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
I can't see the link. Totnesmartin 04:12, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
While most of this article is fairly well-organized, the lead paragraph ends up at "corpse paint", which should surely be in a lower section? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:41, 12 September 2008 (EDT)
Not to be confused with corpsing. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Violence[edit]

Being a metalhead myself, I've attended many metal/hardcore punk shows. The crowds can be rather complacent, surprisingly. There needs to be a catalyst, usually in the form of a drunk-off-the-ass meathead who wants to beat the all holy crap out of some kids. Then violence ensues. Speakerface 17:31, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

Or there's the kid who looks like he's desperate to start a push-pit but doesn't have the balls, so I nudge him gently (well, often I've picked them up and thrown them) into the hardest, biggest, beardiest looking bloke there. That kicks things off quite nicely I find. But the thing is, even after the most horrendous pits, everyone has a quiet pint afterwards while comparing injuries. All clean, civilised fun. ArmondikoVpostate 17:43, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, that's very effective as well. And oftentimes when someone gets knocked down, someone is going to pick you up. Most people aren't in it to inflict 'serious' physical damage, they are just letting loose their frustrations. Speakerface 08:44, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Back in the days when I was a roadie I never had any problems from the metal heads or the punks. On the other hand I did an old fashioned Rock'n'roll show with Shakin' Stevens back in the early 80s and we had violent fights nearly every night. We had to pull the band off stage twice. Silver Sloth 08:58, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Yay[edit]

Thanks for this article. It made my day. Long live metal. Researcher 01:44, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Particlularly "Heavy Metal on Wikipedia" for me. So it's not just me who thinks this genre nit-picking is just frikin silly!! Thank you :D :D. I love you all!! ArmondikoVpostate 09:35, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia weighs in[edit]

Some crybaby on Conservapedia made his own heavy metal article. Behold the stupidity that is:

http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Jose83/metal86.46.192.63 15:53, 8 December 2008 (EST)

That's a pretty stupid article. I lol'd when I read it --Paul Stanley 21:10, 30 December 2008 (EST)

I laughed at it too,they listed AC/DC as heavy metal,when they're actually hard rock. Axlebookmite (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to fail at resisting pointing out the obvious 1) it's in a userspace, so certainly is not a Conservapedia article 2) it's likely parody, particularly as the user has been repeatedly warned on the talk page. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What to add, what to delete[edit]

Add to Human's version of the list:

Motorhead, Megadeth, Def Leppard, Slayer, DragonForce

Remove Avenged Sevenfold on down. --Mëtäl Mönstër 23:10, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for coming here. The trouble here is worrying about ooh, what bands are heavy enough and metal enough to satisfy... who? The public? You? Me? (PS, it wasn't "my" list). Here at RW we tend to be more "inclusive", meaning that, let's say, if you added bands they might stick. If you deleted bands others added, you have made yourself the self-annointed arbiter of what is HM and what isn't. And I would argue for the inclusivity. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 19 December 2008 (EST)

Gotta say, I do agree with Metal Moron, Led Zep and G'n'R don't belong on the list. Neither one of them described their sound as metal, and neither actually sound anything like metal. I'm gonna remove 'em. --Kels 23:29, 19 December 2008 (EST)

I dunno, Zep were a definitive part of the evolving of metal. And if they weren't heavy, who was? Self description is not enough, since sometimes the description comes after the band is done. GnR, probably not heavy metal. But close. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:38, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Pre-metal if anything, but they existed before metal as a genre really got going. Hard rock works. As to G'n'R, same thing, later period. Seriously, if you're going to add all the precursors to metal, you might as well start throwing in blues artists too. --Kels 23:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)
Well, check out Helter Skelter... before a genre is "defined" by critics and fans, it can still "exist" in a proto form. Anyway, if LZ isn't heavy metal, what the hell is? Listen to Heartbreaker recently? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)
PS, Kiss is on this list? Kiss? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:42, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Do we really need a list of metal bands if it's going to be such a bone of contention? Ultimately it's fairly peripheral to our missions. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 17:46, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Well, it's pretty much a side-track and an interesting distraction at least. Now, the thing is, I view the people who fuss over genres and which bands are "metal" and which one aren't as similar to creationists and other nujobs. Basically, they can't think objectively, think they're right about anything and everything, shut down opposing views and generally act like complete and utter knob-jockies. (I was recently in a conversation about such things on a facebook group and posted a link to RW's explanation of heretic to describe the situation). Anyway, that's how I justify it; expanding our horizons as to what rationality is. Music genres aren't real and defining yourself by them and constantly fussing is certainly irrational. ArmondikoVpostate 18:18, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Speaking as one who likes anything from Bach to the Beach Boys to teh Stones to Pink to Grieg to Led Zepp, I agree totally Armond. 18:24, 21 December 2008 (EST)
ADK--I agree and disagree with you. Arguing over genres is silly, but I think we'd all agree, for instance, that Miles Davis isn't metal. If we have things like words and categories, then it would only be rational to use them in the proper way. PFoster 18:26, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Oh yes, to a degree it works. I mean, I'm not going to call Gilbert & Sullivan "heavy metal", but I would be tempted to call some Wagner and Orff as metal... to a degree anyway (the "for a certain value of true" as Pratchett would say). I've got to commend you on the "because I feel like being a jerk" edit summary; it pretty much sums it up. But if it edit wars, I'm going to include them all and go for a full Metal-observer style summary of each sub-sub-sub-genre for each of them. And then step back and watch the sparks fly, as is always fun. ArmondikoVpostate 18:36, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Since when isn't Miles Davis metal??? Die, heretic!!! Trumpets are made of metal, are they not? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:59, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Here is proof Slipknot and Korn are not metal http://www.angelfire.com/80s/hairhole/numetal.html --Jonasbrothershater666 18:03, 23 December 2008 (EST)
Wow, angelfire still exists? So, JHB666, you believe everything you read on some website? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

I had made a bunch of changes and got EC'd by Korn being deleted again. Here's the edit comment because I knew where to look: "Korn is not real metal If it is Brian "Head" Welch's hair that makes it metal, then they are not metal anymore since Welch has left the band to start his solo career" I bet he chickens out and goes back. Anyway, he was in the band. Is Led Zeppelin any less Metallic due to being partly dead and long past broken up? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:14, 23 December 2008 (EST)

It was a pun on the joke reason. Korn is not metal because it is just the same E-chord and screaming swear words into a microphone, in one song there was 15 different swear words and racial slurs in a row --Jonasbrothershater666 18:21, 23 December 2008 (EST)
I think we could get rid of the list before it grows into a list of every possible HM band. Do we really need it except for various editors to squee about bands they like for thirty seconds? Totnesmartin 18:43, 23 December 2008 (EST)
I think we should change it to a list of bands no MetalPedia fan would include, that way they'll all be mad at us. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:17, 23 December 2008 (EST)
One of the main problems in defining genres and micro genres is that the meanings of a lot of the words used to classify bands change over time. Bands such as Def Leppard were, back in the olden days of the NWOBHM, regarded as a metal band - nowadays, they aren't. My friends and I used to use a simple scale where anything as heavy, or heavier than Metallica's Black Album or Megadeth's Countdown To Extinction were metal, but anything softer was not. Heavy bands like KoRn or Atari Teenage Riot make things a bit more complicated as, according to our old scale, they're certainly heavy enough to qualify but are stylistically different enough that calling them "Metal" or "Heavy Metal" doesn't quite feel right. In the late 1980s and through the 90s there was also a significant amount of stigma attached to the word which made many bands (Machine Head for example) reluctant to refer to themselves as "Metal" for fear that people would assume they sounded like Poison or Cinderella. --Stickie 86.29.236.140 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't wait to be able to call KoRn "classic rock"! Scarlet A.pngd hominem 12:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if in 60 years the death metal i listen to will be viewed as old people's music. (talk to a) Nihilist 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Added to sections Satanism, Violence and Christian Metal from what I know in black/viking metal, death metal and power metal. I also want to add that deciding what capitalization to use when and trying to make all the capitalization consistent throughout the article is a massive fucking pain! :D Nullahnung (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Since nothing links here, move to fun?[edit]

What say you? PFoster 18:31, 21 December 2008 (EST)

No. The subject of conservatives' exaggerated perception of heavy metal comes within our missions & is one of the points of the article. It should really be linked from some articles (not sure which, off the top of my head). The problem at the moment is that the article is being drawn into fanboy territory & edit warring over who is & isn't a metal band, which is not within our missions. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 18:35, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Agreed on that. The perception of rock music in general, particularly as part of the Satanic Panics etc. is well within mission so we're within mission and responsibility to clear things up. The anti-fanboyism is pretty much only a side point that I'd like to bring up but it's only vaguely on mission if at all. ArmondikoVpostate 18:38, 21 December 2008 (EST)
I'm thinking of renaming the "bands" section to 1. make a lame joke and B. sort of play the fundy card backwards (if you play it that way). ħumanUser talk:Human 18:40, 21 December 2008 (EST)
Alright then--maybe our new fanboy can think of something smarter than his "more metal than thou" edits to put this thing on mission, then, 'cause basically I agree with the Weasel. PFoster 18:41, 21 December 2008 (EST)
I was thinking of something a little more subtle but fine by me :P ArmondikoVpostate 18:44, 21 December 2008 (EST)
So, when are we gonna add the source of the phrase? That scifi writer guy, um, Gibson was it? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:55, 21 December 2008 (EST)
May be more complicated than that. See WP on etymology, where it seems that the musical use was an insult. Which I find rather awesome, in a way. ArmondikoVpostate 19:26, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Hee[edit]

That pulled 'em out of the woodwork! Toast 21:52, 23 December 2008 (EST)

The horns[edit]

The \m/ horns are also known as "the goat," for reasons that escape me. Just thought you might like to know... 59.167.60.156 21:43, 31 January 2009 (EST)

<display=ignorance> what're \m/ horns? </display> Toast s.png (Toast) and marmalade 22:01, 31 January 2009 (EST)
Take your hand and make a fist, then, extend your index and pinkie (small) fingers. That is what \m/ is. 65.44.125.14 22:08, 31 January 2009 (EST)

rename?[edit]

Calling this "heavy metal music" just looks really clunky, it's what a broadsheet newspaper or your teacher would call it. I suggest a move to "Heavy metal" - we're not going to have articles on lead or anything to cause confusion, and the article also covers the wider culture of HM. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it used to be that. It makes sense to have the article titles punchier. As you say, it's not going to be ambiguous unless we want separate articles on heavy metals, which cause heavy metal poisoning, which are often cured (legitimately, I believe) with chelation therapy. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else want to chime in? Totnesmartin (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Heavy metal TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Heavy music with metal in it. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Music Which is Not to be Confused with Lead Despite its Name. Acei9 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Freddie Mercury. I do think we might want or need an article on actual heavy metals, this should probably stay as it is. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
However, I think it should be renamed "Heavy Metal music", since all (or most of) the usages in the article capitalize it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Heavy Metal music" seems lame to me. I think simply "Heavy Metal" would be much moar better. We could always change it if articles on actual heavy metals are added. PACODOGwoof, bitches 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering this is barely on-mission, and heavy metal would easily be a prime article (see chelation therapy, and that vaccine stuff), nah. How about "Heavy Metal (music)"? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
'Tis convention. A heavy metal article could be good. I might look up some stuff on it. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it rated "bronze" then? PACODOGwoof, bitches 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it's a half-decent article quality overall. Aspects of the satanic panics are very on-mission. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation[edit]

We are are all over the map on this. Title is heavy metal. Some headers are Heavy Metal. Well, do we cap Metal everywhere, along with Heavy, or not? Thoughts? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

White pride and NSBM[edit]

There should be a section on national socialism and Nazism in certain metal sub-genres, particularly National Socialist Black Metal (NSBM), as well as unrelated notorious artists such as Burzum who have also displayed racist tendencies. Maybe I'll do it a bit later. Woodgod (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Genres[edit]

I think that this article needs to have a section which mentions the basic sub-genres and what they are. I mean, I'm a metalhead, so I can understand everything, but for a non-metalhead, it would be somewhat confusing to see "funeral doom" and "thrash" and "death" and stuff everywhere. Anyone agree? Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should just trust that potential readers can google or wikipedia the sub-genres for themselves. I think a listing and explanation of the mentioned sub-genres that goes into enough detail so as to not be crappy or useless would bloat the article too much. I will see what others have to say on this, though. Right now I think it's unnecessary. Nullahnung (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
We were actually hoping to avoid the genre wars that go on in other parts (see the "Heavy Metal on Wikipedia" section for why). SophieWilderModerator 21:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. I wasn't really thinking of going into the "post-neoclassical progressive blackened technical crossover gothic death thrash" stuff, I was just thinking of the big sub genres. But yeah, I guess that it could start genre wars, and you'd, of course, then get the "tr00 m3t4l \/\/4rr10rzz" going and saying "this genre isn't true metal! That genre isn't true metal!", as the article describes at Metal-Archives. Meh, I'll think about it. Messiah of Doom- Unite with thy Oracle 21:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)