Talk:Dig (Mudvayne song)

genre
this song is currently classified as "alternative metal." i have many disputes regarding this, especially the fact that it is such an intense song and lacks the alternative song that defines most alternative metal bands (stone sour comes to mind). please reconsider the genre this song in placed under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.187.218 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, that is very unclear. But it's categorized as heavy metal as a generalization to avoid edit wars. WTF (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Only having heavy metal actually causes more edit wars, since it leads to anon ips adding a bunch of genres if they only see heavy metal listed. Regarding the song, it's pretty much just straight up nu metal if you ask me. Along with Under my Skin, the only really "nu" sounding song on L.D. 50. A more accurate genre field would be nu metal, heavy metal and possibly groove metal. I call the big one bitey 09:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources for "nu metal" are spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided us with good sources either. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Please stop vandalizing articles and deleting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You know that two of the links you keep providing don't even work right? And yet you accuse me of vandalism when all I was doing was trying to find a compromise to prevent further edit wars. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're obviously operating on an agenda here, so I'd advise you to take a step back. The sources you're deleting DO work. And they are relevant to the band being progressive metal. In fact, one of them provides a source for the song "Dig" being progressive metal. They're being used appropriately to categorize the band Mudvayne as progressive metal. They are not being used for any other reason. Please stop mass-vandalizing articles. You've gone through multiple band articles deleting genres and sources for no reason other than agenda-based edit warring. Please stop this. It is tiring. What is, is. What isn't, isn't. A is A and cannot be otherwise. What you WANT to be true does not make something true. You cannot rewrite reality to fit what you wish to be reality. Reality is nothing but what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.42.92.110 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The links don't work. I had to Google them to read them. Either way, none of the links call Dig a progressive metal song. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only current source for genre in the song doesn't talk about the song specificly. The band has gone through many changes soundwise as illustrated by articles. We need a source specific for this song. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * YES, IT DOES REFER TO THE SONG AS PROGRESSIVE METAL. THE SONG IS THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE. DO YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE SOURCES BEFORE CONTINUING WITH YOUR OPINION PUSHING? The only sound change was that the demo EP was alternative metal and the rest of the band's discography is progressive metal. Stop pushing your opinions as fact. And what's up with that source added later for "nu-metal"? A Metal Injection article saying that Mudvayne hasn't broken up? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE SONG "DIG"? You're breaking you're own rules. And the article doesn't say anything about nu metal. You're not even trying. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Re-read it for a what, third time? Here's what the article says about "Dig": "Mudvayne rose to fame in 2000 with the single “Dig" from the debut album “L.D. 50." Since then they’ve staked claim as one of the most creative and distinctive bands in the aggressive rock world.". and "Mudvayne, the Grammy-nominated progressive rock and metal band, is helping keep rock on a roll in Rochester." Not same paragraph, not talking about the songs's genre. As stated above, we need specific sources for the genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The source is directly discussing Dig and L.D. 50, whereas the other source you added isn't. The other source doesn't have anything to do with Dig, it's talking about Hellyeah and Mudvayne's hiatus. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where it is? I've read it and it's not talking about "Dig" in terms of genre. Copy+paste it here please? :) The other source (as the citation itself states, says "Everybody who was big 15 years ago is trying to make a go of it. In 2000, Mudvayne broke big with their track "Dig," a song that still gets stuck in my head to this day: Honestly, it may be one of my favorite nu-metal songs of all time." Flat out says it right there friend!Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No one seems to agree on that source. Fine. But Metal Injection has got to go - it's a blog by metal fans - significantly less reliable than Piero Scaruffi's site, which was previously deemed as unreliable. You seriously strike me as being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory due to your insistence that a review categorizing another one of the band's albums as progressive rock is, quote, "not saying this album's genre is prog rock" -- WHICH IT CLEARLY DOES. But I'd really rather not argue with you. Just stop adding Metal Injection -- it's no more reliable than the newsletter for a child's treehouse. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Plenty of sources call Mudvayne nu metal, or the album Dig nu metal, but the song is not discussed quite as much. Here are a few mentions in the press:
 * Revolver magazine said that the album showed "prog-rock experimentalism" but that the songs containing rapping, such as "Under My Skin", make the album more nu metal than math metal, despite Mudvayne's own preference for genre. Since "Dig" does not contain rapping, this review does not call it nu metal, and thus implies that it is not nu metal.
 * Michigan Daily gives "Dig" as an example of Mudvayne being influenced "in equal part" by the nu metal of Korn and by the death metal genre. They say Dig is an example of Mudvayne finding a middle ground between old and nu metal. I think this review supports two genres being listed: death and nu metal.
 * The Orange County Weekly said that the song "Dig" is "undoubtedly the epitome of cheesy, nu metal angst." That's pretty plain, and it has the advantage of coming fairly recently, in mid-2013, so it has the objectivity of time. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

MetalInjection
Why is this a reliable source? Explain. A heavy metal fansite - what credibility do the writers have as musicologists or journalists? JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that one to begin with. The genre works anyway, so if you're that uncomfortable about it, being there, remove that one and keep the other one there. And what makes you say it's a fansite? The fact that there's no "About us" page? I thought they looked somewhat professional... but just tell me why you say it is. It'll help me determine if sources are classified as such in the future. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks okay to me. The article in question is not a forum post but is instead filed under "Latest News" in the URL. Which means it has been approved by the editors. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dig (Mudvayne song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218203225/http://nyrock.com/worldbeat/09_2000/092100.asp to http://www.nyrock.com/worldbeat/09_2000/092100.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)