Talk:Black metal/Archive 3

Danish Black Metal
Don't remove Denmark. Denmark is a part of Scandinavia and have lots of black-metal bands too. I don't understand why somebody don't want them within, but they got Illnath, Nortt and Sort Regn. Their important for Greenland, Iceland and Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.165.247 (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At least some of these bands are somehow well-known, but have no real importance to Black Metal as a whole (and you have to prove their importance from Greenland, Iceland and Germany). You should rather have mentioned Denial of God. Mercyful Fate is obviously an important first wave band from Denmark mentioned already. --217 /83 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ukrainian Black Metal scene
Do not remove Lucifugum and Nokturnal Mortum from "The second Wave of Black Metal". Ukrainian scene is not less important and known than Polish or French scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black pauk1488 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These bands do not belong in the "second wave" because neither released any music until 1995. The others are listed there because they all released music before then. Also, who is to say which scene is more or less important?  ~Asarlaí  16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lucifugum and Nokturnal Mortum are not half as important as were some of the bands from the Polish and French scenes. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Banning in Malaysia
i think under the history section the banning of black metal in malaysia should be mentioned Malacath (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can source it, please, do so. There were also such attempts in the United Kingdom, see Lords of Chaos (though the book can’t be really trusted, for several reasons). --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

1st wave of black metal???
Black metal used to mean any group that sung Satanic lyrics. The oposite being white metal which was groups that sung lyrics about the Bible. When Venom released the album "Black metal" it was reference to it being evil / satanic.

'''Its like saying Helloween are first wave Death Metal as they appeared on an album titled "Death Metal". Everyone knows Helloween aren't Death metal the same way everyone remembers Venom were part of the NWOBHM.''' Venom sound more like Motorhead only with poorer recording quality and production - Motorhead were a much bigger band with bigger label support.

The relatively new genre taking the name "Black Metal" evolved from Death Metal groups who took a large influence from groups like Venom. Black metal as a genre / sub-genre of extreme metal music started not with Venom etc but was started much later and was greatly influenced by Venom etc.

Quote: Wikipedia "White Metal"

"Eric Wagner himself has commented on marketing the band as white metal:

It was Metal Blade. Back then they called all of it ´Black Metal´, y´know, Slayer, Danzig, etc., all those bands, they are ´Black Metal´, so I didn't grow up believing in all that crap and I think that people didn't believe in it either. It was a question about marketing your band in some way, so I had to do it. So I did this. Metal Blade called us as a “White Metal band” and I just wished they didn't.[3]"

End Quote

I was around then and I read all the magazines (internet wasn't around so we all read the magazines to get the latest info) and I went to many metal clubs and concerts. As Eric puts it is exactly as I remember it. Those trying to say it was a genre were obviously not around at the time. Metalosaurus (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pagen HD (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above comment wasn't signed, so I have to bold-text all my opinions.
 * Black metal was born before death metal. Venom was NWOBHM, that's correct. Venom was also a black metal band, "early black metal" to be specific. Early black metal does sound very different from later black metal, but it was still black metal.
 * Helloween isn't death metal. Venom is black metal. Venom is black metal not because they released an album called "Black Metal", but because they really are black metal. Slayer's lyrics were satanic, that doesn't make them black metal. Slayer is thrash metal.
 * There are sources around to prove Slayer’s music was called Black Metal the same way Venom’s was (old important fanzines), and people who define Black Metal as beginning with Euronymous defining it, who therefore see Venom, Hellhammer and other first wave bands as just precursors and not Black Metal bands. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Type in bold as much as makes you feel good, lol. (I have edited the top comment to also use bold my main points - and have signed it) If you are able to read the quote / remark made by Troubles singer 'Eric Wagner' then you will notice he is referring to how it was back in those days. I was there and it is exactly as I remember it. Venom started the term "Black Metal" and it was not seen as a genre but a reference to 'Satanic Metal'. Just as Trouble were seen as "White Metal". Trouble were not Christians anymore than groups such as Slayer were satanic. Its just the name that was being used by the fans and the magazines. Eric Wagner was commenting on how "White Metal" evolved - as an opposite to "Black Metal". If "Black Metal" back in the 80s & early 90s didn't refer to satanic metal then WTF is "White Metal" and how did it come around??!! It seems very strange and if not way toooo coincidental that white is the opposite to black and white metal came after black metal. Isn't also strange how people around at the time (including Eric Wagner) remember black metal as satanic / satanic themed metal and white metal as Christian / biblical themed metal?!! When the genre now referred to as "Black Metal" came around it was made by much later groups who were raised on genres such Death Metal as much as they were influenced by NWOBHM groups such as Venom and their sound was a combination of the two.

Yes obviously Slayer are obviously thrash and it is a good illustration that early death metal quote them as a major influence. Many early death metal groups sound very much like Slayer only a little slower and with the classic death growl. Similarities can be drawn in sound between Slayer and the later inspired groups but this does not make Slayer Death Metal though does it? Metallica were majorly inspired by Motorhead and songs like Phantom Lord off of Kill em all sound just like Motorhead. This does does not make Motorhead "thrash metal" does it? Please this is supposed to be an online encyclopedia based on fact and not peoples opinions. Please use and observe facts like Eric Wagner's quotes. - I can vouch that I personally remember it this way. I can remember reading magazines articles on both black metal and white metal (there was no internet back then so the everyone read the magazine to find out what was new out). Someone must have record of these many articles etc. Metalosaurus (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to this Eric Wagner's group Trouble was part of Metal blade records and he is quoting how they originally marketed the term "White Metal" as an opposite to "Black Metal" (which obviously meant 'satanic themed metal'). They wouldn't have definetely been aware of what the terminology in the metal music world would have been seen as by the masses at the time. There was no such thing. Black Metal back then meant something different. The so called second wave is when Black Metal started as a genre. Death Metal bands combined their influence & sound with groups like Venom to make the newer sounding genre" Metalosaurus (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Bands such as Rotting Christ, Mayhem and Archgoat had no common style, yet were considered Black Metal bands due to their Satanic background. Non-Satanic bands used other terms back then, because their music was and is therefore not Black Metal. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mayhem De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas.ogg
The image Image:Mayhem De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

2008
I've reorganised the ideology section. Some elements had been overemphasised. If anyone wants to contest this, feel free to revert it and state your case here. Dark Prime (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although some of the information you added was relevant and useful, a lot of it wasn't. First, there are a number of statements that are either vague or in need of sources. I pointed these out in my last edit. Second, I think the section now focuses way too much on Euronymous. Although he might have been an influential musician, he's still just one (dead) man whose views weren't shared by anyone else in the scene. This section should focus on the views of the majority. I'm going to edit the section accordingly, and you can let me know what you think. ~Asarlaí  17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Euronymous raised the Norwegian scene and influenced its ideology (this can be sourced, too), you can’t focus too much on him. He is not “still just one (dead) man whose views weren't shared by anyone else in the scene”. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I can understand that I might have exaggerated the role of Euronymous, but at the same time I have the following reservations:


 * Hostility to Christianity is too narrow (given that there are also anti-Islam bands etc.), and hostility to 'organised religion in general' is too broad. Strictly speaking, 'organised religion' also encompasses Church of Satan among others, and there's no doubting that there are BM musicians who support such organisations. Hence I feel 'Right-Hand Path' is a better description.
 * Placing atheism, Paganism and Satanism in the same sentence like that has contradictory tones (Theistic Satanism is certainly not atheistic, Satanism=/=Paganism etc.).
 * I suppose its still worth stressing that BM musicians have had different reasons for their hosility to Christianity: from Satanists like Euronymous to Pagans/nationalists like Vikernes. I included Eric D's remarks on nationalism (which I forgot to cite, although it is in the same link as the Satanist one) because I feel the nationalist angle is exaggerated due to people like him, Euronymous and Infernus as well as the opinions of Ihsahn - who said that the sentiment from the 1990s developed from 'hostility towards society' etc. (also shared by Infernus).
 * I believe the frontman of Judas Iscariot is a bona fide nihilist.

I'm not sure if I've got all my books in balance at the moment, but I look forward to a response. Dark Prime (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Members of the Norwegian scene rejected the Church of Satan, and back then, Vikernes claimed to be a Satanist. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right-Hand Path is an esoteric term (even its mention said that some of the religion in question was known as Right-hand Path to some) and it is unsuitable in the context of this passage. It might be clearer to refer specifically to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, or, the Abrahamic faiths. Right-Hand Path implies Left-Hand affiliation, however, those who reject Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, from either a polytheist, or racialist, or nationalist, position are hardly aligning themselves with something "left-hand" or, "malicious", or "sinful", but quite the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.216.65 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

2011
I insist on Satanism being mentioned at this section’s very beginning. People who have never heard of Black Metal should know that is what the term originally was used for, the (wrong) idea to use the term for Pagan, secular, atheist, nihilist or whatever bands without any connection to Satanism, if they “sound Norwegian”, came after the second wave. Creating a new section for Satanism was okay though, I just disagree with the complete removal, for reasons mentioned above.

Asarlaí asked for the exact quote from the Emperor interview I refer to, being “fairly sure this view wasn't held by *everyone* in the scene”. It was stronger than you seem to believe, but it is correct that it wasn’t “held by *everyone* in the scene”. Here you are. Faust was asked what he considers to be the definition of Black Metal and whether he considered the LaVeyan way and bands that follow it, like Necromantia, to be wrong and not to play Black Metal; he replied that the Satanic lyrics are important, and what some people believe to be the musical definition fits some bands, but that doesn’t mean Black Metal bands have to sound like this (he names Blasphemy, Death SS, Mayhem and Mercyful Fate as examples). And for LaVey, direct quote: ''“And yes, it is wrong to call bands who follow the path of Anton LaVey for Black Metal. Those who have read the 'Satanic' bible know that LaVey stands for everything that's good in life and the worship of all kinds of pleasures […]. This has absolutely nothing to do with the classical and original form of Satanism (whom the Christians presented). Satanism is a religion on the same level as Christianity and LaVey says that his philosophy is anti religion and he also says you have to be an atheist to be a Satanist. I mean, what's the point? He scorns the old traditional way of Satanism. LaVey and his followers hate Christianity because they are so evil while they (the Satanists) are the good ones. He want's [sic!] to make sure that Satanism gets a good reputation and that it can become something acceptable And this is exactly how it is not meant to be. When people hear the word Satanism they freeze on their backs and they shall be really afraid of the Satanists, who sacrifice children in the name of Satan. The Church of Satan is the complete opposite of this. They are only a family club who wanna make sure that people get the best out of their earthly lives and nothing more than that. About the last question....I don't really think NECROMANTIA label themselves as Black Metal and personally I have never done that, because I think the term Occult/Dark Metal suits them better. They are among my fave bands and each time I listen to I get the impression of something dark and occult. It's not like the feeling you get when you listen to the average Church of Satan band, it is something completely different, something dark, frightening and mystic. Something unknown.” (Emperor. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries''. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011, p. 274.)

I had stated that Varg Vikernes rejected LaVeyan Satanism, too (besides, this can be seen on the Aske EP’s back cover). In this review, Vikernes claims that “everyone in the Norwegian Black Metal scene regarded Anton LaVey as a ridiculous fool, if they indeed even know who in Earth he was”. I also expect everyone here to know that Vikernes claimed to be a Satanist before he murdered Euronymous and became known for his crude Pagan Nazi ideology (and to know about the lies he has spread since he murdered Euronymous). To quote from this interview from Faust’s Orcustus fanzine: “So-called Church of Satan is not in my views a church of Satan...It's rather a humanistic individualistic organisation who worship happiness and life (for them it's only this life).” There are other quotes from old interviews available, but I am too lazy to look for these now (if anyone actually needs some more, I will give add some more quotes). Metalion doubts Vikernes ever was serious about Satanism, by the way: ''“First, the churches started to burn in June 1992, beginning with Fantoft stave church on the outskirts of Bergen. Within a couple weeks, Varg Vikernes told us at the Helvete store that he had done it. He made the arson sound like nothing special. He had already been to Stockholm and left the burning threats on Christofer Johnsson of Therion’s door. Even that had seemed like something he did to impress Euronymous. Though he called Therion “life metal” for their early political lyrics, I never saw Varg as a dedicated Satanist. If anything, the Therion guys were probably more serious about occult things than Varg ever was, but that’s not something that can scientifically be gauged. […] Truthfully, some people in our scene read a few books and considered themselves Satanists. In Varg’s case, I wouldn’t say it was much deeper than that. Then he got into some very strange politics, dabbling in Fascism and National Socialism, but he seemed to change his mind all the time.” (Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, p. 261f.) By the way, at least by now, the Therion members actually are more serious about that than Vikernes ever was, having Thomas Karlsson write lyrics and Ofermod member Belfagor contribute vocals (Din on the last album Sitra Ahra'') and considering Therion to be a Black/Death Metal band (source for that statement), and Johnsson being a Dragon Rouge member.

To confirm that the view was not “held by *everyone* in the scene”, although it was very strong: EsoTerra showed interest in Black Metal and asked Ihsahn, who held Social Darwinist views, what he thought about LaVey and the Church of Satan: ''“Anton LaVey is a very intelligent man. He, with his church, is very good at getting people into the anti-Christian and Satanic concept. Having his ideologies nicely written out to people so that even the simplest housewife can agree with it. Many of his ideas are very good, others I disagree with. But an individual should think for itself.” (Chad Hensley: Legion of the Night. An interview with Emperor. In: EsoTerra, no. 6, 1995.) In Det svarte alvor'', Ihsahn said that music can’t be Black Metal if it is not Satanic. It is obvious he differs from other members since he says he doesn’t need to be destructive. In 1994, Thy Kingdom Come asked Nocturno Culto about the “strong anti-La Vey prpaganda 2 years ago in Norway” and his views on the Church of Satan. His reply: ''“The council wasn't to happy with some of the points of views coming from La Vey and his "disciples"/followers. Norwegian Black Metallers are not too concerned with La Vey's views, it's different form of atmosphere and satanism up here. We don't bother to go against La Vey, who strongly fights jesus anyway.” And when Fenriz was asked about his interpretation of Satanism by Marc Spermeth (Ablaze magazine), he replied: „Ich nehme von jedem ein bißchen, so daß es mir paßt, wie ein Schwanz in der Votze [sic!]. […] Satanismus bedeutet für mich, alle dunklen Seiten anzubeten und zu ehren – und natürlich noch eine Menge mehr.“ (Marc Spermeth: Besessen von der Dunkelheit und dem Bösen. In: Ablaze'', no. 5, May/June 1995, p. 10.) That means he takes a bit from everything, so that it fits him, ‘like a cock in the cunt’, and that for him, Satanism means to worship all dark sides ‘and of course a lot more’. I don’t know what Ihsahn, Nocturno Culto and Fenriz say about Satanism nowadays, so if anyone knows, tell me (either here or on my talk page). --217 /83 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The line "Black metal was originally used as a term for extreme metal bands with Satanic lyrics" apeers in the article twice: at the start of the "vocals and lyrics" section and at the start of the "Satanism" section. I don't think we need to repeet it a third time! Maybe one of the lines could be moved insted?
 * Also, when I sayd "I'm fairly sure this view wasn't held by *everyone* in the scene" I ment the view that "only bands who ar Theistic Satanists can be called 'black metal'". So far I'v only found two Norwegians who held this view; Euronymous and Faust.
 * Anyway, thanks for finding all these quotes. Keep up the good work. ~Asarlaí 23:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn’t mean we should use the same line thrice, sorry (if you find a better formulation for one of the two lines we have already, just change it, for some more variation). Moving it might be a good idea; do so the way you suppose it fits, and if there’s still a problem, we will surely be able to solve it.
 * Okay, I misunderstood that. But still, the non-Satanic Norwegian bands didn’t call their music Black Metal, for obvious reasons; I guess you have heard of “Holocaust Metal” (a term Immortal used back then), Pagan Metal (In the Woods…) and Viking Metal (Enslaved). Do you want/need additional sources for early 1990’s Vikernes holding this view (or at least claiming to)? --217 /83 23:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should establish (A) which Norwegians calld themselvs Theistic Satanists at the time, (B) which Norwegians held that "only Theistic Satanists can be BM" at the time [i.e. who actually sayd it in interviews], and (C) which Norwegians calld their music BM at the time. Then we can choose what to put in the article...

(add to it if you can) ~Asarlaí 03:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The list is no bad idea, but we shouldn’t forget some bands are considered to be “true” although not all members share the ideology; see statements by Michael W. Ford of Black Funeral (“To play BLACK metal you or at least one member of the band must be practising Satanism. Now if you go down to it, I am sure most or 98% of the bands there would not be a true Black metal band, period! You cant tell me different either.”) and MkM of Antaeus (“You have to hold the banner of darkness high, you have to represent the dark side. I mean, be anything you want, as long as it is "dark and hateful". That could be AntaeuS' motive. We don’t only get along BM people, I get along various people into different stuff, but in all I can feel frustration, anger, darkness, hate, the will to power, all mixed up in a vicious khaos. […] I'm maybe the only one into SataNism within the band, using that term "SataN", but when I get to talk with the others, I feel something I couldn’t feel with others who would pretend to be "evil". […] We do split the work, they compose and make the band evolve, I do represent it. The concept and lyrical approach is mine, thus I do present it better than others.”). Both aren’t Norwegian, but the focus on Norway came since Euronymous influenced the ideology and the ideology issue was also brought up in the article about the Norwegian scene; we shouldn’t forget how important the Swedes were and are, and there were no Pagan bands etc. among the Swedish bands Euronymous supported. Maybe you could add one more column, for some musicians just said they were Satanists, but not that they were Devil worshippers/Theistic Satanists (an example for this would be some newer interviews with Frost i have read although I hate newer Satyricon recordings). I disagree when it comes to Nema being used as a source for Enslaved being a Black Metal band; “The Death Metal Scene Is Dead, Greet The Age Of Black Metal!!” doesn’t mean “Enslaved plays Black Metal” (and the band doesn’t consider Nema to be official). On the contrary, the band insisted on not playing Black Metal and therefore came up with the Viking term: “The category all depends on the lyrics, from my point of view. As long as it is not dealing with satanism or such things. The lyrics describe the music, the music is metal, but our Viking lyrics can explain how we're not black metal, so we use the term "Viking metal". It is not really a category, the category is metal and the Viking stuff is just something with which we've put a label on the music many years ago. That has kind of become a category now. That's not our fault.” (Chronicles of Chaos webzine) And this German interview basically says the same; as did older interviews (which I don’t believe to be online). I know there were flyers with the Viking Metal term back then, but I don’t know whether they can be found online. And the source for Immortal didn’t say “Immortal plays Black Metal” either; in Det svarte alvor, the speaker says Immortal’s music is called “Holocaust Metal” by the band and that the members don’t call themselves Satanists; Demonaz says the members said nothing they didn’t stand for and that Immortal’s lyrics are not about Satan. In this review, Vikernes also wrote Immortal used the “Holocaust Metal” term (and as he said he still considers Demonaz to have been a friend, he might not have lied for once). I have once read this interview with Alexander von Meilenwald (Nagelfar) claiming Demonaz once worshipped the Devil, but I have never read any interview backing that up. Did you? --217 /83 06:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see a small problem here: you are talking about artists considering themselves Black Metal or not but in most articles the genre classification is based on what other sources say about the band, whathever the band's opinion might be. See the whole "Led Zeppelin is Heavy Metal because it has been called so by the press" feud that has been going on and on. zubrowka 74  18:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal of this isn't to decide who was/wasn't BM; it's simply to find out what the Norwegian black metalers actually beleved at the time. ~Asarlaí 18:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is correct that what a bands says is not the only thing to consider (maybe you know about the idiots who label their Techno or NDH as Industrial). But in does indeed matter if a band’s members say they do not play Black Metal (which they don’t anyway) since this topic is brought up both in the article and on the talk page. The context is important to judge whether it matters how musicians label their music. Agreed? --217 /83 19:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Militarism?
Could militarism also be included in the ideology page. I mean, bands like Marduk seem to be very influenced by war and militarism shares some bounderies with nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.24.49 (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be added, but it will be tough to add it and keep it in a neutral point of view with decent refs. Undeath (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Individualism?
As far as I understand it, Black Metal supports Collectivism far more than it supports Individualism, though, of course, the community that is supported is the "Black Metal scene", or whatever groups bands or musicians may belong to (the "Inner Circle", Les Legions Noires, different countries' individual scenes), rather than a nation, city, neighbourhood, or somesuch community. If we take the Norwegian scene as an example: the Church burnings are an act for the group (or "scene"), not for the individual (though possibly for the individual within the group, as well as for the group itself). I would say that, Black Metal being ostensibly "anti-modernity", at least in its earlier incarnations, a primary message behind the music is that modern society has failed, and that we should revert to systems closer in nature to those of older times, before "Individualism" - that which has now caused this failure of society, the concept that the Individual is greater than the Collective - had come about. ~LR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.112.166 (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop being pretentious. You provide no support for your argument; how has individualism caused a social failure in a world of consumerism and mass-media mentality? Also, your pseudo-philosophical rabble does not alter the fact that the ideals advocated by Black Metal are well within the boundaries of individualism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.28.159 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop ignoring valid points because they're too far above your head. OP provided support in the form of examples of groups whose philosophies coincide with this suggested 'collectivism'. I think the point is that any 'individualism' in black metal recognises the individual as an important part of the group instead of merely an end in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.116.49 (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Please take this discussion elsewhere. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To provide sourced content: Benjamin Hedge Olson’s master thesis states that “Black Metal is characterized by a conflict between radical individualism and group identity and by an attempt to accept both polarities simultaneously” and that this conflict “is one of the defining features of black metal culture”. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream Popularity
From the number of times i've been on this page. I have seen this changed from Underground - Largely Underground - Low to Underground - And now Moderate in Norway Low to underground elsewhere. I see this weird as this is seen as an unknown genre that most people dont know about. Just because alot of bands come from norway, dosent mean its very popular amongst norwegians. Alot of bands also come from sweden. Im going to change this Underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.212.116 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) I have to agree with the norway thing, but tis definatly not purely underground. I liv ein America and can still walk to walmart and by an Immortal album. And thanks to the internet Black MEtal has spread vastly.


 * It depends on the band and country. Black metal is said to be Norway's largest cultural export, yet in America, it is still relatively obscure.  Some bands such as Archgoat, Beherit or Death Yell are still obscure even to a number of black metal fans, while groups like Satyricon, Immortal and Mayhem have garnered some mainstream attention.  In order to properly label black metal's popularity, you have to take into account its overall, worldwide popularity.  If one were to do that I think it would still fall in the Low to Underground label.  There is scattered knowledge of the genre, essentially.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.191.132 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * People who are seriously into Black Metal have heard of Beherit, being one of the most important bands of the early 1990’s. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Right Hand Path
I'm not sure this is really appropriate terminology to be used on this page... I understand what the editor means by the term, but the term is only in extremely fringe use and as such likely to obfuscate rather than clarify the claims in the article. At the moment it is a phrasing being pushed by a solitary editor; few if any theologians recognise the term as legitimate, and as such I suggest we pick different phrasing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is not a common term, but its the only formal term I've seen used to describe religions such as Christianity. Although most black metal bands oppose Christianity, there's been controversy in some circles concerning attitudes towards religions such as Judaism and Islam - and there have been bands who oppose these religions in their music, while some more prominent artists such as Gaahl have spoken out against them, so I feel it is worth mentioning that black metal bands are not solely opposed to Christianity. At the same time, I've also seen 'anti-religious' used inappropriately, considering that many black metal artists practice religious forms of Satanism as well as Paganism among others. I feel the need to use a term that appropriately encompasses Christianity etc. Dark Prime (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point regarding the general opposition to religions other than Christianity, although I'd argue in general this opposition is trivially covered in comparison. But the main problem is that "Right Hand Path" is not a formal term; I've not come across a consensus amongst theologians to say that it is, or indeed any substantial coverage within the academic field at all - and that is precisely why the term should not be used. We need to be going for accuracy and clarity; the term Right Hand Path helps with neither. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Right hand path" seems to refer to what's more commonly described as Ethical Monotheism or the Abrahamic religions. However, I think black metal's general target is Christianity and I'm unsure if there's a great deal of recorded evidence of blasphemy against Judaism or Islam. Aryder779 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I addressed this issue above and will not repeat myself here except to say that bands who oppose Abrahamic faiths on pagan, or racialist or nationalist, grounds do not fit into the same "Left-Hand Path" definition like Satanists and other degenerates do and so the term is therefore too limited as well as being too esoteric given the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.26.216.65 (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you really have to write: “Satanists and other degenerates”? --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Black metal separatism in the early 1990's
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, it seems that a number of Norwegian bands were playing death metal in the late 80's and early 90's (Darkthrone, Mayhem, and in the cases of Immortal and Burzum, under different band names). At that point they began to feel death metal had exhausted its possibilities, so they utilized techniques that directly opposed death metal: dissonance, very little palm muting, more use of traditional chords, tremolo picking between two strings instead of one, a thin guitar tone, etc. I think this is worth mentioning in the second wave section. 66.142.191.132 (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Some were considered Death Metal bands back then (like Mayhem), some didn’t exist yet (Vikernes started Burzum in 1991), but you are right in the cases of Immortal and Darkthrone. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WHERE IS GREEK BLACK METAL SCENE???
Greek black metal scene is small but has a distinctive sound that differs from the rest (norwegian) because of the usage of keyboards which noone had use in those days ( darkthrone). and i think it should at least be mentioned in 2nd wave of black metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotting_Christ Thats why is called distictively greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Plenty of black metal bands use keyboards, it's nothing special - I hardly think Greek black metal is that notable. ≈  The Haunted Angel  11:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know... The Greek black metal scene was actually pretty important, with bands like Rotting Christ, Necromantia, Varathron and Kawir. Certainly more internationally notable than, say, Les Legions Noires. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

yes of course they use keyboards but not since late 80s as greek black metals bands.also the riffing is a bit different. more internationally notable than les legions noires and very well known in the underground scene. http://www.chroniclesofchaos.com/articles/rants/6-900_when_hades_strikes.aspx


 * The Greek Scene is widely regarded as a distinct entity at the beginning of the second wave. If you read issues of Terrorizer or other publications from the time they acknowledge this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.28.159 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg
Image:DawnOfTheBlackHearts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-Andrew c [talk] 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone please fix the rationale for this image? It seems quite stupid that the images are removed by default, rather than being fixed or the uploader being notified. But hey, I don't make the rules. ~Asarlaí 23:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why a non-free image is necessary in this case, or else I would have written a fair use rationale myself. I was being bold removing it from the article, but since there are objectors, I'll give them a chance to fix the issue. Sorry to have caused this article trouble, but hopefully the issue will be addressed. Why do you think this image is in line with WP:FUC? I'd be glad to fix the image myself if I'm convinced the image is necessary.-Andrew c [talk] 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Image has been removed, along with another one. -Andrew c [talk] 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural origins
Is it appropriate to say that the first wave started in the mid rather than early 1980s, and that the second wave started in Scandinavia? There were plenty of bands outside of Scandinavia and Europe. Dark Prime (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I wouldn’t consider Hellhammer’s demos (1983) to be released in the mid 1980’s. You are right about plenty bands outside of Scandinavia and Europe, but Euronymous leading the Norwegian scene and Darkthrone releasing A Blaze in the Northern Sky somehow justify the view of the second wave having started in Scandinavia (though I would prefer people to know about bands like Archgoat and not believing Black Metal to be a Norwegian music style). --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Venom did not coin the term black metal.
One year before Black Metal's release Blue Öyster Cult had a song featured on thier album Fire of Unknown Origin called "Heavy Metal: the Black and Silver.". Albeit Blue Oyster Cult are obvious not a black metal band they were the first to use the term. The song should be mentioned in the article. Rockgenre (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BOC never used the song title to describe any form of musical style. The song has a science fiction theme. There is no need to mention them anywhere in this article because their song title has nothing to do with the musical style. In the early 1980s before there was definite distinction between the newer extreme heavy styles, the terms black metal, power metal, death metal and thrash metal all meant the exact same thing. It would only depend on which magazine you were reading. Depending on the publication: Metallica was a black metal band and Venom was a death metal band and Anthrax was a power metal band and Motorhead was a thrash metal band. In another magazine those terms would be all switched around for the exact same bands. By the mid-1980s everyone was pretty much on the same page as far as what black, power, death and thrash were. And through all of those years no one ever associated BOC woth any of those newer extreme metal styles. Here endeth your metal history lesson. GripTheHusk (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't associate BOC with extreme metal either, but the song is the first time you hear heavy metal and black come together. I think the song has kind of has a "Born to be Wild" thing about it and by that I mean they were both important in giving genres thier names(even though The Soft Machine came before Born to be Wild), but not really describing a form of music. I think I could at least write something like, "While not the musical precursor to black metal, Blue Oyster Cult's song "Heavy Metal: The Black and Silver" is possibly the origin of the term black metal." Thoughts? Rockgenre (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is clearly wrong... BOC did not (to the best of my knowledge) use the phrase "black metal" (with the two words juxtaposed); simply having the words "black" and "metal" in the same title is irrelevant to this article. Regardless, you'd need a reliable source to back up the claim that the song was the origin of the term, rather than idle speculation... this is not a forum, after all. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with Blackmetalbaz. This association is utterly ridiculous. They never used the term "black metal." That's an important and specific correlation. Just using the two words in the same sentence or line has nothing to do with black metal. I'm sure the words "folk" and "metal" were used in the same sentence hundreds of years ago. Does that have anything to do with the musical genre "folk metal"? No. Maybe you think that because it's a musical reference it means something more. It doesn't. The words are not connected. They are not even referring to a type of music together. Case closed.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't think of, or find any reference to, a Second Wave BM band citing Blue Oyster Cult as an influence or inspiration. But the mainstays of that scene all point to Venom as a direct influence. ZWM (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bgcolor
Shouldn't the bgcolor be black? It's an extreme genre of heavy metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.49.48 (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The standard colour for heavy metal is crimson. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No...That's stereotyping. rzrscm (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
This is in reference to your comment: "Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Black metal. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. This is the second time you have added this information to thr article, in contravention of wp:coi candyworm (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)"

How does adding a legitimate bibliographic entry under Literature heading fall under advertising or promotion? I did not add link, only information about the volume of essays

Nicolamasciandaro (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (Bringing this discussion here from my Talk page as it's of relevance to the article.)
 * Please read wp:coi. There is an apparent conflict of interest evident in your addition of a work of which you are the sole editor, in this edit. Given that you already had a similar edit to this article reverted here, it is evident that the addition of this item is not supported by consensus. Please discuss the matter here in order to achieve consensus before adding again. Thank you. --candyworm (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying the process. The book is a significant collection of 13 essays and articles on black metal. See Googlebooks to browse contents. The book was recently reviewed in Wire magazine by Mark Fisher, who wrote that "the essays are all exercises in passionate engagement, intellectual without being dryly academic . . . a book that is an exhilarating example of how to write about music as if it matters." Here is the World Cat record (http://www.worldcat.org/title/hideous-gnosis-black-metal-theory-symposium-1/oclc/607903118). The COI guideline that seems most to apply here is this: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." I believe this volume is notable, both because of the originality of its theoretical treatment of the subject, and because of the 'notable', in the sense of accomplished, persons who contribute to it.Nicolamasciandaro (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

3rd Wave of Black Metal
What about the recent resurgence of black metal in New England? http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-England-Black-Metal/151572928237035 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalmindeclipse (talk • contribs) 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a legitimate source for this? Facebook does not count. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dimmu Borgir and others to "Second wave"
Dimmu Borgir should be added in listo of second wave bands. Second wave bands must have some of their realises from 1990. to 1994. (It says that in text above the list of second wave bands). Dimmu Borgir's Inn I Evighetens Morke and For All Tid are realised in 1994. If you want to say that is not Black metal for you then you are very wrong. Or I am wrong? That kind of Black metal was called "Melodic Black metal" until it is deleted and redicted to Black metal. Come on people! It is time to solve that quest. There are many so called "Melodic Black metal" bands which are now Black metal and they realised their records during "Second wave" period. There are two possibilities of solving this quest. First possibility is to make one unique genre for all those bands who used small amount of synths on "Raw Black metal". That style is very different from Symphonic Black metal. SBM uses lot more orchestra and have more cleaner sound. And so called Melodic Black metal is about melody on synths but sound is lot more "raw" and worse sound quality. My opinion about this quest is that we should merge "Ambiental Black metal" and "Melodic Black metal" as one special style in which there should be added all those bands. Black metal should have more styles beacuse it is too anodyned these days. Or Second posibility is to collect all those bands which were realising that kind of black metal and add it to the list of "second wave". Please answerw! It is time to solve this! - Vater-96 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It has already been "solved". We don't need to name-check Dimmu for the same reasons we don't need to name-check Fimbulwinter... we have enough examples. Regarding, "melodic black metal", find a whole bunch of sources discussing it as a legitimate subgenre and we'll talk; note that webzines aren't going to cut it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding a bunch of sources and re-making of "Melodic Black metal" will not help someone who is trying to find some music or bands similar to these. There is one more term which is coined to describe that kind of music that is so called "Dark metal" that worked on Encyclopedia Metallum etc. I agree that these records are not Black metal as well as Symphonic Black metal. I think that main wikipedia's task is to help people with the usefull informations. In this case to find bands of similar style. Many things on wikipedia are solved with voting or discusion with out sources and that work. This is perfect place to do that. - Vater-96 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you misunderstand Wikipedia. Nothing is ever resolved by voting here. Please read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Allrigt then when there will not be such genre which describes that style i will add Dimmu to second wave, they have Inn I Evighetens Morke and For All Tid in period from 1990. till 1994. which is second wave period. That records are Black metal then. Vater-96 (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up the discussion (at least)?
I`ve been following this article and arguing within it too, for a quite since. I still think it`s a mess, having some really stubbornly childish debate going on occasionally. I think some progress might be done on it by cleaning the insignificant and ideological details of it. Any change will of course arouse anger and I suggest starting by clearing some of this page, for it to be more accessible and inspiring, for example by erasing some dead topics, which seem to be dealt with or just faded without response...FINginga (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What is insignificant or not may be discussed, and ideology is the most important aspect when it comes to this subculture. I wouldn’t like the old discussions to be erased, though, but archived when there was no new comment for several months. Do you know how to program an archive bot? --217 /83 16:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-Norwegian “second wave” bands and the time between both generations
Other bands emerged after the “first wave” and at the same time as or even before the Norwegian bands, some of them were not even influenced by Mayhem (eycept Mayhem, there was almost no Norwegian Black Metal band around before 1991): Blasphemy (influences named here), Samael, VON, Rotting Christ (influences named on the band’s own Myspace page), Beherit (influences named here and there, actually including some second wave bands that were not from Norway), Impaled Nazarene (influences named here), Root, Ancient Rites etc. (those who know about Black Metal’s history should know that). I will therefore restore my version of that sentence. We should also include a little section on the time between both generations since there were bands that came between those but held the tradition. In my opinion, bands like Sarcófago are not a part of the first generation but of this meantime (and the 1987 issue of Metalion’s Slayer fanzine, a very important source for extreme Metal, shows the Black Metal wave was considered to have ended). --217 /83 10:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. If you have good reliable sources, do your edits. References will be checked by the other editors and if they are not reliable, your edits may be removed. Winter Gaze (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn’t anything more reliable than the Slayer fanzine (its importance and good reputation is no secret to anyone knowing about Black Metal’s history) and its partial re-prints SLAYER. N° 1 à 5 and Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries (well, the French translations in SLAYER. N° 1 à 5 are awful, see de:Slayer (Fanzine)). For the bands I mentioned, see when they were formed, what they stated in the interviews or on their web sites, etc. And if bands started releasing their music before A Blaze in the Northern Sky, or even before 1991, it should be obvious they were not influenced by Norwegian bands, except maybe Mayhem’s demo, EP or the tracks on Projections of a Stained Mind. I will give you sources anyway:
 * For the 1987 issue of Metalion’s Slayer fanzine and the Black Metal wave considered to have ended (at least as a trend, with a few Satanic bands left), see the Incubus interview: “Now that the latest fad of Black/Satanic bands seems to be over, there is still a few out there. I mean, bands like INCUBUS, MORBID ANGEL and SABBAT can’t just be said to jump on the so called band wagon!” (He means Sabbat from England, which was featured in the same issue, not the Japanese band, by the way.) This interview appeared in no. 5 and was re-printed in both books:
 * Incubus. In: Jon Kristiansen: SLAYER. N° 1 à 5. Rosières en Haye: Camion Blanc 2009. p. 381.
 * Incubus. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011. p. 88.
 * By the way, Under the Sign of the Black Mark was considered a Death Metal LP back then (and even in the early 1990’s), which proves the “fad” was over: “This is probably one of the best Death Metal lp’es ever released! […] You got the in and out of Death Thrash […] and you got the doomy stuff […]!”
 * BATHORY - "Under The Sign Of The Black Mark" (UNDER ONE FLAG 11). In: Jon Kristiansen: SLAYER. N° 1 à 5. Rosières en Haye: Camion Blanc 2009. p. 439.
 * BATHORY - "Under The Sign Of The Black Mark" (UNDER ONE FLAG 11). In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011. p. 101.
 * To prove Blasphemy’s music was influenced by Hardcore, Heavy/Thrash/Death Metal and “first wave” bands (there were no Norwegian bands besides Mayhem and Stigma Diabolicum when Fallen Angel of Doom were released anyway), I linked to an interview posted on Full Moon Productions’ site, and could add: Blasphemy. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011. p. 200.
 * Tormentor came before Blasphemy, so it should be obvious there could be no influences from the Norwegian movement, but to prove the music was influenced by “BATHORY, CELTIC FROST, MOTORHEAD, BULLDOZER and others”: Tormentor. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011. p. 240.
 * I gave you one Impaled Nazarene interview to prove the music was influenced by the “first wave“, Thrash, Crossover (1980’s Crossover, meaning bands between Hardcore and Thrash), Crustcore and Grindcore, but to name another source for Venom as the main influence in the beginning: Impaled Nazarene. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011. p. 241.
 * You should know things like that, but anyway. If you have any questions left, ask. --217 /83 13:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. Good sources. Make necessary changes to the article (if you don't do these edits already) and don't forget to link to this talk page section in your edit summary to help other editors. Winter Gaze (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I will, but it isn’t that easy to adapt the article to history between the first generation’s end and A Blaze in the Northern Sky and source it, since most books seem to focus on Norway and maybe Sweden. I began editing the article, but I would like others to help improving those sections. --217 /83 15:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Repetition
Some info in the "vocals and lyrics" section is repeated in the "ideology" section. I think it would be best if we use the "vocals and lyrics" section to summarize blackmetal lyrics/ideology. We can use the "ideology" section to go into more detail. ~Asarlaí 06:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You have seen my edit, so you know I seconded yours except the removal of the information that the term originally was used for bands with Satanic lyrics (and that I fixed that). --217 /83 22:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Stylistic origins
I would like to see a citation for Hardcore as an origin. Of course Hardcore influenced Thrash Metal, but had no significant role as a direct influence on any kind of Black Metal; “second wave” Black Metal artists despised Hardcore for ideological reasons. I would also like to see a citation for Speed Metal; New Wave of British Heavy Metal as a stylistic origin is obvious (Venom) as is Thrash Metal. --91.60.179.157 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Black metal really underground?
I hope someone can explain to me what makes black metal "underground" according to Wikipedia.

To the best of my knowledge, black metal is very popular music, and one of the most popular forms of metal. Sure, black metal is popular among a select demographic (outsider 20-something white males), but this still makes it one of the most popular forms of music out there.

The market for black metal is much larger than the market for many other forms of music, is it really true then that this is underground music?.

Consider for example that "ethereal wave" is listed as being small to moderate in mainstream popularity on Wikipedia. Yet I get 159,000 hits for "ethereal wave" on Google, compared to 43,800,000 for black metal. How then is black metal not mainstream music?

If I wanted to see black metal in my country, I could probably go to a show this month, perhaps I wouldn't even have to leave my own city. I don't think I can say the same about "Ethereal wave", "Dream pop", or any of the other forms of music that are seen as having low popularity in the mainstream by Wikipedia.

Hence my question is, when we refer to Black metal as being "underground" outside of Scandinavia, what does this mean? Is it a way of warning readers that they have to dress up "alternative" when they plan on visiting a show? Is it an inaccurate way of defining how popular it is?

Right now it appears to me that "mainstream popularity" on Wikipedia articles refers to how fans of a genre like to think of themselves, it has little to do with how popular the music actually is.

People who feel rebellious and different unanimously agree on Wikipedia that their favorite musical genre is "underground", while people who like to think of themselves as pretty normal people claim that they favorite genre is "low to moderate" in popularity.

If it seems like I'm rambling, my point is as following:

-Could someone explain and defend the listing of black metal and other genres of music as "underground". Are sources or specific criteria used for this, or is it purely arbitrary and determined by consensus of followers of specific pages who like to think of their favorite music as being "underground"?

Counteraction (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Few artists are that successful, and most of them don’t play Black Metal either but are sold under this label (Immortal, Cradle of Filth, Dimmu Borgir etc.; Dissection, Watain and Marduk are Black Metal though). And the majority of artists stays in the underground. The mainstream artists are but exceptions. And I wonder how Ethereal Wave got “moderate in mainstream popularity”, but anyway. --217 /83 09:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "And the majority of artists stays in the underground. The mainstream artists are but exceptions." Isn't that the case for every musical genre out there? Joehoe665 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean like Pop music ? zubrowka 74 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts over "black metal" capitalisation
Since black metal is a genre, it is not capitalised, although in this case "black" is capitalised as it is the start of the quote. From my experience of editing, it is not necessary/a rule to retain the exact source formatting/punctuation/grammar for quotes – as long as the actual text being quoted isn't altered. Lachlan Foley (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the quoted text, it is capitalised, so we capitalise it in the quote, too; I consider everything else a falsification unless it is marked like explained in my last edit summary (like “[…]” for omitted parts, or “He said that ‘[y]ou were there’.” if the original sentence is: “You were there.”). This has nothing to do with the question whether Black Metal is a genre or not (won’t discuss that point here, ask me on my talk page if you want), or whether we capitalise the term. --217 /83 21:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Enzifer as Picture of the Day
On 31 October, a photo of Urgehal guitarist Enzifer will be Wikipedia's "Picture of the Day". This article—along with Urgehal, corpse paint and Early Norwegian black metal scene—will be on Wikipedia's main page. I copied the following from Talk:Urgehal:

"Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Urgehal Metal Mean Festival 20 08 2011 10.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 31, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng {chat} 06:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)"

~Asarlaí 16:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, though I wonder why this was chosen to become the picture of the day. --217 /83 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My guess : Halloween ? zubrowka 74 19:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Totally forgot about that although it is not completely unknown over here. --217 /83 19:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Tenebris quote
There are rumours that Jon Nödtveidt himself answered the MLO interview (I think Metalion wrote something about that in his book; I have to check that when I have the time); that would fit since he used the name “Shadow” while contributing to Slayer no. 10 (1995) and Ophthalamia. Nödtveidt knew Euronymous; he was a member of the Norwegian Black Circle, his bands were among the few Euronymous liked, and they performed The Freezing Moon together in Askim in 1991 (see Dissection’s biography). --217 /83 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Janaza fake?
The information regarding the Middle-Eastern band Janaza should probably be removed due to the controversy surrounding the artist, and especially since no citations are given in the first place. The picture of the artist that has been circulating was found out to have been stolen and manipulated, and not much is known about the artist's legitimacy. 209.250.204.138 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Mayhem/ex-Death Metallers
One would think an entry on black metal would mention that Mayhem started in 1984 and had demos and an EP in 1986 and 1987, the article kinda makes it sound like they started in 1990 or 1991. I also think it is worth mentioning that many Black Metal bands (Darkthrone) and musicians (Grishnack, guys from Immortal, etc) played death metal before "converting" to black metal. Gary Sargent, garyleejr@outlook.com 74.78.154.65 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Gary Sargent, garyleejr@outlook.com


 * Correct. The article about the early Norwegian scene mentions that Darkthrone played Death Metal before A Blaze in the Northern Sky, but the rest is still missing here (as are other things, see section on War Metal above). --217 /83 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Article structure
I think it is nonsense to separate the stylistic divisions from the characteristics and the ideology from the lyrics by putting the history section between them. I also would like to start a paragraph on the Greek style but am not sure where to include it (not the history section!) nor how to merge the stylistic divisions and characteristics sections, so I thought I should ask first. --217 /83 13:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not agenst shifting Stylistic divisions, but I think Ideology should stay wher' it is. The Ideology section is big; it would dwarf the rest of the Characteristics and would be giving undue weight (especially to Unblack Metal and NSBM). The Chracteristics section should be an overview of the most common black metal traits. ~Asarlaí 17:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Stylistic divisions and Chracteristics are kinda diffrerent sections. Stylistic divisions shows all subgenres of this genre and why they are different from the original style, while Chracteristics section gives an overview of the most essential and important traits of the genre at all. Chracteristics gives a more general view of the genre, while Stylistic divisions is totally specific to each subgenre.
 * At last, almost all metal artcles has a separated section for their own subgenres, so why it shoud be different with Black Metal's article? ABC paulista (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even “guitars” if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent “general Black Metal” defined by the Norwegian style’s elements. That’s just wrong, but I’m to blame, too, because that’s where I started the War Metal section. But thinking about the structure, I see it is the wrong place. Symphonic Black Metal and Black Doom can be seen as stylistic divisions of whatever kind of Black Metal (e. g. Barathrum’s music is not “Norwegian-esque” at all but rather comparable to Necromantia, as done by the former label), but not the Greek and War Metal styles; they are on a level similar to the Norwegian one, only that they haven’t been mistaken as “the definition of Black Metal” later on. If these were included in the characteristics section, I would have no objection to keep it separated from the stylistic divisions. And I don’t know about “almost all metal artcles” [sic!] because I don’t watch all of them (and I have more of these on my German watchlist than on the English project). --217 /83 06:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree with the "Greek" statement, but there's nothing on the War metal section that shows the existance of some divergence with the First Wave style or even with the Norwegian one, only describing about how the subgenre born (thus not having elements describing any characteristics). I belive that it's better to keep War metal on the stylistic divisions section (since it's considered as an subgenre of black metal, and all subgenres must be on that section), but it would be interesting putting some notes about War metal strucuture on the characteristics section. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As explained above, War Metal (Finnish bands, Blasphemy etc.) is no more or less a subgenre than Greek or Norwegian Black Metal. It’s just not that easy to find references, but I am planning to look for some reviews that may help in this case. --217 /83 13:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Arent Greek and Norwegian BM scenes rather than styles or sub-genre ? Sure, they might have distinctive element but take exemple from the Thrash article : Bay Area Thrash has it's distinctive sound and it's still a scene. zubrowka 74 18:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just like zubrowka said. Greek and Norweian ones are just regional scenes that have some particular characteristics within the genre, but that is only applied to that scene with few exceptions. Just like Swedish Death Metal, Teutonic Thrash Metal, Bay Area Thrash Metal, Finnish Doom Metal, etc. But War metal is a substyle, a subgenre of this one, sharing some common characteristics of the main genre, but introducing something new. However, a subgenre like War metal is not related with an particular region or scene, being spread around the world without a niche, like anothers subgenres (Stoner metal, Sludge metal, Death/doom, Deathgrind, Viking metal, Deathcore, etc.). ABC paulista (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you see the problem when you replace “Norwegian” with “Norwegian-inspired”? That’s just one way to play Black Metal, which many falsely believe to be “the style of Black Metal” or something. With bands like Blasphemy and Archgoat, War Metal is obviously not a regional scene, but neither on any level subordinated to the Norwegian or Norwegian-inspired style. Again, see above: “It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even ‘guitars’ if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent ‘general Black Metal’ defined by the Norwegian style’s elements.” --217 /83 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the problem isn't with War metal position in this article, but with the idea that it's passing to the readers. Beacuse the Norweigan scene is, by far, the most important and influential lack Metal scene, obviously it will take some amout of notability in the genre at all. But, if the article is leading people to believe that the Nordic style is the "true", original one, so there's something wrong with it.
 * So, the correct thing to do isn't move War metal to another section, but reconstruct the article to eliminate this misleading idea.
 * Also, if War metal, Norweigan style and Greek one are both considered being part of the "Black Metal family", so they must have something in common to make part of the same genre. Otherwise, at least one of the three above isn't a kind of Black metal and is on the wrong article. ABC paulista (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see you understand the problem. I do agree the Norwegian scene and style became the most influential form of Black Metal, but the problem is there is so much more to Black Metal than the Norwegian sound. I hope you don’t actually wonder what War Metal, Norwegian and Greek Black Metal have in common; that is not the music but the content, which is Satanism (remember Mercyful Fate). Again, see above: “It’s not like there is a general musical definition that applies to War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal (not even ‘guitars’ if you remember Necromantia), and the current structure implies that War Metal was a division of some non-existent ‘general Black Metal’ defined by the Norwegian style’s elements.” As I explained here: “Bands such as Rotting Christ, Mayhem and Archgoat had no common style, yet were considered Black Metal bands due to their Satanic background. Non-Satanic bands used other terms back then, because their music was and is therefore not Black Metal.” And these quotes are just about the second wave; for the first, just see Mercyful Fate. --217 /83 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... So, there's a giant confusion about what is Black metal. Black metal's concept as an ideological movement and Black metal's concept as a music genre are mixed in the artcle, what, in my opinion, is a big mistake. There must be a way to separate these entities.
 * But still, even if there's nothing common between War Metal, Greek and Norwegian Black Metal, there's some characteristics that can be applied for both Greek and Norwegian Black Metal. The same goes between War Metal and Norwegian Black Metal, with other characteristics. Symphonic black metal shares some traits with Viking metal and suicidal black metal. And so it goes on... Until we found that some traits are more common than others! And that's what serves the Characteristics sections: Synthesize the most common and defining characteristics of a genre.
 * And then, we'll find out that most of these trais are present in the Norwegian Black Metal, and that all other kinds of Black Metal share some sound similarities with the Norwegian scene. That's because it was the Norwegian scene that made Black Metal a distinct genre, separating it from it's "father", Thrash Metal, and "brother", Death Metal. In the first wave, Black Metal was way more ideological than stylistic. Even the sources here states that the first wave bands were almost all Speed and Thrash Metal bands with satanic lyrics, in an epoch that there was no distinctive boundaries between Thrash, Death and Black metals. It was only in the second wave that Black metal earned unique traits that separated it from another subgenres. That's why the Norwegian scene gets so much attention. ABC paulista (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes with what most reliable sources say, giving more prominence to the majority view but also mentioning the minority ones. The majority view is that 'black metal' is defined by a set of musical traits (shrieked vocals, tremolo riffs, asf), and most sources agree with this view. The minority view is that black metal can be any kind of metal so long as it's "Satanic". This would mean that every metal band who has written "Satanic" lyrics is black metal. A smaller minority hold that only genuine Theistic Satanists can play black metal. This would mean that bands such as Burzum, Darkthrone, Immortal, Satyricon, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Venom (who coined the term 'black metal') are not black metal and never have been. ~Asarlaí 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * More or less. There are a few more views; e. g. some are even more specific, holding that only genuine Devil worshippers (what some call “Christian” Satanism) can play Black Metal. And “that black metal can be any kind of metal so long as it's ‘Satanic’” was originally not a minority view. And even those who believe that Black Metal was defined by a set of musical traits probably still list releases as Black Metal in some cases, e. g. if they come from older bands like Archgoat. --217 /83 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I still have to look for some more War Metal-related references, but it’s not forgotten. --217 /83 13:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are not many. --Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg, formerly active using the static IP adress 132.187.3.26. 12:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)