Talk:Heavy metal music/Archive 9

Heavy Metal is Difficult to Define: Sound vs. Culture

 * I decided to create a separate section to respond to the unsigned section about Jimi Hendrix being overlooked as heavy metal, and the section by Whiteandbleak.


 * "Heavy metal" is difficult to define as a genre, in part, because "heavy metal" has become more of a cultural term like "hip hop" or "rock 'n' roll" is, rather than one particular sound. There is too much POV on what "heavy metal" is, which is why it is important to understand the difference between the "heavy metal" sound and "heavy metal" culture.  Musically, "heavy metal" is associated with distorted blues of the late 1960s and early 1970s, before metal bands started to mix in different influences, but are often labeled in different genres, such as thrash metal.


 * The sound described by Whiteandbleak sounds more like Industrial music in line with Nine Inch Nails or the soundtrack for "The Social Network."


 * Sound vs. Image

Heavy metal enthusiasts will state that a rangy singer is an important part of the equation, such as Rob Halford. The other common characteristics of heavy metal are a) Gothic persona, b) outlandish lyrics (often based on folklore or literature), and c) blue collar appeal (songs about workers). Dark themes and wild live shows hardly separate heavy metal from rock 'n' roll. The bands KISS and AC/DC for instance had dark images and wild live shows but, neither one is heavy metal in terms of sound. Both are closer to garage or hard rock.  Thus, dark images and wild live shows do not equal heavy metal. More obviously, rock 'n' roll was often called the "devil's music" back in the 50s and even still today. Dark themes and wild live concerts showed up in vaudeville, but more precisely in Screamin' Jay Hawkins live show of, "I Put a Spell on You," ergo, the dark themes and live shows of later metal was still influenced by blues-based rock 'n' roll. Not to forget the wild live shows or sound of acid rock bands in the 1960s (i.e. Blue Cheer); Jim Morrison at the Whiskey a Go-Go; or the Monterey Pop Festival that included an aggressive display by The Who (destroying their instruments) but also, Jimi Hendrix lighting his guitar on fire. Thus, the claim that heavy metal became different because of those elements is clearly false. Furthermore, the dark themes can and should be traced back to the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and the blues of musicians such as Robert Johnson, especially the song, "Hellhound on My Trail," which was a popular cover song by blues-rock bands of the 1960s (such as Fleetwood Mac); the same type of blues-rock bands that swapped the influence of blues with folk. Even so, I find it hard to believe that folk lyrics truly separated heavy metal from the blues influence, because the blues-based cover of, "House of the Rising Sun" by The Animals shows many precursors to heavy metal (vocals, tempos, themes), and yet, the lyrics are considered to be folk (the song predates the development of the blues). The lyrics tell a story about remorse for sinful living--an underlying theme that is common even in contemporary heavy metal. Dark or outlandish themes can also be heard from a song like, "Born on the Bayou" by Creedence Clearwater Revival, which evokes images of the swamps of the Mississippi Delta and tells the story of vindictiveness and mysticism (hoodoo) through the rangy growls of John Fogerty. "Born on the Bayou" however, is generally overlooked as heavy metal because it does not fit the characteristics of heavy metal in the late 60s, and yet, the song by today's standards is clearly heavy metal. The song is also layered with a guitar setting for the intro that is over-driven with amp vibrato on a slow setting (paraphrased from Wikipedia). I should mention that Creedence songs such as, "Born on the Bayou," "Bad Moon Rising," and, "Run Through the Jungle" were very popular in Great Britain and amongst influential British musicians in the re-direction of heavy metal, such as Roger Daltrey of The Who.


 * The anonymous section insinuates that it's racist for Jimi Hendrix to be overlooked in heavy metal.

The earliest use of the term "heavy metal" is found in the Steppenwolf song, "Born to Be Wild," nevertheless, Chas Chandler of The Animals claims that the term "heavy metal" was coined to describe the sound of the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but Chandler's claim cannot be verified. Typically however, Black Sabbath is considered the first "heavy metal" band, because many metal musicians would draw influence from Black Sabbath--but just as rock 'n' roll was metamorphosis of the 40s and 50s, Black Sabbath was merely a metamorphosis from the scenes of the 60s.
 * Jimi Hendrix is widely regarded as the best guitarist of all-time. All three studio albums by the Jimi Hendrix Experience regularly appear in the top 100 of greatest albums. Plenty of credit is also given to the many African-Americans or people of African origin that have contributed to music in the 20th century, such as Robert Johnson, Big Mama Thornton, Chuck Berry, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Bob Marley & The Wailers, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Muddy Waters, Elmore James, Bo Diddley, T-Bone Walker, John Lee Hooker, BB King and so on and so on.
 * Metal fans tend to identify with bands that have a Gothic persona, such as Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, or Judas Priest. If anything, metal fans completely ignore the influence that West Coast musicians in the 1960s had on the many directions of "heavy metal," including The Beach Boys, The Byrds, Blue Cheer, The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Steppenwolf, The Doors, Eric Burdon & The Animals, Iron Butterfly, Creedence Clearwater Revival and of course, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, but also East Coast musicians such as Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa & The Mothers of Invention, and The Velvet Underground. They also ignore the influence of British beat-pop, such as the Spencer Davis Group, Traffic, or The Zombies.67.169.25.132 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Mr Pyles (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I Have to say that i agree in lots of things that the anonymous I.P. says, like the significative influence that blues, classical and folk have had in early Heavy metal, also the band Credence had a prominent influence in it. However i have to point that the book: Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music proposes a way to definitivelly differentiate both (analizing and comparing diferent songs' structures, tones and keys) when compares AC/DC's musical structure with Black Sabbath's musical structure, founds that Black Sabbath music have all the features that differentiate Heavy Metal from Hard rock. this one clearly suports the idea of Heavy metal being a full grown genre. Whithe02 (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The book, as far as I can see, only makes that distinction between hard rock and heavy metal, not rock in general.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To &iquest;3fam  ily6  how can you propose to call Heavy metal a derivative form of rock music when there are zero sources for that; still, there is way less suport to call Heavy metal today a sub-genre of rock, than the suport that the concept of Heavy metal today being a genre of it's own have, it's the best choice.

+
 * The book, as far as I can see, only makes that distinction between hard rock and heavy metal, not rock in general.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, the only solution here is you looking further. I mean, Hard rock is the only type of music that can be similar to heavy metal, the only one. IF it's resolved that Heavy metal and hard rock are technically absolutelly diferent, that, by common sense means that Heavy metal is the twice of separated from rock music. Whithe02 (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To &iquest;3fam  ily6  how can you propose to call Heavy metal a derivative form of rock music when there are zero sources for that; still, there is way less suport to call Heavy metal today a sub-genre of rock, than the suport that the concept of Heavy metal today being a genre of it's own have, it's the best choice. Why is that i say that most references speaks only about the "traditional heavy metal" you ask? well that's because these sources refers to Heavy metal in late 60s, and on the 70s, when Heavy metal wasn't stablished yet, so even when the "tradiotional heavy metal" sentence wasn't clearly written down there it's implicit. Again, no source provided stated that today's metal stills a sub-genre of rock, in contrast the books Black Sabbath and the rise of heavy metal music and Popular Music: The key concepts: second Edition states that even early heavy metal was very diferent from hard rock; and that heavy metal today have stablished as a full grown genre respectivelly. If this weren't enough, i found out that the grave digger radio article wasn't written by someone in that stream site; The article (wich, like the two books above is a definitive opinion in this discussion) was took from an articles database called... articlesbase, a site who compilates articles that could be taken from newspapers, magazines or websites who may or not be down. Grave Digger was in fact, a third party publishing the article, wich means that the article's quality is high, that the article is reliable, and that it finally fills wikipedia's reliability policies from any point of view, this, and you finally being open at the idea of Heavy metal today being a genre of it's own must be enough to reach a concensus, do the first steps and make the progress hapen. Whithe02 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that my point was missed. The term "heavy metal" has become far too dynamic to be considered one genre.  The movie "Heavy Metal" back in the 1980s included musicians like Donald Fagen, Devo, and Stevie Nicks on a soundtrack called "Heavy Metal."  To me, "heavy metal" is a dynamic sub-genre in terms of sound--it shows up in every genre, but as a result, would make it nearly impossible to create a cohesive and ecumenical definition of "heavy metal."  The relevance of the phrase "heavy metal" however, is more as a culture, rather than a sound--which is what a genre relates to.67.169.25.132 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious that some author above said something similar about rock music. Nicrorus (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Metal bands world map
I think this deserves a place somewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.161.22 (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To me it looks rather unnecessary and we have pretty much summed up the situation in a couple of sentences.-- SabreBD  (talk)  17:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with SabrebBD(talk), this seems out of place and non-cohesive with the article. DaemonsTool(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC).


 * I think the problem is that it may not be representative of real figures, since it only uses information from a manually compiled (I think) encyclopedia. Inverse Hypercube  22:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does indeed seem to be manually compiled. Also, the info is credited to Encyclopaedia Metallum, which 1) is user generated, and 2) excludes a lot of bands that would be considered metal in mainstream opinion.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 00:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern metal
I've seen some bands labeled at this before, i made an internet research and there are some sites, forums and comunities labeling metal bands as this. What editors think, is this the born of a new sub-genre? Nicrorus (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am all in favour of keeping the article up to date with the latest trends in the genre, but it sounds as if those sources wouldn't pass WP:RS. There is an inevitable time lag that we have to accept while the terminology makes it into major magazines and the handful of reliable online sources. If those sources are available it may be possible to construct something. If not we will have to wait.-- SabreBD  (talk)  06:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And even so, "modern metal" refers to a time frame and not to a sub-genre in the same way as NWOBHM. Modern metal is just heavy metal in the current context. zubrowka 74  17:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How can we codify?
As an example is this similar to these fictitous genres? It seems to me that there are three ways to classify metal that can cross over. If a band combines death in one with thrash and goth in two others, would that be three genres? This may make a good thesis for a music student to create new codified genres and let the cultures decide how to name them. It seems that any band can create a new combination, and thus for every band it creates a new genre. Two examples I can think of are the earlier bands Boston and Electric Light Orchestra, there are many more. Did these radically new styles create new genres? I should have mentioned at the top, that I personally lump it all into a few categories. Rock, heavy metal rock and a term I call 'head banger' with absolutely no intent that in offfends. I only use it in small circles. I could say much more, but I will let others digest what I have said so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Country music with 4 string banjos
 * Western music with 4 string banjos
 * Country music with 5 string banjos
 * Western music with 5 string banjos
 * 1) Type of instruments and how they are played.
 * 2) Lyrics
 * 3) Voicing styles

Jimi Hendrix Experience
Should they also be included among the first heavy metal bands in the lead? Jagged 85 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the Experience are usually seen as blues rock and a precursor to heavy metal, rather than one of the first bands.--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * But "Purple Haze" is considered an early heavy metal song, so why shouldn't the Experience be considered a metal band? Jagged 85 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably because it is possible to have a song identified as HM or proto-HM without the band being seen as a HM band.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Not metal, nuff said

Blue cheer changes
The attempt to change the lead, without evidence, to increase the apparent role of Blue cheer clearly has no consensus among editors on this article. However, I am opening this thread as an alternative to the concerned ip, as an alternative to edit waring and as an opportunity to explore any relevant issues. Feel free to raise them here.--  SabreBD  (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So you opened this cause you wasn't sure about Blue Cheer being metal..? In my opinion and from what I have read they are metal.186.31.129.64 is right on what he wrote about Blue Cheer being undoubtedly the first. the article should be reverted back to his version.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I opened this thread to give you the opportunity to put your case. It is important to understand that your opinion is not sufficient, especially to a major change to a featured article, which must follow reliable sources. There are other issues with your edits, not least that they are in the lead of the article, which is a summary of the main body and not a place to put controversial theories. This is a major change and as such needs consensus, which you clearly do not have. If you want to achieve that you need to put your case here, indicating your reliable sources and then convince editors of there validity.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me just make one thing clear i'm not 186.31.129.64. I thought what he wrote made a lot of sense, especially about Blue Cheer being the first metal band. You're right he shouldn't have posted it in the lead.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of bands in lead
I cannot quite believe that I am having to open a thread on this, but since my revert was reverted here it is. I am suggesting we go back to the order of Led Zep, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. I believe they have that order because Zep were the first to adopt a "heavy" sound, which then influenced the other two.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for Led Zep, Deep Purple then Black Sabbath, as the last one is the first 100 % metal band. zubrowka 74 17:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record: I totally agree with that and it would be my preferred order.--  SabreBD  (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Progressive Rock
Considering that pioneering band Black Sabbath had a definite Progressive Rock influence and early bands like Deep Purple and Judas Priest also had definite prog influences shouldn't Progressive Rock be listed as one of the stylistic origins? Other music genres have like ten different things listed as origins, so why should Heavy Metal be limited to just Blues Rock and Psychedelic Rock? It's not like those are even cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.228.108.125 (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be difficult since prog and heavy metal developed at the same time. The infobox just takes the two major influences and this is a featured article, which most genre articles are not, so this is probably a better model. The blues and psychedelic rock influences are sourced in the main text. They do not need to be cited in the lead as well.--  SabreBD  (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Extreme heterosexualist ideology"
Should this really be in here? I mean come on, Rob Halford for instance is a GOD of metal and he's not heterosexual. At the very least, in this context, the remark appears to have pejorative connotations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.19.156 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it's the view of one person, Deena Weinstein, and it is not an established fact. For example, the sentence says that she "argues" about this, which suggests that this is not a generally accepted idea. Also the phrase is inside quotation marks, which means that these are the exact words the opinion holder used. The editors who included that part, in my opinion, maintained a NPOV.—' Epicurus B. (Not my talk page) ' 13:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

First recorded use

 * "The first recorded use of "heavy metal" is a reference to a motorcycle in the Steppenwolf song "Born to Be Wild", also released that year [1968]."

This reads like a contradiction since the article has already mentioned earlier instances of the term's use, such as in novels by William Burroughs. Note that "first recorded use" is a standard term applying to any persistent medium, and would certainly include novels (I did wonder if "recorded" was meant in the specific sense of making a sound recording, which would be very confusing here). I am not sure what the article means to say, but whatever it is I think it needs clarifying. 86.160.222.156 (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, that it means "in a record". Not sure if I have the access to the source to check, so if anyone else does, please go ahead.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have found the relevant snippet on Google Books. It actually says "The first appearance of "heavy metal" in a song lyric is generally agreed to be Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild"..." I will change the article accordingly as "first recorded use" is too confusing. 86.160.208.98 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good job. Thanks.--  SabreBD  (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What the article fails to mention (possibly under etymology) in respect to "first use" is that in 1967, Hapshash and the Coloured Coat released a record under their name titled "Featuring The Human Host And The Heavy Metal Kids". The music of this album is indeed "heavy" but it is psychedelic in genre, not "heavy metal". There is also a group Heavy Metal Kids defined in Wikipedia as a British "hard rock" band, but since their formation is placed in 1972, it may well be that the "Heavy Metal Kids" of 1967 were another group that never rose to any fame. Whatever the case may be, this is the very first instance that the William Burroughs expression was used as a name of a band. Hoverfish Talk 13:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For a sample from this album, one can search for "Hapshash & The Coloured Coat - Empires of the Sun" in YouTube. Hoverfish Talk 13:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism
Why is there no section on criticism of heavy metal? There is a section in one of the talk archives but not in the article..one person in the talk page said something about how do you criticize art etc which is pretty much the problem..metal isn`t exactly high art to a lot of people so maybe no one cares enough to do it...I know I`m not going to bother...there is a criticism or at least a controversy section in just about every article in Wikipedia from Anthropology to the  World Food Program  but not here..interesting that it exist in the rap section. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should write a section (with reliable sources), and it would be a reasonable addition to the article. Vortiene (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Machismo??
Really, lyrics are associated to Machismo? I'm really ofended as a metal fan and a wikipedia fan when I realize that wikipedia has a nonsense information, and I think that it should be removed/replaced by anything else. Metal lyrics are much more associated to agression and realism (realistc point of view of the world). -- 201.74.36.114 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that heavy metal lyrics are usually unconcerned with machismo, but I disagree with saying they are focused on aggression and realism, the lyrics in heavy metal are often more fantastic (fantasy based) than other musical genres, and while they can be aggressive they can also be quite poetic. If anything it's just the lyrics are generally pretty dark. 139.192.36.134 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement is based on reliable sources and much observed by scholars on the subject.--  SabreBD  (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

2010s
This article needs to be updated with a section for the 2010s. Any ideas? — Confession0791 talk 04:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Skid Row
Skid Row did not wear make-up, did not ever once wear spandex, nor was their hair teased. Their music was much heavier than the New York glam style surrounding them. They were, if anything, Sleaze Metal (like Guns N Roses). Their second album was thrash metal. Also, the article fails to mention that Skid Row had the very first heavy metal album in music history to ever release at #1 on the Billboard charts. Gee, that's a pretty huge omission. Not to mention they also took Pantera on their first ever arena tour, thus exposing them to a much wider audience and contributing tremendously to their mainstream breakout. Phil Anselmo has stated numerous times that without Skid Row, and especially Sebastian Bach, that Pantera may have never made the break-through that they did. Opening for Skid Row, Pantera quickly showed that their groove-metal style was the superior act. Lastly, the article should mention that Snake Sabo, Skid Row guitarist and founding member, is the long-time manager for Anselmo's band Down. --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as it's sourced, baby. As long as it's sourced... zubrowka 74 18:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be proportionate, this is not a Skid Row article. Putting all this in would be WP:UNDUE.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is great, but could use some improvements...
This article is very well-written and detailed. However, I think that it needs a couple of improvements: First off, the chronology skips about five years. It goes from Judas Priest's debut, released in 1974, to the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, which began circa 1979. Shouldn't there be something that mentions the innovations made in metal during that time? What about bands such as Rush, Nazareth, Wishbone Ash, Scorpions, or Rainbow? Some of these bands have already been mentioned, but something should be mentioned about the innovations they brought to metal. And yes, I get that these bands are more hard rock than heavy metal, but they still played an important influence on genres like progressive metal, or power metal. Also, shouldn't Budgie get more of a mention? I mean, they were a huge influence on the NWOBHM movement, yet they are reduced to just a single sentence here. Next, I don't see why Motorhead are in the NWOBHM section. They heavily influenced it, no question about that, but they predated the movement by several years. Lastly, shouldn't the part about Judas Priest itself be expanded slightly? Sad Wings of Destiny, Sin After Sin, and Stained Class played a huge role in the development of both speed metal, and power metal. I'm not asking for the entire early history of the band, but shouldn't it be specified more? This extra info should either be put into the Origins section, or more likely be put into a new section. At least that's my opinion. What do the rest of you think? Twyfan714 (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have a good perspective on that particular era. Search Google and find some sources to support what you'd like to add, then edit it in. — Confession0791 talk 19:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did what you said, and created a new section titled "Evolution: mid 1970s". It's not much, but it's a start. I know there may be some citations needed, but unfortunately, Allmusic (which I was planning on using as my main source), is not working at the moment. Anyway, tell me what you think! Twyfan714 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see that my section was deleted. I guess my sources weren't that good, but can't we talk about this? As I said above, the article has little mention of what happened between Judas Priest's debut and the NWOBHM. Budgie, in my opinion, should have a little more info about how they started playing heavy rock faster than what was typical of the time. Also, Rush isn't even mentioned until the section on power metal, and even then, it's only a sentence. I just think that this article could be a bit more detailed on this transitional period. Anyone else agree? Twyfan714 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What happened is that you copy-pasted from that source, and it was removed because of copyright violations. Try rewording it in your own words as much as possible, and then add your citation. It would also be helpful if you read this page thoroughly . — Confession0791 talk 17:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I don't remember doing that, but I guess I did. Oh well. I'll make sure to be more careful next time. Thanks! Twyfan714 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

michener
it isn't quite a reference to heavy metal. yet it is pretty close. I once read a reprint of a magazine article by james Michener about the novelist's experience serving as one of the judges of a "battle of the bands" contest. Michener referred to the "metallic" sheen that he detected in the music of the bands (or at least some of them). he praised this element in the music and said that he "looked for it" when evaluated the bands that were entered in the context. as I recall, this particular contest was won by a group called "the Olympics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6017:53:14F3:98FB:2E8A:8889 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

1980
To my knowledge, Ian Scott [among others in the metal community(?)] recognizes British Steel as the first true metal album. The term goes back to Steppenwolf, but what is the answer in terms of technicality? Priest albums from the 70's cling to lingering blues musical elements. Should blues rock bands such as Zeppelin in actuality be regarded as proto-heavy metal? And Sabbath the same in spite of the diminished 5th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.112 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There's also alot of people that say British Steel is closer to hard rock (like United and Living After Midnight).108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regional Scenes.
Australia has a very small regional scene, especially less so than many other countries/regions not on there, most importantly Finland. Finland is a mass producer of many Heavy Metal bands, more specifically in the Folk Metal subgenre, as well as Symphonic, Power and Melodic Death Metal, many of their bands are very big names in Metal which have reached reasonable mainstream success (eg. Nightwish, Stratovarius, Sonata Arctica, Wintersun, Ensiferum, Children of Bodom, Turisas, Korpiklaani, Finntroll, Amorphis, Lordi etc...)Where as Australia has a much more underground Metal scene and does not produce as much bands, especially not 'big' bands. Finland definitely has one of the largest and more recognizable Metal scenes, and should replace Australia.

3,168 recorded bands from Finland. (out of a country with a population of 5 million).

1,915 recorded bands from Australia. (out of a total population of 23 million).

Finland has more bands, more famous bands, a higher percentage of bands, and a larger following than Australia, and should replace it on the 'regional scenes' list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.186.150 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Why the need to "remove" Australia. Australia undoubtedly has a scene, it doesn't matter if it isn't as large as Finland's. Just have them both. Also, it doesn't matter how many power metal bands are in Germany, the whole reason these links exist in the first place is because they are supposed to link to specific pages that discuss each Country's unique scene. The reason Finland isn't on there, particularly, is because no one has written a particular article regarding their scene. So if it gets removed again, that's why.


 * Also, please don't use Metal Archives as citations in articles, as it is not a reliable Wikipedia reference. You've made your point in this case, however. Vortiene (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason i dont think Australia should be listed is because although they have enough bands to write an article about, Metal is simply not a strong presence there nor are Australian bands a strong presence in the general Metal scene. Yes there is a metal scene in Australia, but it certainly is not in the top 8 largest in the world. A detailed article could be written about Indonesian Metal, but that does not mean it has a significant Metal scene.


 * Countries not listed with more bands than Australia: France (4,189), Italy (5,379), Poland (2,841), Russia (2,733), Canada (2,987), Spain (2,730), Mexico (1,951), Netherlands (1,975). (i agree that Metallum is not an entirely accurate source, but it is reliable for getting a rough idea on the amount of bands from countries).


 * All of these countries have a larger scene than Australia, though none of them have a really significant one, especially when compared to the countries already listed. If Australia is listed, then so should all these countries with larger scenes than Australia. Removing Australia makes this a whole lot easier and narrows it down to only the countries with a major Metal scene.


 * The amount of bands that have been formed within a country does not accurately indicate prominence. As well, the real issue is these scenes not having specific articles. There is a well-formulated history associating Norway with Black Metal specifically articulated on the Black Metal page, so yes, it does make sense to link to the Black Metal page. In Finland's case, not only are they known for more than just folk metal (meaning they are not synonymous with folk metal), the folk metal page does not have anything strictly speaking of Finland's scene. So perhaps an article regarding Finland's scene (concerning their general metal scene, not just folk metal) would be a good place to start. Other than that, I don't see much of a reason to include it without pertinent information on the "regional scene" of Finland, as it is in the "regional scene" section and those who click the links there expect information on the "regional scene" of the respective country they click on.


 * As for Australia, I believe another reason Australia was included was due to the fact AC/DC was discussed in the article and their influence on the scene and metal overall. Vortiene (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that Finland is listed, it should be linked to their Metal. Since a specific page for Finnish Metal does not exist yet, i think it should be linked to Folk Metal the same way Sweden has been linked to Melodic Death Metal, or Norway and Black Metal. The genre is not exclusive or synonymous to the country, but has by far the most prominent scene there, the wikipedia article for Folk Metal even says so. .

Obviously you cannot have NWOBHM outside of Britain, but you can have Black Metal outside of Norway, yet it has been linked because Norway has the most prominent Black Metal scene, and Finland should be linked to Folk Metal for the same reason. (at least until a separate Finnish Metal page is created). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.186.150 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

False claims and Queen missing in the article...

 * "Motörhead introduced a punk rock sensibility and an increasing emphasis on speed."

You should probably start listening to Queen and their emphasis on speed. Why say many hundreds of bands that Queen inspired them? Because they got rid of the blues scale? Well, obviously not only...speed, rythms, melodies, everything out of Queen. Okey, actually also Hendrix' solos had high speed, the Beatles had high speed, and Presley had high speed (rock'n'roll is just fast blues). But, you know, Mozart and Bach had high speed, too. Still, Queen is king of rock without roll. Without them we would still listen to "riders on the storm" and fall asleep... --178.197.236.87 (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Who took out the section on Queen?
Seriously, who runs this page? Needs new mods. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no mods for specific pages on wikipedia. Only administrators for wider areas that control article deletion/locking/etc. Although the portion you added seems reasonable, if you elect to re-add the portion (I'm not sure why it was reverted), please add complete references (indicating the work, the author, etc. as in Template:Cite_web) Vortiene (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, lol, was thinking the same. There is the responsible socket puppet that removed sourced edits with false claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=621527034&oldid=621517049 --178.197.226.78 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard Rock Influence
Not really too much to say. Hard rock was the biggest influence on heavy metal. Just because the two were called the same in the 60s 70s, that doesn't make them the same, and hard rock came first. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it does mean they were the same and logically something cannot be a cause of itself.--  SabreBD  (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Sabre on this matter. Many people have tried to change this on the article, but what he says is a reasonable justification for not changing it. Vortiene (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not mean they were the same. I'll give an example: Garage rock was usually just called rock or rock n roll early on, and was later the first genre to be called "punk". However, it is a defined style of music, and not necessarily punk. And we can still consider rock n roll an influence on garage rock, as well as consider garage rock an influence on punk rock. Hard rock and heavy metal are not the same. Heavy metal is derived from hard rock, and they're strongly related, but not the exact same. If it were, then we wouldn't have a separate page for it. Even if they were called the same name in the early years of metal, it was still a new style of music derived from an already existing one. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As Sabre has pointed out previously, many sources indicate that heavy metal and hard rock were considered the same initially. If sources indicated that hard rock originated before heavy metal, and heavy metal originated stylistically from hard rock, then it would be sensible to call hard rock a stylistic origin. If they grew in parallel, becoming distinct styles from a common origin, it's reasonable to say they had influence on each other but neither was the stylistic origin of the other. Do we know which of these cases is more established? Sources? Vortiene (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, we can trace the earliest hard rock bands back to the early 60s with bands such as The Sonics, The Rolling Stones, The Animals, and The Who. And influence can be heard farther back in the 50s with Link Wray and Pat Hare. But it should be mentioned that those musicians also influenced many early metal bands. Now, the earliest metal bands came a few years later in the mid to late 60s with artists such as The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Iron Butterfly, Steppenwolf, Alice Cooper, Blue Cheer, , Led Zeppelin, and Black Sabbath. I am aware that most of the aforementioned metal musicians can also be considered hard rock, but their sound was clearly different than the normal hard rock that preceded them. Now in regards to the term "heavy metal", the term was used in Steppenwolf's Born To Be Wild in 1968 ("heavy metal thunder") in reference to a motorcycle. However, Iron Butterfly's album, Heavy (released a few months before Born To Be Wild) seems to suggest an influence on the term as well. Like I said, it does not matter if they were called the same thing. That does not make them the same thing. Hard rock came first and was an influence on heavy metal. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the same logical fallacy I am afraid. What you need are major sources that explicitly♣ make this distinction chronologically.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Logical fallacy? What are you even talking about? I've given sources to mostly official websites. And again, it does not matter what the two genres were called at one point. The article isn't about the term, it's about the genre associated. Hard rock was clearly something that already existed, and something that clearly influenced heavy metal. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, what you need are major sources that explicitly make this distinction in a chronological order. Pointing out bands that existed prior to the earliest heavy metal bands does not constitute having a large influence on the genre's development. Vortiene (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why you're arguing on this. If you knew something about music, you would have known that metal is harder than hard rock, so they are not the same genre. And as I Am Sandwich is saying, hard rock was first. I think the comparison with punk and garage rock was a good comparison. Te og kaker (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does there have to be a reliable source for something that is obvious? Without hard rock there would be no heavy metal. 108.81.33.59 (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

A common misconception, just because in terms of heaviness it goes Hard Rock > Metal, this does not mean that Metal came from Hard Rock. Metal and Hard Rock essentially evolved around the same time (late 60s/early 70s). Both of them came from Psychedelic and Blues Rock. By the family tree analogy, Psychedelic Rock is the father, and Metal and Hard Rock are its offspring, brothers (Hard Rock being the slightly older).

Or in visual form:

This:      Psychedelic Rock                 Not this:      Psychedelic Rock /  \                                              \                          /     \                                          Hard Rock Hard Rock  \                                              \ Heavy Metal                                     Heavy Metal Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.186.150 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Except genres aren't people. Just because 2 genres are of the same origin doesn't mean the older one couldn't have influenced the younger. For example, death metal and groove metal are both derivatives of thrash metal, but death metal came earlier and influenced groove metal as well, despite being its "brother". In this case, the fact that we have hard rock bands who are older than heavy metal bands (from early 60's) and influenced the first heavy metal bands (as outlined I Am A Sandwich) seems enough to me to consider hard rock a stylistic origin. I would like to here more opinions on this. MA SHAUN IX 15:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is that one is not older than the other.--  SabreBD  (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How is hard rock not older? As I Am A Sandwich highlighted, the first bands considered hard rock came earlier than heavy metal bands (in the early 1960s, as opposed to the late 1960s). What am I missing? MA SHAUN IX 19:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Because they were not called those things. The terms hard rock, heavy rock and heavy metal were used interchangeably until the 1970s.--  SabreBD  (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * But this article isn't about what the bands were called back in the 1960's, but what they are considered to be retrospectively. If we agree that they are 2 different genres, hard rock and heavy metal, there is no reason for us to care about them being confused ages ago. The point seems pretty clear to me: bands that we now consider hard rock formed around the early 1960's, and influenced bands that formed around the late 1960's that we now consider heavy metal. Why should the article not reflect this? The only reasonable argument, in my opinion, would be if the earlier hard rock bands had no influence on the heavy metal bands, but that is not so. MA SHAUN IX 00:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That would be a very odd way of writing history, to just ignore previous usage and reclassify things according to how we see them now, which is likely to keep on changing and for which, the major sources do not lend support.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How do major sources not reflect this? If we follow the "original" classification, then we shouldn't distinguish hard rock and heavy metal at all, and might as well call Black Sabbath a hard rock band. As was pointed out here before, just because garage rock was called punk at some point, doesn't mean we can use that classification retrospectively. Same thing here. And even if we did, the very term hard rock is older than heavy metal, and was used to describe earlier bands. Just because they were used interchangeably at some point doesn't mean hard rock bands didn't influence the first heavy metal bands. MA SHAUN IX 11:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

POV
This article tends to take the point of view of the hard core fan, disparaging mainstream bands and ignoring the decline in popularity after the 1980s. It should be rewritten so that it's less like a fansite.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I see that in the article so you may have to point to some specifics. What exactly would you suggest and are they major sources that have been misused or overlooked?--  SabreBD  (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the most obvious example is: "Metal remained popular in the 2000s, particularly in continental Europe".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that is untrue then you need to find some reliable sources so that we can put it in, but I have to say that doesn't seem very fansite like.--  SabreBD  (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Only a diehard fan would say that's true. What reliable source says that???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about?-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 03:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Heavy metal was popular in the 1980s. It's not popular any more. You could say it retained some popularity in Nordic countries. Also look at the references to "glam metal". This is somewhat of a disparaging term - see the discussion about Skid Row above. The article has nothing good to say about "glam metal". In contrast, it promotes "underground" trends. Why are they called "underground"? They aren't a secret resistance movement. They just were never very popular.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why is it that metal bands still draw in thousands of fans and top music charts (even bands like Dimmu Borgir or Children of Bodom), which play seemingly underground styles)? Why is it that every day you hear heavy metal music on the radio? Why is it that in Europe, metal is so popular and mainstream that Finland has Metal Masses? What about the whole alt metal, rap metal, nu metal and metalcore phenomenon? The article documents how metal continues to be popular, I have no idea why you think it isn't.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 14:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources point to real popularity. Also we do not say anything good about glam metal, but, unless I missed it, we do not say anything good about any form of metal - its not what an encyclopedia is for.--  SabreBD  (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the decline in popularity should have been mentioned. I don't agree that "metal is not popular anymore", but the claim that it's as popular as in the 80s is a LIE. The reason why you hear metal everyday on the radio is that you're listening to a metal-oriented or 80s radio channel. If metal is as popular now as it once was, please mention some modern metal bands with bigger success than Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and Ozzy. I'm sorry, but you won't find any. Te og kaker (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to take things the wrong way here, but many metal bands that existed in the 80s are still popular (if not more popular) today. Music isn't quite communicated in the same medium as it was in the 80s. That is to say however, if there are reliable sources pointing to real current popularity, then arguing otherwise doesn't prove much regardless.  Vortiene  (talk ) 12:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What Vortiene says comes close to the Point. Metalers are a very conservative who like that's oldfashioned and durable. This is in harsh Contrast to other Subcultures like Punks,Hiphoppes,Hipsters,Emos and Ravers, who focus more on creativity and modernism. This means that Metalbands from the 80s (and albums from when) are as much as popular - if not even more popular - that newer Songs. This has several effects, that decrease the certainnes of album sells:


 * Album sells amongst Metallers spread over more Bands, as novelity is ignored. This makes it difficult for a single artist to sell lots of albums in a month, but the integral over time or the integral over metal has a higher value than the integral over other genres.
 * Metallers often buy used Albums (Ebay,Record Pawn shop,...). The purchase of a used album doesn't increase the sells of that band, because the album was already sold from a surveilled vendor. But a second hand owner of an album who listens to it regulary has a higher effective popularity than a first hand owner, who listens to it once and then lets it rot in his shelf.
 * The Music Industry is less aggresive in defending their copyright of older titles, so you can easily find Metal on Youtube, and record in on a casette. Similar to abandonedware in Software.
 * Metallers listen to same Albums again and again, so they generally buy less Albums, than people who want to be trendy or fashionable.
 * Another important aspect is, that metal has reached the mainstream (in the positive sence), a goal that no other subculture ever really reached. The intelectual and political elite, who pulles the strings listens to metal. Lines between Metal, Folk and Art Music blurr. The german Band Santiano for example plays gigs on both Musikantenstadl and Wacken. This could happen because metal is a durable music that resists all changes, so it can connect generations. Just take a look at an University. In intelectual facilities (Science or Engineering) a lot of students and doctors listen to metal, and if you wait a decade the professors will too. On the other hands hiphoppers are in prison and punks and hipsters are on the dole. Further, Metal is popular in rural areas, while other subcultures only catched on in urban areas. It is also verified, that Metalers are very intelligent. In the German Democratic Republic politicians first got suspicious about metal, so the made intelligence tests with Metallers. The Result - Metallers are smarter than average. In the mid 2000s German psychologist made surveis amongst gifted teenagers and found out that they prefer metal (and hate hiphop or jazz (so Lisa Simpson is unrealistic)). Recently Americans made some Dataminging with pupils test results and music preferences and found out that those who score good listen to metal or rock (while whose listen to gospel scored worst). -- 79.225.110.88 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Power Chords
The bit about major and minor power chords contradicts the main 'power chord' article. Though it is referenced, it's a fairly eccentric use of the term 'power chord' IMO. Delete? Or does the main article need changing? Happypoems (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange that this didn't get an answer, so here's the theory on how it works. A powerchord, by definition, is neither major nor minor. It's a perfect fifth diad(chord) which can include at most the octave of the root note. Any additional notes and they will be called barre chords, slash chords or even jazz chords. Also minor third and major third diads are not powerchords.

Etymology
I'm surprised that this article does not include the hypothesis that the moniker "heavy metal" came about because many of the early heavy metal musicians came from the factories of the Midlands (England). Whilst this is disputable, I feel that it ought at least to be mentioned.

This theory has been espoused in at least one TV documentary (sorry, I can't remember the title) and is also mentioned here: http://teachrock.org/lesson/the-roots-of-heavy-metal/ Marchino61 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Meshuggah
I think Meshuggah should be mentioned. They have essentially created a new subgenre of metal. My opinion is that they will be considered among the most important metal bands - in terms of talent, creativity and influence - in the history of metal, if they aren't already there. I'm not sure what kind of sources would be considered appropriate verification for the inclusion of Meshuggah into a Wikipedia entry on metal, but I can't imagine someone more experienced in editing Wikipedia entries would have much trouble finding more than a few were he or she so inclined. 65.216.251.162 (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. With the advent of deathcore and djent, things have happened in the 2010s that make this article outdated. The heading "Recent trends: mid–late 2000s" is a bit stale since we are in 2015 already. Surely we can find sources to update the page. — Confession0791 talk 02:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, covering "recent trends" as 2010-present rather than the last 15 years is probably a good update for the page. Don't want the page to approach a list, however. Vortiene (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually what would happen is a section would go after it. "Djent" and "Deathmetal" are hardly important enough to make the page "outdated". CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also metalcore for instance and possibly NWOAHM are one of maybe two of the Biggest Current Heavy Metal genres Today. "Recent trends".CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Deathcore and Djent are notable, hence their articles existing in the first place, and being fairly well cited. Leave the article contents up to notability and informative usage rather than opinion. If coverage of recent trends is warranted and well cited, this is a fine addition to the article. Maintaining FA status of course is a priority, so changes should be discussed. Vortiene (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one said they weren't notable. They are hardly important enough to make the page "outdated". No one changed any contents. Opinion is mine.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did google djent, in particular, but couldn't deduce whether the sources were reliable enough or how to incorporate the info into the article. — Confession0791 talk 20:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Chronological and genre relative and adding pioneer.
Since when is this considered Drastic.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My own knowledge on metal is pretty limited so I'm hoping others chime in here. This is a featured article so any drastic change needs be be verified in order for the article to retain FA status. The issue here CombatMarshmallow is you appear to have a vested interest in Hogan's Heroes having added quite alot to their article, and are trying to shoehorn them into a subsection that is about current bands (hence the two images of bands of recent years). If these Hogan's Heroes are notable (and as I said my knowledge is limited on metal) then they belong elsewhere in the article. Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't belong elsewhere. The whole content most of, is about Metalcore, melodic metalcore, metalcore fusions, Metalcore success at festivals, Metalcore with trance, Metalcore sub-genre mathcore. Which I put all together very logically from Genre to success to sub-genres through out the paragraph, before you reverted it. ok. about FA. My invested interest is correcting things whenever possible. What does it matter. if i had an invested interest in shoes does that mean I wouldn't know about shoes. I have added a lot to many groups. Ive moved a lot since 2006, didnt usually feel like signing in and lost all my work edit history by not signing in.Mastodon is relative to Doom and retro-rock genres in that section I put it, more than just trailing off on the other paragraph connected to nothing genre relative. "subsection that is about current bands " No its Not. The Sub Section is about recent Trends. Music Trends. The picture is for a pioneer. From 1984. Of metalcore. This is "The" section they belong. Its not about successful bands its about "Recent trends: mid–late 2000s". In recent times 2000's and beyond metalcore as become a trend. Whats Wrong with putting the first group to go worldwide with it. I could put tons of references or whatever will keep it FA status. With the picture. Thats the best way. Everyone should know who the first three bands are. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The subsection is entitled Recent trends: mid–late 2000s, thus is about bands of this period (especially notable bands). It's not about pushing bands we like, or bands that we have a vested interest in, or bands from a different era. The script deals with the recent trend and the bands in question are next to them. It's important that the article retains its FA status which others have worked hard to achieve. Those that did so are better placed than me to know what is appropriate in terms of any drastic changes to the article.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a Pioneering group. Its not pushing anything. Dont know why assumptions keep being made about peoples motives. Putting the earliest group in the article isn't pushing anything except knowledge if anything. No not really about bands its about trends, in Music. Its surprising this part really doesn't say anything about the recent trends, it just says who has made money from them. Its not about trends of a bands sales, its recent trends in music. About the text Ill wait til its pro if any text gets added at all being the status could be at stake with some not pro level sentences. It needs a lot of care.The picture Im going to add. The photo is the same size.  A Photo of what is Clearly a notable band. They have real references are right on their page. If there ends up being a discussion about Ill participate. I happen to know a lot about heavy metal and obscure bands from late 1960s to now Im very well versed. Especially in certain decades. I can be very helpful. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to make drastic changes. The section deals with recent trends, and the band Bullet for My Valentine is a notable band in that recent trend with their image next to the text on them. Please read wiki guidelines about images in relation to the text. All this is before we even get to the issue about notability and the other aspects already brought up.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Those that did so are better placed than me to know what is appropriate in terms of any drastic changes to the article". let it happen. Let others who know be involved. Progress has gone forward. 2601:84:302:B450:4C5B:7CCB:4AE:8CB7 (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 23:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 23:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. The subject matter is what I was referring to as in the history of metal, not images in relation to text. You appear to have logged out and your ip address is showing, Any drastic changes require consensus in talk, especially for a featured article.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Im still logged in.2601:84:302:B450:4C5B:7CCB:4AE:8CB7 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You already say you don't know about this genre. Are edit warring. We had a discussion. Out of everyone thats been to the page your taking an issue. You think and interpret recent trends as what it is not. the recent trends are the recent trends in heavy metal such as Metalcore and all its sub genres. thats the pioneer of metalcore. Theres never going to be consensus until you let it be and see where a debate actually goes. Theres no reason to remove it. The section is about Metalcore, and everyone who played a version of it, Including the pioneer not Bullet for my Valentine exclusively. Something is going on with my IP. Im still signed in. CombatMarshmallow. 2601:84:302:B450:4C5B:7CCB:4AE:8CB7 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm following wiki guidelines, image next to its text, and have also followed what it states in the note in the article that any drastic changes require consensus. An article will lose its FA status pretty quickly by not following these simple guidlelines. Let the discussion develop and see what seasoned contributors to the article have to say (or admin assistance on here if needs be). Consensus will ensure the article retains its FA status.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The image with the text or not is really something that doesn't always line up. Its only one sentence. Nothing more important than any other band in the section. Certainly not a pioneer. Im all for a consensus. Also there needs to be Many involved, prefferrably who have decades experience in this genre. its like one band of origin and one band of chart success. Doesn't matter if its Bullet For my Valentine or Children of Bodum. Just you are involved who says you don't know about heavy metal. How did you know the edit on an article you don't know much anything about. Its like you make all kinds of reasons you say its about recent bands then change, then change your reasoning again. All the time reverting. Not learning or going forward. Four days now. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This needs activity. Period. This isn't just going to go "away" and Im not going to work it out with people who admit they have no clue what its about. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

New proposed paragraph on gender, race and LGBQ in metal
Mike Brake states that "[h]eavy metal performers are almost exclusively male", with "exceptions such as [the all-female band] Girlschool being accorded attention most often for their singularity." According to the Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal, there are few female heavy metal bands. The predominance of men in heavy metal is not unique to this genre; Marion Leonard states that men predominate in the overall music industry. Deena Weinstein states that in heavy metal, factors such as "gender and race...determine whether [bands] will make it to the big stage." In the US, the LA Weekly has stated that "Latinos are common in metal, [but] African-Americans are not." According to Kevin Fellezs, "black [African American] metal musicians must...confront the practices of a music industry that bases its decisions around marketing, artist development and genre configuration" on what Walser and Weinstein have called heavy metal's "mostly young, white male, and working class audience." There are some examples of black heavy metal bands, such as Stone Vengeance. According to Tom Dare, the editor of Terrorizer metal magazine, there are "...few openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender musicians in high profile metal bands." In 1998, Judas Priest singer Rob Halford was "...one of the first people in a heavy metal band to come out as gay." OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I put this proposed paragraph here so that other editors can propose improvements, changes or additional sources. Reading the article, the most appropriate place for this paragraph is in the Characteristics section's opening section. I look forward to hearing comments and suggestions! OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This I think would go better in the "fan subculture" section, as that deals, in part, with gender and masculinity in metal. I think it would be even better to create a new section addressing gender issues in heavy metal, since this is a well-researched and well-discussed topic.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 19:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Rockbitch should be mentioned as the first metal band to have lesbian sex onstage,and Butcher Babies are notable for getting their baps out. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It needs work...its not ready and needs more editors involved..CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. 3family6, thank you for your idea of putting the paragraph in the fan subculture section. My concern with that is that the proposed paragraph is explicitly about metal bands and band members. CombatMarshmallow, could you please provide more details about the improvements you would like to see, issues to correct, and so on? Thank you OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 23:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I a carefully thinking about whats best. The grammar doesnt read right currently. Also maybe a few other issues. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am making fixes and improvements to the draft proposed paragraph above, rather than presenting each new change as a new paragraph, which I think would be annoying, as it would take up reams of Talk Page space. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 13:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole section is Garbage. Straight up. Regardless of "sources" they do Not tell an accurate story or make accurate Representation. Heavy Metal Music isn't "Racist". Its not against women. If there are "few" openly gay metal musicians its Their Choice to be open or not and has nothing to do with Heavy Metal Music, it has to do with if they want to disclose their sexuality. If there aren't any black musicians in metal its because they Don't Like Heavy Metal not because its not an "equal opportunity employer". Same thing with women. They either play good or not. This proposed section is like saying there are less men in ballet because its not an equal opportunity employer. As far as Women are concerned it never stopped Arch Enemy from attaining success, Music is based on Talent. Not sexuality or race.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling a whole proposed section garbage is not civil. That issue aside, one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, as far as I understand it, is to find Reliable sources for your contributions. One of the sentences you appear dislike a great deal, the sentence about gender and race in heavy metal bands is sourced to a published book by Deena Weinstein, a respected author on heavy metal who has been cited elsewhere in this article. Seems like a reliable source to me. If you think that the sentence sourced to Weinstein needs to be balanced out, find a reliable source who says "Gender and race do not play a role in heavy metal bands" and then you can put this sentence after the Deena Weinstein quote. Then there will be a balance of differing viewpoints. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 14:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, none of the quoted sources call heavy metal racist or say it is against women. As well, the quoted source about gay musicians does not suggest anything about why there are few gay heavy metal musicians; it just states that there are few openly gay metal musicians. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 14:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually you're whole "proposed section" all it Does is Tries to make Heavy Metal Music appear Racist, Against Women, Against gays. Thats you're whole premise. Equals = Useless. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the first two sentences. Do you have a Wikipedia rationale for disputing the sourced statements that "[h]eavy metal performers are almost exclusively male" and that "there are few female heavy metal bands"? Each of these quotations is sourced to a WP:RS reliable source. In the first case, it is a published book. In the second case it is a published encyclopedia about heavy metal. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 15:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're whole "proposed section" all it Does is Tries to make Heavy Metal Music appear Racist, Against Women, Against gays. Thats you're whole premise. Equals = Useless. Sources or not -doesn't make it Accurate or helpful. It would appear you're trying to add a blemish to an article topic when There isn't one.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to look at the core guidelines that we have to all have to follow as Wikipedia editors, such as WP:RS on reliable sources. Using reliable sources to back up quotations or statements does make it more accurate. There are complex rules about using reliable sources, and what counts as a reliable source. I am not trying to add a blemish to the article, I am trying to add statements that are made in reliable sources. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 16:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First off you're not typing "to" me. You typing to Consensus. Thats one, two Heavy metal isn't a Racist genre and my own advice to you is to get a better understanding of the Genre.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many genres are mostly male based or mostly not gay. Most of them. Heterosexual Musicians are out numbering Homosexual and lesbian musicians because thats also how it is in Real Life. More men play music than Women. Instead of giving it a few days and letting Many people comment your pushing POV and trying to "duel" it out with me. There is no "Duel" consensus is many editors give opinions and Knowledge. Not all of it will agree with yours. Im sure I could find a reliable source that says Murder is good for the population of a Country. Doesn't mean it is. Also "Deena" is an Outsider. Looking in. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It should definitely be more balanced than suggested because there is a great deal of hoyah and bromance to the metal scene, if it cannot be sources (which it can, be emphasising more avant-garde, performance based elements of the genre) perhaps a cartoon of Rob Halford nuts deep in a 16 year old boy would suffice. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree that the reason these gender, race, and LGBT areas of society aren't well represented in the metal world is mostly because of the general machismo already discussed in the article, and the fact these areas of society don't as often wish to become rock musicians in a similar way that women feel computer engineering as a profession isn't that attractive. Rather than specifically excluding these people, it just doesn't tend to happen often. I don't mind either way if this portion is included however. I think that the fact machismo is discussed in the article sort of already covers the fact that LGBT and women don't end up in this genre often, however race might be something to look at. Vortiene (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "source says men predominate in entire music industry" exactly what we have said to you starting 7 Hours ago. Also are you both going to make pretend "Syxxpackid420" (talk) didnt make a gay joke about Rob H. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Equating metal with hedonism is certainly not homophobic. Nothing in what I said would be considered remotely homophobic in England, where Rob Halford is from, but merely bants. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lyrical themes
The section on lyrical themes has a sentence about how heavy metal lyrics have been criticized by music critics for certain issues and by others for misogyny and occult themes. There is a "who?" tag after the word "others." As well, there is no source cited for the claim that others have criticized metal lyrics for misogyny and occult themes. I did research, found out that one of the organizations that has criticized heavy metal for misogyny and occult themes is the Parents Music Resource Center. I found a source which stated that the PMRC had objected to allegedly misogynst lyrics. Then I found a second source which stated that the PMRC has criticized heavy metal for occult themes. Then I added the-now-sourced name of the organization to the article and the two references. The editor CombatMarshmallow reverted this addition and the two sources, with the edit summary stating that I had rewritten the section (adding requested information and adding sources is not rewriting a section). Then I added the information a second time, and CombatMarshmallow reverted it again. One of the comments made by CombatMarshmallow is that the sentence about the misogyny and occult themes is referenced by the citation about the PMRC from the book "Minds on Trial" in the following sentence. A search of the entire text of the cited book, "Minds on Trial" (available here) using the search terms "misogyny" and then, separately, "occult" indicates that neither the term "misogyny" nor the term "occult" appear in the book. Given that the "Minds on Trial" book (the heavy metal section of which was about the Judas Priest trial with the two guys with the shotgun) does not back up the assertion that objections have been made about misogyny and occult themes, I would like to ask to have the sources which were provided in my earlier edits put back. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">OnBeyondZebrax • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats right. When you understand the section you'll understand the edits. meanwhile keep gunning for attention on the talk page. Nothing gets added without consensus so have fun on the talk page. Making things up as you both go along. have a nice day, and have fun on the talk page.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we stop with the passive aggressive attitude? It doesn't really foster good discussion. I've been reading this talk page for about a week and it's getting to be a bit much. Vortiene (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When someone defends something thats inaccurate and comments about "me" it changes the way a discussion flows. Also you don't have to read anything. No one forces anyone to read anything. If it stresses you, don't read. Otherwise your statement should most likely be about how things can be handled more Professionally than its been at times, in Your opinion.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have now stopped watching this page, and hence there will be one less editor contributing. Vortiene (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)