Talk:Heavy metal subculture/Archive 1

Metal Bands??

I beg to differ SouthAmericanRocker. Black Sabbath may have started the metal movement, but they are not a metal band. Though Doom Metal takes many influences from Sabbath, they weren't a metal band. Ozzy Osbourne's solo works on the other hand, were metal. Black Sabbath I'd call Doom/hard rock.- PedroFromHell

What? Black Sabbath played "not one metal technique or characteristic in their whole discography"? You're either joking, have never heard Black Sabbath before, or simply don't know anything about heavy metal. Have you heard songs like "Children of the Grave", "Into the Void", "Neon Knights", "Symptom of the Universe", "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" or even just the obvious ones like "Iron Man" or their title track? Buddy, wake up - not just those ones, but NUMEROUS other Sabbath tracks contain clear elements of heavy metal playing techniques, like the chugging, fast tempo riffs, rhythm patterns, dark melodies, and song structures. It's funny how you think Ozzy is metal (which he is) but Sabbath isn't, considering every song I just listed (and Sabbath in general) is WAY heavier than anything Ozzy ever put out. But then again, that's coming from someone who thinks a band started metal, but isn't metal... -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.209.210 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't aware "chugging" and "dark melodies" were techniques. Let alone techniques specific to metal. If by chugging you mean palm muting, you'll accept that it's not unique to metal. And what exactly is a "dark melody"? Is melody measured or categorized by brightness? I disagree, I wouldn't consider Black Sabbath metal. Who edited my original post and strafed it with spelling mistakes and double negatives? If it's not signed by me with four tildes then I didn't write it.PedroFromHell (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are techniques, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say that those are unique to metal, though they ARE USED in metal. By "chugging" I wasn't really referring to palm-muting, just a riffing technique (think the opening/main riff of "Symptom of the Universe" and the one from "Paranoid" - yes, it's a simple technique used in rock, but the way Sabbath used it influenced many metal bands and this can be seen extensively in speed/thrash metal). And dude, you know exactly what I mean by "dark melodies", we're talking about metal here and it doesn't take a metalhead to figure out that those Sabbath songs I listed sound DARK. That's all I'm gonna say about that, since it's so obvious. Why can't a sequence of notes be described as dark? And you didn't say why you think Sabbath isn't metal, or why those songs aren't metal. I honestly can't see how a convincing argument can be made to that point. -Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.209.210 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No I don't know exactly what you mean when you say "dark melodies". I imagine "chugging" is an onomatopoeic word, so apart from palm muting, I can't think of any other actual technique that makes a chugging sound, and in any case, the opening of 'Paranoid' sounds nothing like the word chugging. Genre is a subjective thing, and I wrote that first post a long time ago, so long ago in fact, that don't even remember writing it. Now that you've mentioned 'Paranoid' and I've remembered a lot of tracks I hadn't considered, yes, I can see why Black Sabbath is closer to metal than I initially thought, but I'm still not sure I'd consider them a Metal band. At any rate, "chugging" and "dark melodies" are very ambiguous terms and certainly not metal techniques. Although you have all the right in the world to describe a melody as dark, your perception of a dark melody is likely to be very different to mine, and when you're talking about techniques you should be closer to set, established methods rather than vague adjectives from a personal view. Good day. --PedroFromHell (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What a daft argument. Black Sabbath are widely recognised (along with the likes of Led Zepplin and Deep Purple) with helping to create the Heavy Metal genre. Go look at the article on Heavy Metal Music for more info with refs. I suppose it could be argued they wern't part of the genre as it didn't really exist when they first emerged, but since they were pretty pivotal in creating the genre that would be a pretty thin hair to try and split. If you look at any serious history of the music they are consistently mentioned as one of the early metal bands. Anyway, if you want to debate this further I'd suggest doing it on the Heavy Metal article, where you'll find plenty of people who will be happy to discuss it. Not this moronic non-article that claims to be about metal fans!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple etc may have influenced the Heavy Metal genre, but that doesn't mean they were part of the genre. In the same way that Jesus wasn't a Christian. I wrote abote this too, years ago, scroll down a bit. As I say, genre is subjective and relies on opinion. My opinion is that Black Sabbath aren't metal, yours is different, hence the argument. This would mean any difference of opinion is a daft argument, according to you. We were having a perfectly happy discussion until you came in with your "people say this so it must be true". I've already found one peer who's happy to discuss it, and it does relate to the article, which, by the way, is an article article. Excuse us. --PedroFromHell (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, yeah, "chugging" isn't the best way to describe the riffing I was talking about - it was just a word at the top of my head, so excuse me for not knowing the real terms or whatever. I completely agree that genre is subjective, and I like the Jesus analogy. For me, the only argument I can understand for Sabbath not being regarded as metal is that they emerged playing that style of music long before the whole movement existed, unconscious of the fact that they were pioneering heavy metal - of course, if you asked them back in the early 70s what they played, they'd say rock, though certainly a variety much heavier and darker than anything anyone had ever heard (and quite removed from standard hard rock of the day)! I respect your opinion, I've encountered very few who disagree Sabbath are metal. But man, listen to all those songs up there again, and don't forget the Dio 80s era either. I'd be surprised if you gave albums like "Paranoid", "Master of Reality", "Heaven and Hell", and "Mob Rules" good, full listens and didn't think they're metal! Later dude. - Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.209.210 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As I respect yours. You're right, those songs you've mentioned are good examples of Black Sabbath playing Metal. But I still don't think I'd consider them a Metal band, not all their songs fit the genre, and the ones that do were probably by accident. Anyway, keep on truckin'. --PedroFromHell (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Friggen Killswitch engage woo omg they rock..Shane Wilson absolutley hates them. what a garbar lurker,,, peace out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.141.7 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

First metal band ever: Korn. - 14:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)- SouthAmericanRocker

Sorry but, how exactly is Led Zeppelin metal? And Queen? Queen wrote one song that could be considered actual metal, but that does not make them a metal band. And how about Deep Purple? I respect all these bands, and, though maybe pioneers to metal, they aren't bands that ever played the genre of metal.

Also it should be added under the 'Metalheads are often portrayed as un-intelligent' that metal music is one of the most difficult types of music to play, requiring high levels of skill, talent, theory, physical endurance, patience and creativity- among many other virtues found in the very best of musicians. -PedroFromHell

Well said Pedro. Those bands certainly were related and had a role in the development, but no I would not say they are metal either. The distinction should be made, or at least the author should say that Led Zeppelin is debated as being on of the first along with....etc..

This is an excellent point. Precision is another trait. Whereas rock is more loose, metal is more punchy and sharp, so precision and the ability to repeat up to high speeds is necessary. Incassiana 04:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is written like a patronizing review of biased books by biased authors. This entire article is invalid as presented and is clearly condescending about the subject described. I don't claim capability to rewrite it but will certainly object to it as is. The books cited frequently in the article are not neutral and imply by the tone and language of the cited sentences that the authors are not members of the group they are describing and therefore cannot objectively define the subject. Just because a book is cited, this doesn't make the sentence or book a valid reference or even a factual claim about the subject. The entire concept of the group as exclusionary, if true, cannot be impartially defined by the authors. The article is demeaning to the group in that it is written in a manner implying the group is "bad" or somehow not "good" for society. 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Dane Rasmussen

\m/DUDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.135.138 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any facts here

So much of this article is guessing and is not factual. The metal scene might be similar around the world, but not everything about it is the same. Mosher is not just a recent term used in 2000, as it was being used when the most extreme music was thrash and everyone was a thrasher or a mosher, this was back in the late 1980's. Add to that, the Metal scene in the US is actually quite diverse especially on the East and West coast. This artcle needs to be written over completely, and maybe done by eras and broken down that way. There aren't enough facts here.

the hyperlink for "hesher" in the first sentence links to a Nickelback album...while mildly humorous, it doesn't need to do that. Jowe27 18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A Metalhead who's main intrest is Black Metal Is called a "Blacker", Now, When I change it to that, Stop Changing it back.

wow a page dedicated to ourselves. :P I don't know about that though, many people have different names for it like blackbanger but that appears to me quite ridiculous. I'm a Black Metal fan myself and haven't called myself like that ever. :P Darksteel 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm only aware of the term "blacker" being used twice: once by the user up above, the other by someone who's friend (from another country). Said person told me this only after I mentioned that someone on Uncle Wiki claims it is an established term. --Ours18

According to Colbert, anything on here is fact. Ootmc 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All the “”'s are screwed up :( Someone please fix it :D ebi 19:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Caused by people with different encoding sets making edits. Someone probably wasn't using Unicode UTF-8 (would depend on web browser, country, etc) and so the ' marks looked like ? to them or something, so changed it. It's not ment lt to mess up the article, but it's an issue people need to know about. I'll revert and make a comment. Dace59 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither Metallers nor Blacker is in usage in the UK

I've never heard Blacker used before. But I've heard and used Metaller myself But I don't think the usage is that wide anymore.. Dace59 21:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Metaller is in very wide usage; it's all over British message boards and has even appeared in the news: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/31/ngangs31.xml

"She had been labelled a "metaler" – a reference to heavy metal music – by her alleged assailant and her friends. " Ours18 20:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I get called a Metaller, Metalhead or Headbanger, but that is from a wide range of people; yes, I am British. Come to think of it, why the hell are "Glam Metallers" mentioned? Hair Metal has sod all to do with actual metal, it's a watered-down pop equivalent from the 80s seriously lacking in the heavy, dark, epic or aggressive elements of the real thing! AdmiralvonAxehaufen 19:18, 2 November 2006

True. Glam Metal is just pop rock played in a hard rock fashion. Sleaze metal is quite pop orientated, too, but i think it can be considered metal to a lesser extent.

Just so you all know...metalcore is a popular genre for "mallcore" people right now...so that might just needs to be change up a bit. Also, nu metal is slowly tying into the "fasioncore" label, though i don't think it is enough to change what you have. Inthebox04 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

However, neither of these genres are actually a kind of Heavy metal. Metalcore is hardcore/emocore punk and nu metal.... nu metal is midpaced rock music with too much synthesizer, extremely down tuned guitars who the average mtv listener and many hiphop fans listen to.

Nice to see a page on ourselves, this article needs a major revamp with enough citations, i think everybody should write about what they think is wrong or has been guessed or been written without any proof. Lets get this article up with correct information.

Let's 4get all the different names, and just call ourselves "people who listen to metal." Seems a lot easier. Ootmc 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this entire article is that, as has been discussed, there is nothing close to resembling a fact here. It also suffers from a distinct and highly pronounced lack of objectivity in addition to its nomenclatorial deficencies. Personally, I would second a major revision of this article, but not along temporal or epochal lines. Perhaps a group effort that, as has been suggested, strives to not make umbrella generalities and takes into account the diversity of the 'average' metal fan. Most of the perspective and subsequent analysis of this article is derived from a fairly shallow fashion perspective, making that somewhat its defining character. I would argue, and I think in convincing fashion, that a metalhead's attire is an insignificant factor in determining the level of dedication to the scene. Many fans are restricted in their outward expressions by work and other unavoidable societal constraints, but this does not lessen their dedication.

Also, the section that refers to 'moshing' makes the assumption that it is a relatively new behavior and characteristic of younger metalheads. Although my coming of age was the 1990s (I was born in the early 80s), the behavior was certainly there when I began actively participating in the scene and is not strictly limited 'newer' styles of metal. I would argue that it has gained noteriety recently because of its widespread cultural acceptance, both within and outside the scene. Much in the way that 'shock rock' isn't as shocking anymore because of changing cultural values, 'moshing' has become something prevalent across the board.

Also, the term 'mallcore' needs to be either eliminated as a descriptive moniker or heavily contextualized, as it is a perjorative term utilized by 'metal elitists', and is certainly not used by those fans who listen to the genre, as defined by 'traditionalists'. However, the term should certainly be used in a discussion of trends prevalent in the metal scene, as it is a significant indicator as to how the scene defines itself. Perhaps a redefinition of the various styles should be made as well, as many of them (doom metal, death metal, nu metal, thrash metal, 'traditional' metal, alternative metal etc.) can be lumped into larger categories, since, in many cases, fans of one genre that has significant ties to another tend to be fans of both.

Thus, it could be safe to assume, as far as a general encyclopedic narrative is concerned, that there are certain branches that are somewhat harmonious, aside from their specific intricacies that need not be particularly explored within this article. For instance (and please, feel free to interject and correct me where I am wrong), death, doom, black, and goth metal could be grouped together, as the attitude and behavior of fans of each share enough similarities that any mention of specific 'docternal' differences could be addressed in a seperate paragraph, if and how they exist, without detracting from the larger narrative.

Similarly, the umbrella 'nu metal' description could encompass alternative, nu, and rap metal with a high level of consistency. 'Traditional' metal, along with speed, thrash, power, glam etc., could all be grouped together, as musically, they share a common thread and overlapping subcultural behaviors and attitudes. Ultimately though, the only unifying and non-debatable aspects of the 'metalhead' moniker are that the fans enjoy music that is predominantly minor in mode and an almost universal love for the dominant 5th.

I don't mean to make light of this article, but the "Subgroups" section is unintentionally hilarious. "Folk Metaller?" "Viking Metaller?" Are these accepted categories? Whatever happened to rockin' the F out to some good metal tunes, regardless of their adherence to Nordic mythology? Sorry to clutter, but I think that section is a bit superfluous, especially without citations. BrunoRT 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This article sais that metal started from the NWOBHM???!!!! MADDDD!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.83.242 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

what?

the whole part about Nu metal being mainstream music and not really metal at all seems not only extremly POV it's also out of place in the fashion segment. God damn it, to whomever wrote that crap, you make it sound like a band like Spineshank or Fear Factory are more likely to be played at an olds folks party then soft bands from power and heavy metal and hardrock. Someone should clean that up.

LOL!! Grave Digger's a hell of a lot heavier than some mall bullshit like Spineshank. And though they suck, Fesr Factory have primarily been a Death Metal band with only one mallcore-ish album in their repetoire (Digimortal). They're hardly comparable to Spineshank which is straight up Mallcore.

-How is Power Metal soft?

I don't know who the hell Grave Digger are but if they are power or heavy metal than they are softer by definition, having guitar solos and a singer that sings in a fashion females would find "over-the-top-feminine" is not heavy. If they are not power or heavy metal then I don't see what the hell they have to do with this discussion to do? Also, I wish people stopped thinking in terms of "heavy=cool=Ihatemyparents". Iron Maiden are arguably "more metal" than, say, Mudvayne though Mudvayne are heavier, so the heavy argument says little of how metal a band is. Also pretty much every album Fear Factory made after the first one fits nicely into the Nu-metal categories without friction. Wanting them to be Death still doesn't make them so.

Power Metal is soft compared to most other genres of Metal. Compare Hammerfall and Hellowen with any of the heavier Nu-metal bands. 

Hello brothers and sisters, yes it is nice to see an article on us, however i feel rather strongly that anything what so ever to do with nu metal should be taken out of this article as nu metal and true metal (whether it be black, death, grindcore ect) are two completely different things. And i for one do not want to be affiliated with something so...wilted.

that statement sounds rather arrogant and elitist. whether you like it or not, 'nu metal' was a specific trend and style that had its time and is now past, but the very same could be said of 'traditional' metal. Its sound and style is equally dated and, dare i say, wilted. thankfully, the equally overplayed 'core' genres have helped to keep interest in it alive, but at the expense of making the entire scene seem outdated and reveling in its 'glory' years. lets face facts, nu metal only came about because 1)everyone that starts a band, whether they want to admit it or not, wants to be a rockstar, and 2) 6/8 time signatures and complex arangements aren't going to get you there. slayer, metallica and megadeth brought me into the scene, and helped introduce to me to cannibal corpse, decapitated and emperor. i would never have discovered louisiana's gem acid bath had it not been for nu metal though, and, whether spineshank, nothingface and lollipop lust kill are all lumped into that umbrella 'nu metal', i don't care. they all made/make music that i enjoy just as much as 'traditional' bands, and with a couple of them, enjoy more because there's a certain differeniation of sound and style that is absent among many 'traditional' bands. and yes, i'll be the first to admitt that each side of the spectrum has overindullged in the cliches associated with them. how 'poppy' can metal be before it stops being metal? but, conversely, how 'traditional' can metal be before its the same song over and over. maybe metal needed nu metal only insofar as to drive it away from pop and punk (musically). maybe they were good though, as they breathed new life into a genre that was just as cliche as punk.

i gotta say the article does seem a little outdated. not many people wear the patchy jackets or vests. P.S. Leather jacker-cool+leather vest-not cool=leather sleevs are cool. just thought i outa mention it.24.144.137.244 18:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ya, I'm a guitarist. I know and agree Ootmc 23:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"... having guitar solos and a singer that sings in a fashion females would find "over-the-top-feminine" is not heavy.....Also pretty much every album Fear Factory made after the first one fits nicely into the Nu-metal categories without friction.........."

Wow that's pretty ignorant. How about King Diamond? He sings "over-the-top-feminine" as you call it. Are you going to argue his place in heavy metal? Vocal style is only one component and not the determiner of what "is" metal. Next, saying FF is nu-metal shows you have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Transgression was by popular vote, their weakest album and yes, one could argue, had a lot of nu-metal slant. But FF is melodic industrial death metal. More death in the earlier days, and a lot more melodic industrial metal later on.

To the person who said, "Hello brothers and sisters," first of all, thank you. |m| It warms my heart to here us ladies being greeted, as I mentioned below that this article is completely male-biased. I think the nu-metal question is a slippery slope. Honestly, I hate that term. I prefer alternative metal, although others have debated me about the distinctions. I think earlier alternative metal like System of a Down, Tool, earlier Static-X, definitely was more in the metal direction, but later nu-metal has been stripped of its metal and is nothing but breakdowns and verses. Incassiana 03:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Somthing missing

Shouldn't there be something on the article that describes the metalhead's perspective on other musical genres, since its almost apparent that the metal comunitty shows great disrespect for many other genres (esp mainstream) anonymous 13:08, 10 FEB 07

Damb Straight! I think I can speak for more people than just myself when I say We hate all that other crap like Lionel Ritchie, Britney Spears, Tupac crap ect.

We have enough POV stuff going on with the nu metal stuff. Besides, we're metalheads, it's generally assumed we listen to metal and not disco. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slayer425 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Maybe so but many of us are just generally filled with Hate, eg hatebreed (very good band) and as a further example, I hate your comment, and I hate you. Metal is music for angry young men, and those who feel like angry young men, like me.

maybe if you listen to terrible nu metal bands like hatebreed then yes, I can see someone having a very closed-minded view of music. But for the majority of people that listen to REAL metal, I can say that they aren't bound to listen to one genre and one genre alone.

• I wasn't suggesting that metalheads "hate" other genres or that they are bound to only metal(and I am not narrow-minded,in fact I just so happen to pride myself of being the very opposite B-]). All I merely did was take notice of many instances, during inerviews and comments with metalheads and metal gods alike, the sarcastic, tongue & cheek, and sometimes serious, attacks on genres (usually mainstream) outside of metal. Including pop,r&b,hip hop, punk, even several subgenres of metal itself (e.g. nu metal, metalcore, hair metal etc.). If you check any forums, tv shows, or legitimate interviews dealing with the subject you'll find them. I just thought it would be an interesting addition to the article, THATS ALL!! DON'T MAKE SUCH A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT.

(p.s. Hatebreed are not nu metal, they are metalcore, doy! :P)Anonymous

Firstly, this could have been much better off kept in the "Something missing" section, which this is clearly a reponse to. My comment was based on the fact that a metalhead's opinion on other genres has no place in here. Plus, it would be POV stuff as if you find a metalhead who listens to blues, for example, that doesn't represent most metalheads, and thus is further irrelevant.Slayer425 05:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is honestly the worst article I've ever read. This was probably written by Lars.

"Metal is music for angry young men, and those who feel like angry young men, like me."

That is a completely erroneous and non-neutral statement. Either you are seriously ignorant of women in metal, or are joking. I am a woman who loves metal and I certainly don't feel like an "angry young man." Is it so hard to keep the point of discussion objective here?Incassiana 04:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

This article is tripe. It draws far more on generalizations and original research than it does on verifiable references. This entire article should be cleared and rewritten from scratch with proper references. Remember people, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to vomit up whatever you feel like writing about a subject. Feuerfalke 04:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am probably the biggest metalhead in my group of friends and listen to everything from Cannibal Corpse to Týr, but I agree. This article is POV trash. Hog ply room (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

\m/ DUDE

Gender-biased and very limited scope

As a female metalhead, I object to the obvious male slant in this article. It is true that it has been a largely male-dominated culture but that has been changing drastically. Irregardless there have always been female metalfans. Sam Dunn addressed this in the Headbanger's Journey documentary which you cited. And please don't lump all female metalheads into the "scenewhore" category. And there shouldn't even be a distinction. I've never heard of any male whore categories. We are all well aware of the "brotherhood of metal" but let's not forget your metal sisters either. Thanks.

Concerning non-gender issues, I felt the information presented in this article was of a very limited-scope, mainly answering to popular mainstream conceptions of "what is a metalhead?"

There are similarities among metalheads, but also divisions as well. Many metalheads don't consider "core" music real metal, for instance, while others "throw the horns" and call their "core" music "heavy metal."

I think it would be of benefit, to research and include examples of metal solidarity, such as a benefit concert.

Or what about the power of metalheads united to inspire people? Monsters of Rock Moscow show was certainly a powerful statement.

What about famous metalheads who've done something amazing?

What about metalheads who are socially active since you mention that so much of the music is socially-politically driven?

I'll add some more as I think of it.

Incassiana 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Rollins, a politically motivted metal head, and musician, theres one to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

\m/dude

list

would it be possible to start a list of famous/well known people not from the the heavy metal subculture who are metal heads- i.e. actors or comedians like jim carrey (sp?) who have stated that they enjoy metal or metal bands?Д narchistPig (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heshers3.jpg this picture is bullshit imho —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.62.37.85 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image removed

I removed the "hesher3.jpg" image from the page because i believed it was a discriminative image and that it shouldn't be on the article. The image used stereotypes rude towards the parties involved. Thankyou Thobe (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It scientifically analyzes the four types of metalhead, and is thus a highly valuable image. Badagnani (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This image is NOT scientific and I find it stereotypical and extremely offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.195.143 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The image has to go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.155.231.1 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why the image is persistently being put back up? It's a joke, provides no factual information, and to suggest it "scientifically analyzes" anything is laughable. It only portrays stupid mainstream stereotypes of metalheads, it does nothing to accurately illustrate the article. If no sensible reason can be provided for it, then it HAS to go. TheEmpiricalGuy (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It illustrates the four categories of this type of listener. We have no other such illustration which proceeds in such a methodical, empirical manner, which could substitute for it. Badagnani (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But how exactly? It's not empirical at all, there's no proof that this is how metalheads appear, in one of these four categories. It's a cartoon for the very reason that's it's a stereotype, it's meant to be a humorous parody, not factual. None of the metalheads I know (and I know alot) fit into any of these, does this mean they're not metalheads? All this illustration shows is four high school dropouts you could find in any unemployment line. You might as well stick Beavis and Butthead up there. TheEmpiricalGuy (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is honestly the dumbest description of a metalhead there can be, it's freaking lame now stop putting it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.155.231.1 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's settled by common public opinion then. The image is out, putting it back probably constitutes starting an edit war or something. TheEmpiricalGuy (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is that image still there? I seriously thought that was vandalism when I first found this page. Seriously though, it has no honest relevance to this article, it isn't even a good drawing. In fact it's shit. I don't know if someone deliberately drew that up for this article, but: It's shit. It's a terrible drawing. It's just rubbish. Who ever you are, you're a poor artist. You're terrible. I'm going to check this page every time I'm on the net and remove that image whenever I see it here. What a crap picture.

Deletion

This whole page is so stereotypical and horrible. It deserves deletion for the sheer amoun fo original research in it. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. What the fuck happened to this page anyway? user:PowerGamer6 15th May 2008.

• Oppose deletion of this page on a notable subject. Improve, don't delete. Badagnani (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unverifiable information

I have taken the liberty of removing all the unverifiable information on this page per WP:OR and WP:V. User:Badagnani has warred with me over this but he needs to view both of the policies I cite and realize we cannot have people reading misinformation on wikipedia and information needs to be verified with reliable sources before put up on wikipedia, otherwise it simply doesn't exist as far as wikipedia policy is concerned. This is not an arguement, this is not negotiable. It is wikipedia policy which I'm following. If the afore mentioned user or other see fit to add back in the unverified information, they will be reported. Simple as that. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free, of course, to go on about improving the article, as long as you source what you write. Cheers! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New edits

I hope no one bitches. I only took out a couple of sentences and actually added some info in to make things more correct. After reading the whole article, it's not as incorrect as I thought it might be, though it still has quite a few unverifiable things in it. I just trimmed it a bit and I hope everyone agrees with my edits. I just wanted it to be more correct and not a total embarassment to metalheads as some of the articles on here are. The article still needs many changes but this is good for now. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could go about this a little nicer. Good job, though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

where did "hesher" go?

I came to this page specifically to learn the etymology of the word "hesher", and the word "hesher" doesn't even appear once in the entire article! Very disappointing, Wikipedia. Luvcraft (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious.207.5.213.97 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "hesher" is original research! Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The word is "Hessian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.45.187 (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate this article

It just sucks and I wish it'd just be deleted. How can one even make an article about a sterotype of a member of an ongoing subculture. It doesn't make sense on so many different levels. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

image

i deleted the image, because dyed black hair + make up + slipknot shirt = poser. 24.139.30.199 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Left to him was a guy with Iron Maiden T-shirt and light brown hair. He was to illustrate metalheads. Poser too?Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Kid with the Slipknot shirt didn't wear makeup or have dyed hair. The kid on the far left, on the other hand.... 71.79.36.221 (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Views?

Perhaps something about the political views of metalheads should be mentioned? The page about the gothic subculture has something along these lines and could be used as a guideline. Thrashingdeath (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could find a source for it go ahead. I don't think that you will find anything, I've never seen anything specifically about the poltical views of metalheads or anything outside of specific bands (and prehaps black metal). This an article about a very diverse group of people across many different places, I don't think you can really properly adress their poltical views.97.113.253.4 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Attire?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Okay... Metalheads don't have a music specific attire. Metalheads are more or less a "Whatever we want you can't stop" kind of group. We are known to wear black leather, chains, band shirts, bondage pants, and trench coats, but some don't wear those. Some wear hair down to their shoulders or lower. Just because they do not have this, it doesn't make them a poser. Metal is a show of how you are. So fasion isn't a distinct part of our culture. Although in a sence, it is. But you cannot classify someone because how they dress. Stereotypical mother fathers. --Annonodeath (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks!

What a load of complete and utter bollocks! This article is full of personal opinions (few of them of a neutral perspective), generalisations, biased statements and stereotypical views, almost none of which are verifiable facts. Also, the article is extremely unprofessional and reads as if it has been written by a child; it makes too much use of slang, colloquialisms and off-hand terms of description. The truth is, a dedicated fan of Metal is an individual; each person is different. There are no "rules" about attire, beliefs, etc. The very concept of providing an overall definition for a sub-culture, especially one as wide-spread and varied as Metal, makes absolutely no sense. Its all incredibly diverse, and it is impossible to fit all Metal fans into a single defined group. And what's this rubbish about "ritual" and "outsiders?" You speak as if Metalheads are some sort of exclusionary ceremonial cult! Its completely ridiculous! In reality, it is an open, accepting and highly diverse sub-culture. Don't make direct statements about things you don't understand. The only people who can really give reliable information about Metalheads are the Metalheads themselves. And speaking as a Metalhead, I request that you either delete this article, or re-write it based on actual research and FACTUAL information. All this article does is encourage clichés and stereotypes, most of them negative.

Stereotypes. Look at any similar page. Stereotypes. Don't whinge about it. If you aren't one of us don't worry about it. There's a significant difference between 'metalhead' and 'person who listens to metal'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricWizard 0 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deena Weinstein's Work is Outdated

With all due respect to the article's authors, Weinstein is not an up-to-date source. The idea that metal is a white male phenomenon is seriously outdated and based exclusively on US audiences surveyed at the time of the book's publication. How can a genre that spans Asia, Latin America, the Mid East and parts of Africa be considered a "white" genre? Metal has become an oppositional subculture active in every corner of the globe. Even the Los Angeles scene is dominated by Mexican-Americans and other Latinos.

The working class stereotype is also outdated. Most of the metal fans I know well are professionals or academics with advanced degrees. Yes, a lot metal fans in the world are working class, but there are far too many exceptions to call it an intrinsically working class genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.169.191 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should find some cites that back these statements up you can make changes to the article. Until then, it's your opinion versus cited literature. Incidentally, you should probably bear in mind that when you say "most of the metal fans I know..." you are talking about people in your social circle, and thus you're talking about people who will inevitably trend towards the same demographics. If you have an advanced degree, you're unlikely to also have garbage men and factory workers hanging out with your mates from the research labs. The areas you socialize in will likely be skewed the same way; were you a factory worker who hung out in biker bars, no doubt you'd have quite a different impression.Random name (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If I can find current academic sources, I will. As for the question of class, it's just as questionable to generalize about metal's working class nature based on US fans alone as it is to base it on my own empirical observations. I doubt Weinstein even backed up her argument with data. I haven't read the book in ages, but I'm pretty sure she made a generalization based on her own observations. At any rate, I will look into more current sources

Photo

Maybe it's just my personal opinion but the first picture (that one depicting the guy making "metal horns" gesture) looks quite ridiculous... I think we could change it with a better one. --Vipera (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the entire article is ridiculous so it's probably fairly appropriate :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it should be heavily improved, too many personal opinions and unverified facts; we have the same problem in the italian version but it's probably going to be entirely rewritten. --Vipera (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I see the article on Italian Wikipedia has been deleted? Should this topic be merged with article heavy metal music?

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)