Talk:Industrial rock/Archive 1

Industial Rock VS Industrial Metal
Ok, I think the ammount of crossover entrys between IR and IM are getting very annoying to the point where they are affecting the quality of both articles. I think it is neccessary that a clear line between the two needs to be drawn, here is an example of what I mean:
 * Bands that do not belong here, but on Industrial Metal
 * Ministry (no, Ministry is i. rock, you obviously have not listened to their firsts)
 * Ministry's With Sympathy is pure Synthpop and Twitch is closer to EBM. No Rock 'n' Roll there. After these records there's a definite turn towards Thrash Metal/Hardcore punk - subgenres that are way harder than your average Rock music. And Ministry will forever be associated with Industrial Metal - after all, they created it! Musicaindustrial 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fear Factory
 * Rammstein
 * Pitchshifter
 * Godflesh
 * Red Harvest
 * Static-X —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundermaster (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---
 * Bands that belong on Industrial rock, but not on Industrial metal
 * Pig (band)
 * KMFDM (no, most albums are metal) (actually, KMFDM have described themselves as "the fathers of industrial rock")
 * Godhead
 * Sister Machine Gun (OK)
 * In addition, it should also be stated that certian artists do not belong on either of these entrys, for example:
 * Skinny Puppy (i. rock)
 * Front Line Assembly (i. rock and metal)
 * Orgy

I know that this does sound rather pov (yes it does), but given the ever growing confusion between these two article, it might be a good start to solving a potential long term confusion problem that both of these entrys are starting to suffer from. And yes it is correct that it is often hard to make a distiction between these two, but it would make a big difference if an effort was made here to help make a clear distinction. Avador 11:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * poor job, sorry!
 * good work :) --MilkMiruku 16:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that Orgy belongs in Industrial Rock. --148.241.64.130 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say NIN is not industrial anything. Orgy as well. Also KMFDM has many songs/albums that could be classified as Industrial Metal, but they also have many songs/albums that sound more Industrial Rock. Ive never really heard the term "Industrial Metal" used with a serious face anywhere, or by anyone. I would technically say Industrial Metal and Industrial Rock are pretty damn similar. I mean if we are going to go and keep creating new geners why not Industrial Punk? KMFDM would certianly fit into such a catagory. I remember some older version of this wiki entry used to be pretty good. Then the NIN Fan came along and screwed up several sections. Also the "this band isnt Industrial Rock, its Industrial Metal" came along and screwed it up too. Someone should clean this up.

KMFDM, Skinny Puppy, Ministry I think are good examples of Industrial Rock. Bad examples would be Orgy, Manson, and Nine inch Nails. Besides the fact that they dont sound industrial rock, they defeat the whole idea that most if not all Industrial Rock bands are against the idea of Pop-Culture, and MTV. Where as Orgy Manson and NIN ready willingly and able sell out to such things. Its not a matter that these bands are popular and the other ones arnt. So dont even try and make that argument. Its a matter of what the genre represents, and its message, AND style. 68.66.232.107

Why don't you just merge the two, they're the same genre and scene anyway.


 * I'm not against separating those two - Industrial Metal and Industrial Rock - but we need a better criteria for this to work.


 * I mean, what does it take to be considered Industrial Metal? Chugging, palm-muted riffs? Speed-picking? Fast solos? Double-bass drum patterns? Warped production values? Lyrical themes dealing with "dark" topics such as war and occultism? Yes, Ministry has all of the above... and so does Killing Joke! (Except for the guitar solos part.)


 * See what I mean?


 * Musicaindustrial 13:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Older version
This article seems to be getting WORSE every time I read it. I would like to see a revert to a much older version, perhaps as far back as a year ago. The real problem here is that the genre itself has never really had a solid definition, or too many strong examples of it. Nor has it ever been the preferred way for the artists themselves to refer to their music. I can think of examples of times when all 4 of the ones listed consistently on this page (NIN, Filter, Stabbing Westward, Gravity Kills) have said they preferred it called something else, though I couldn't cite any sources.


 * Such suggestions should really be dated! It does need some serious attention, though (refer my comments below) NcLean 58.107.190.170 03:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Link change
I changed the filter link to point to the right page instead of a disamb. page where the band was hidden in a see also section but is there any way to make it display as Filter and point to Filter_(band)?

1-2-06

Klute
I just fixed the link to artist Klute. However, I really don't think he belongs on this list; he is a drum'n'bass producer and I've never heard anything from him that sounded even remotely industrial rock.

1-5-06
 * You're right, the Klute listed on Wikipedia is a different person. The Klute being listed here is a side-project of Leæther Strip.  Though the industrial Klute was first, it has recently changed its name to Klutæ, to avoid confusion with the now-better-known d'n'b producer. - Rynne 18:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: I just discovered that the industrial group Klute recently changed their name to Klutæ specifically to avoid such confusion. I've started a Klutæ stub to that effect.  Also, Klutæ seems to be more industrial metal than industrial rock, so I'm gonna move it over there. - Rynne 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Klutæ is a pure electronic act with guitar-loops (sampled guitars). that's not an industrial metal act.


 * That is exactly what's described in industrial metal: "This term [i.e., industrial metal] is used quite loosely, describing everything from industrial bands sampling metal riffs to heavy metal groups augmented with sequencers." - Rynne 14:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but in no way shape or form is KMFDM, Die Krupps, or PIG industrial rock, these belong in industrial metal.


 * Actually since KMFDM and PIG do not usually use "metal" guitar but mainly rock and roll guitar ala Guenter Schulz--mando 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't really consider "industrial metal" to be a real genre. The way I see it there's Industrial, which refers to older, more unconventional groups like Throbbing Gristle and Einsturzende Neubauten; Industrial-Rock which refers to bands like Ministry, Skinny Puppy, and KMFDM; Industrial-Dance or EBM for bands like Front 242 and Nitzer Ebb; and Post-Industrial for bands such as Rammstein, Orgy, God Lives Underwater, and Static-X. The "Rock" in Industrial-Rock just refers to the songwriting style. A band like Skinny Puppy may be mostly electronic, but their songs have more in common with Ministry than Front 242. The difference between Industrial-Rock and Post-Industrial is defined by a more accessible sound, and the "Industrial" qualities in those bands are more superficial, with many of these groups just being a rock band that uses synths. Industrial can also be used as a catch-all term for any of these styles.


 * How can Skinny Puppy be called "Industrial Rock" if they absolutely hate Rock 'n' Roll music and it's culture? Read this excerpt taken from an Alternative Press interview (February 1991) with Dwayne:


 * "I hated high-school," he says with a repellent laugh. "I went into the system one way and came out of grade 12 exactly the opposite. But I didn't even KNOW that I was rebelling that's what teenagers and rock culture have been doing all along. I grew up hating AC/DC, the Status Quo and all that. It wasn't until afterwards that I realized I was saying 'Fuck you' to this shit."


 * Musicaindustrial 18:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as Nine Inch Nails, they could fit in either Industrial-Rock or Post-Industrial, but I would say they lean more to the latter.--Brian 2:51 PM, October 22, 2006 (Central Time)

Nine Inch Nails
Do you really think that NIN can be considered the archetype industrial rock group? Guitars on Pretty Hate machine are almost non-existent. Both KMFDM and Ministry predate NIN by many years. --mando 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, KMFDM and Ministry predate NIN; and Reznor has cited Ministry as an influence. However, as noted in the article, industrial rock is an offshoot of industrial metal—the latter being the genre in which Ministry and KMFDM are properly categorized. – Rynne 15:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I really don't like the part about "there were some early influences". They weren't really influencing the genre so much as they were inventing it. It seems as if some nin fan came along and switched it around to suit his preferences. What about Nine Inch Nails makes them industrial rock exactly? Sounds more like some synth pop to me.I think that milku guy will agree with me when I say KMFDM isn't really heavy enough to belong in industrial metal. Most of their early 90s late 80s stuff are just guitar sample thrown here and there, Ministry on the other hand is just pure in your face metal to me. Since KMFDM and PIG do not usually use "metal" guitar but mainly rock and roll guitar ala Guenter Schulz, I disagree with placing them in industrial metal. I think they should stay right here in industrial rock and the article should be rewritted to give credit where credit is due.-- 68.235.47.38 03:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

saying things such as arguably nin is the archetypal industrial rock band. This is obviously an opinion, not a fact. This goes against wikipedia's NPOV policy and therefore I'm adding a tag. -- 68.235.47.38 03:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, can someone fix this? NiN is not an archetype, and that word is certainly not NPOV. I also find the way "there were some early influces" worded to be pretty causal way of tossing away importance of. Where as a bands like KMFDM Ministry, etc are far more important to Industrial Rock, since these are some of the very bands that CREATED it. NiN did not create anything about industrial rock, and perhaps thats not a NPOV by me, but they certainly are no Archetype, and shouldnt be refered to as such. 68.66.232.107 11:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, some NIN fan came a long and decided to give credit where credit is not due. KMFDM and MINISTRY both INVENTED the genre. Songs by KMFDM such as VIRUS, DON'T BLOW YOUR TOP, and GODLIKE all predate NIN by many years. DON'T BLOW YOUR TOP and THE LAND OF RAPE AND HONEY were released in 1988 when Trent was busy doing his Synthpop stuff trying to rip off Gary Numan. Every time I try to edit this page somone comes along and changes it. -68.235.32.111|mando 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some NIN fan keeps coming back and adding NIN to this page, even though everyone else has pretty much agreed that NIN isnt industrial rock. Sentiments such as "NIN was highly acclaimed by rolling stones" has nothing to do with Industrial Rock. NIN was also not at the "forefront" of Industrial Rock. Maybe compromise would be that NIN was influenced by Industrial Rock. I have since removed references to NIN. 68.110.173.242 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was Ministry and Godflesh who invented the genre. KMFDM started adding Thrash riffs to their music one year later than these two... I think. Musicaindustrial 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who says Nine Inch Nails isn't industrial rock? WesleyDodds 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To say that Nine Inch Nails have no place in the Industrial rock genre is a joke. While they might not have invented the genre they have played a big part in developing the genre. While NIN might get airplay more so than any other band like KMFDM or Ministry, to say that just because they sell records, are a major label band and get played on MTV does not take away any credit they deserve in the industrial rock realm. And no, I am not a big NIN fan. I prefer KMFDM but credit where credit is due people. Blackserenity 09:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with the above. Just because it has been played on the radio or MTV doesn't make NIN fake or unreal. The popularity of Nine Inch Nails should seen as something negative. Rather, it should be regarded as one of the marks that Industrial rock has left on the mainstream music industry. M0nkeyish 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, please refer to the section "Industrial Rock vs Industrial Metal". The comment someone made there pretty much sums it all up. I'll quote it here for you.

"Besides the fact that they dont sound industrial rock, they defeat the whole idea that most if not all Industrial Rock bands are against the idea of Pop-Culture, and MTV. Where as Orgy Manson and NIN ready willingly and able sell out to such things. Its not a matter that these bands are popular and the other ones arnt. So dont even try and make that argument. Its a matter of what the genre represents, and its message, AND style."

Id also like to mention that whoever keeps editing this article to add NiN in, seems to be fond of reducing other bands influences. Noteably the constant removal of KMFDM, and/or rendering it to lower-status. When in fact KMFDM is right up their with Skinny Puppy, and Ministry. As almost anyone who knows true Industrial Rock would recognize. Everytime I look at this article NiN is always made to appear as some sort of great industrial rock band, when in fact they were never Industrial Rock.

67.174.179.12 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it really depends on the NIN album you look at since each one sounds distinctly different. There is no way you could say songs like reptile or happiness in slavery are not industrial rock. Were on the same page you couldn't say any song off of With Teeth is industrial rock. I think we also need to look at the idea of "selling out". Just because you are popular does not mean youv sold out. Just because your a sell out does not mean your popular. Selling out is lying about what you truly believe in order to accomplish an alternative goal; often the pursuit of commercial success. Nine Inch Nails has the same message it has always had, and the same message of most other Industrial bands, so they can not be considered sell outs. However there newer music certainly is no longer industrial in the musical sense. 24.225.171.192 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While not so apparent on the record, Pretty Hate Machine songs are driven by both synths and guitars when played live. Even the slow keyboard song "Something I Can Never Have" has a guitar part at the end nowadays. Industrial elements may include heavy sampling of machines and torture sounds ("Happiness in Slavery", "Reptile") and noise remixes (Fixed, Further Down the Spiral).
 * NIN are against the idea of pop culture and MTV. Their videos get played on MTV because they are popular, but that doesn't mean they are sell-out drones. NIN refused to play at the 2005 MTV Movie Awards due to a dispute over content/censorship. Reznor has publicly bashed NME, FOX, Marilyn Manson for selling out, etc.
 * There are numerous sources that label NIN as industrial rock, though of course some of them could be misguided. There are books and some scholarly articles doing it. Your rejection of this is a personal opinion. Genres are intrinsically so fuzzy anyway (the Industrial music has no stance on what industrial actually means) that it doesn't hurt to talk about what is at least regarded as industrial by many, many people.
 * "On first listen, Nine Inch Nails' new single, "Survivalism" (Nothing/Interscope) sounds like a throwback to the heyday of industrial rock in the early '90s, when Trent Reznor would rage by unleashing a guitar tornado, regroup with a subtler synth break and then rage again." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pomte (talk • contribs) 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

So, help us understand.
Industrial Rock is "electronic" music with a lyricist & rhythm foundation and industrial metal is more or less...the same thing (or of the same composition)? Is it the audible musical interpretation that is being address in the despute or is it the definition or the musical style/genre?

Industrial Rock - incorporates "other" sounds. Does this mean that Industrial rock include sound synthesizers, computer generated bites with a foundation of percussion and lyrics? I recently met an Industrial Rock artist from the musical group FASHION BOMB - and he says his work is a collaberation of all of the artists in the band, starting with guitar rifts and the rythm and lyrics fine hone the created piece.

So the differnece between rock & metal - is not in the creation but the CORE of the sound?

When it is all stripped away, please address the difference between the two genre which seem to be one and the same. Also we have some interest in a clearer definition of which genre came first, so to say, our present uninformed understanding is that industrial metal was born and industrial rock added a few "synthetic" sounds? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.135.227 (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Rock is softer than Metal. That's all. The influences are the same. Ministry or Nine Inch Nails, they all were influenced by industrial and EBM groups such as Throbbing Gristle, SPK, Front 242, Signal Aout 42 or Einstürzende Neubauten. Ministry and Front 242 founded the band Revolting Cocks. --~Menorrhea 20:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be of mind, that Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal are one in the same. Being that bands that created Industrial Rock, could also be placed in Industrial Metal. KMFDM, Skinny Puppy, Ministry. 67.174.179.12 08:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Geesh. The bands that created industrial rock do, indeed, belong to industrial metal genre, but many later acts, like Nine Inch Nails, while sharing many of their predecessors' traits, have little to none metal influences and cannot be properly classified as such. Hence "industrial rock". That's all. Simple, innit? Squeal 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire "industrial anything" genre as it is now is a complete misnomer: everything that is called "industrial" these days is primarily derivative of Joy Division, rather than any Industrial Records label artist or affiliate. Ironically, Joy Division and the Industrial label artists were active around the same time. A more appropriate genre would be Factory Rock, after the the label which Joy Division was on.209.248.160.82 20:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Industrial Rock" is older than most people here think. The press at the time called Pere Ubu's first album (The Modern Dance, 1978) "industrial". And what about Killing Joke? Laibach? Chrome? The Swans? The Young Gods? And PIL's first records? There's a whole lot missing from this page. Musicaindustrial 18:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to confuse matters even further, but...
...what about this "cyber metal" stuff then? Red Harvest, Fear Factory, *sigh* Static X? These bands differ from coldwave in that they began life as metal acts and eventually decided to bring in some electronics--that's the exact opposite of what bands like Ministry and 16volt did: they began as purely electronic bands but later introduced guitars.

We could just create one massive article on the common ground shared by metal and industrial, starting with references to how Laibach sampled a guitar riff on God is God and ending up with a description of that one Kreator album which has industrial production. A clarification that "metal-industrial" (Neubauten-style stuff where they bang things against other things) has nothing to do with the above would also be useful. Get to work, you winged rivetmonkeys!

Fair use rationale for Image:Swans, 82.jpg
Image:Swans, 82.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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

funny boy ! !
The version of this article I´ve red now did some really funny boy. he says: "By convention, all industrial metal artists may be more vaguely described as industrial rock, but not all industrial rock artists are properly described as industrial metal." Ok man... Fear Factory - 1991 Concrete - typical industrial rock..., Rammstein - Herzeleid - typical industrial rock... Please, do not write nonsences to wikipedia and try to add information instead of representing your subjective opinions. --Lycantrophe 10:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Encyclopaedic Writing and Self-Contradictions
Ooh, boy, some of the stuff on this article is pretentiously written. "The year was 1977." "Different than (sic) anything that came before, Industrial was proudly..." Quibbles, minutiae and fan-writing don't belong here. I'll begin a cleanup, so if you don't like what I'm doing, revert to pre October the 9th, 2007

Furthermore, it's kind of silly to say that "Industrial Rock... started out simultaneoulsy (sic) with Ministry's The Land of Rape and Honey (1988) and Godflesh's self-titled EP (also released in 1988)" and to then say "Industrial Rock's first commercial success might be attributed to Killing Joke's 1985 album". NcLean 58.107.190.170 03:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the tone of this article is not encyclopedic at all. I was coming in here to point out that none of the references in the Industrial Rock vs. Industrial Metal section claim that the musical elements listed are actually noted ways to distinguish the two subgenres. -- rynne 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! The original phrase was: "The six items considered below are an attempt to differentiate 'i-rock' from it's metallic cousin". See? An attempt to diferentiate, not a "fool-proof way to distinguish both". I've taken extra to care the write that prase just like it was, so to avoid the kind of misreading we're discussing right now. Seems I didn't make myself clear enough, though.

And this:

"I was coming in here to point out that none of the references in the Industrial Rock vs. Industrial Metal section claim that the musical elements listed are actually noted ways to distinguish the two subgenres".

Man... That wasn't my reasoning at all. The references I used were to establish that, indeed, the six characteristics discussed on the Industrial Rock vs. Industrial Metal do belong to extreme Punk and Metal subgenres. That's why, right after describing them, I've cited some Industrial Metal songs that use these. This enables the Wikipedia reader to:


 * Go and find out that these characteristics are indeed present in Industrial Metal;
 * Realize that most these characteristics are not present in groups such as Laibach, Killing Joke, The Swans, Pere Ubu, etc.

Capicce? Musicaindustrial 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you’re doing, but the problem is that it’s not verifiable in the way that Wikipedia requires of its articles; it's a definition that's coming directly from one if its editors (i.e., you) and not from an external recognized source. -- rynne 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I followed the link you've posted. I'd like to make further comments, based on the Wikipedia rules and guidelines of an acceptable reference:

Section Introduction: I'd start replying to your comment that the definitions written by me were...


 * "...coming directly from one if its editors (i.e., you)..."

Sites that make precise comparisons between Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal are extremely rare. No, let me rephrase that: they're practically non-existant. I wish good luck for anyone trying to find those.

Furthermore, I linked several terms (growled vocals, Grindcore, double bass drumming, ect) so that the Wikipedia reader could see what other editors were saying about these terms. Plus, if you checked out the references I made available, you'd notice that there's nothing on them contradicting what I wrote. If you knew a bit more about extreme Punk and Metal, you'd aknowledge that what I wrote weren't "my denitions" per se - they're actually common sense to the people participating on the subcultures and countercultures surrounding these styles. That and the fact that I've been a musician (guitar-player) for 16 years, and an Industrial Rock fan for 15.

You also stated that references used were...


 * "...not from an external recognized source."

Not recognized? Let's discuss them, then:

"Death Growls": the references here are pretty solid. They include The Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Bay Guardian and AMG. The Urban Dictionary is reliable too - all definitions are voted by users, and parallel to that the people responsible for the site mantain a quality control over the submitted material.

"Double Bass Drumming": this section does need better sources. There was a blog reference, which has been eliminated since.

"Palm-Muted Speed Picking": Yes, there were no sources here. I've added one from the All Music Guide.

"Guitar Solos": the source is a transcribed interview from Guitar Player, dated April 1993. It was taken from an unoffiical NIN page. Is there a problem, in this case?

"Unusually Fast Tempi": all references here are solid - two are from AMG and the third one is Choosing Death (2004), a book prefaced by Radio One legend John Peel.

"Extremely Low Guitar Tunings": the first source used is a FAQ available on the oldest and most compreensive unofficial Godflesh page on the web, www.godflesh.com. The other ones are a Dino Cazares interview, an interview with Mike Riggs (ex-guitar player from Rob Zombie's band) and a forum discussion available on the official Deathstars page.

If you don't agree with these sources, please show me better ones...

Musicaindustrial 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing that the sources aren't good for explaining the techniques themselves, but none specifically address the differences between industrial metal and industrial rock. For example, the "Unusually Fast Tempi" section references AMG articles on hardcore punk and thrash, but neither article says that the fast tempi of hardcore and thrash are present in industrial metal but absent in industrial rock.  And since this section is about differentiating between the two genres, it needs sources that directly address the differences.  You need sources to say,
 * Industrial rock is characterized by Techniques A, B, and C
 * Industrial metal is characterized by Techniques D, E, and F
 * instead of claiming (without sources for the claim) that industrial metal takes Technique X from Genre Y and then back it up with a source saying
 * Genre Y is characterized by Technique X.
 * Because the latter doesn't really have any verifiable reference that Technique X differentiates industrial metal from industrial rock. -- rynne 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

rynne,

Like I said before, I've found no web pages telling Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal apart. And, like I also said before, I'm really skeptical about anyone finding them. I mean look at the older Industrial Rock vs. Industrial Metal threads at this same page. You know what differentials that came up? The best one was:


 * "Rock is softer than Metal".

Which is true... But not very precise.

Now, aknowledging that there's no page telling these Industrial subgenres apart, what to do? Should I quit and ignore my 15+ years of musical training because the World Wide Web can't offer me a decent definition of both subgenres?

I could put references saying that The Young Gods like the Bad Brains (a pioneer Hardcore punk) or that Ministry's mainman Al Jourgensen likes Metallica, just to prove that there is indeed a musical connection between these bands. So what? This section would become bloated with excess information.

The different pieces of this section fit in like a puzzle - the Wikipedia links, the Web references and and the offering of example songs, for auditive comparison. Maybe if you saw that you could better appreciate what I've been trying to do.

Musicaindustrial 17:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll put it this way. I don't know if what you’re trying to do can actually be done in the manner that Wikipedia requires of its articles.  I say this as someone who, quite a while ago, attempted to hash out the different meanings of industrial rock and industrial metal on here.  The verifiability problem is the primary one: without some external source to point to, questions of definitions become disputes of one editor over another.  And, in the case of industrial rock vs. industrial metal, I don't know that there is any definition that can be agreed upon definitively.


 * As to what the solution is, I don't know. Maybe just doing away with the separation and having a merged article for both genres, while acknowledging that there’s no universally agreed-upon distinction?  For the record, I think your personal definitions of the difference between the subgenres coincides with my own, but unfortunately, personal preference doesn’t carry a whole lot of weight here if it’s not verifiable. -- rynne 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for answering quickly! I'll continue searching the web then, looking for differentials and definitions.

In the meantime, what will happen to this section? Will it be erased? Musicaindustrial 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More Comments on the "Industrial Rock vs. Industrial Metal" section

 * "The main differences between (early) Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal can be compared to the genres' adoption of elements of Punk, Hard Rock and Heavy Metal".

Killing Joke and Pere Ubu inherited many an element from Punk rock. Does this make them Industrial Metal? No.


 * I meant that industrial rock contains elements like rock, industrial metal contains elements similar to those in metal. "Industrial punk" could presumably incorporate elements similar to punk, but there's (thankfully) no article on that descriptive-genre-title-I-just-invented.  I realise that the way I phrased that sentence could be seriously improved.  I'll see what I can do.  NcLean58.107.202.215 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "I meant that industrial rock contains elements like rock, industrial metal contains elements similar to those in metal". No offense but, do you know how incredibly vague that sounds? After all, Metal is a subgenre of Rock. That's why I tried to make the differences between both more specific... Musicaindustrial 19:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Laibach ever use Hard Rock or Heavy Metal-type riffing in their songs? Oh, yeah. Does this mean they're Industrial Metal? Nope.

Did Big Black sometimes use "unusually fast tempi" on their songs? Yes. (Example: "Jordan, Minnesota"). Did that make Big Black an Industrial Metal group? Definately not. Did Big Black ever use double bass drumming in one of their songs? Yes... (Example: "The Power of Independent Trucking"). And no, they're not Industrial Metal because of it.

And why not? Well, because these are just one or two characteristics at a time. That's why they're six of them on the section.

I'd say you'd have at least four of these characteristics to be considered Industrial Metal. The Young Gods have three of them (Double Bass Drumming, Palm-Muted Speed Picking, Unusually Fast Tempi), but that doesn't make 'em Industrial Metal. Orgy has only two: Double Bass Drumming and Extremely Low Guitar Tunings.


 * "Palm-muted speed picking, generally done on the guitar's lowest strings..." instead of "Palm-muted speed picking, generally done on the guitar's low E string".

I'd say that this might be a confusing edit. Non-musicians might think that the "lowest strings" are actually the ones placed on the bottom of the guitar neck - G, B and the high E. That's not case, however. The "lowest", here, means the strings with the lowest pitch.

Another thing: Yes, Thrash metal guitar players can also do palm-muted speed picking on the A and D strings (the other "low" strings), but they're far less common than the ones done on the E string.


 * Removal of one of the items.

And why was the Guitar Solos section removed, anyway?

Musicaindustrial 16:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I removed Guitar solos is because the article stated that solos were rare in each genre. The presence or lack of solos therefore can't really be distinguishing characteristic of either style!  Frankly, I think the whole section has undue prominence within the article.  NcLean58.107.202.215 04:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * NcLean, guitar solos were a definite "no-no" in post-punk. By contrast, all Heavy Metal subgenres of the 1980s had solos: NWOBHM, Glam, Thrash, Death Metal - even Grindcore. Ministry produced a definite nod to Metal when decided to use guitar solos in Psalm 69.


 * Are guitar solos an universal characteristic of Industrial Metal? Like I said before, no. But using them constitutes a breach of an unspoken rule of post-punk: the non-adoption of any of rock 'n' roll's "decadent" trappings of the 1970s: instrumental virtuosity, long unfocused jams, rock star pose and, of course, guitar solos. And most of the first Industrial Rock bands were part of that post-punk continuum.


 * And regarding the "undue prominence" that this particular section has had, well: if you don't agree with the items I wrote, show me some clearer and more precise definitions. And that's not a "challenge" I'm proposing; it's just that I want to improve this article as you also do. Musicaindustrial 19:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sales & Awards (United States only)"
I think it might be interesting to shorten this section. There's already a template in there re-directing the Wikipedia reader to another page, with further details of sales & awards (Industrial Rock: Sales & Awards). This would eliminate about 200 references, making the page easier to load. Musicaindustrial 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Depeche Mode... Industrial Rock?
If Depeche Mode ever deserved the "Industrial" tag, it was in their mid-1980s phase - "People Are People", etc. They openly aknowledged the influence of Boyd Rice and Einstürzende Neubauten at that particular period. (No wonder the press called them "Industrial-pop").

Regarding the Ultra (1997) album: this record's overall sound is closer to cutting-edge electronica than Industrial Rock. It was Tim Simenon who produced the album, the guy behind the Bomb the Bass project - one of the prime movers of the Acid House era.

And yes, "Barrel of a Gun" has a lumbering guitar riff that reminds us of Black Sabbath... but that's it. The other guitar parts in the record are closer to general Alternative Rock. The album's programming is also closer to non-Industrial styles - mainly Hip-hop, Big Beat and vintage Synthpop.

Futhermore, look at the people who did remixes for Depeche Mode in the 1990s: Portishead, Paul Oakenfold, Kruder & Dorfmeister, DJ Shadow, William Orbit, Underworld. They're electronica artists, folks... no Industrial here.

I suggest taking Depeche Mode off of the Industrial Rock page. Musicaindustrial 19:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. While DM was directly influenced by first-wave Industrial acts in the early stages of its existance, I can't imagine those results being called industrial rock.  And regarding their later albums, guitars+electronics+depressing subjects does not necessarily equal "industrial rock." -- rynne 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Suggestion
How about making another page for the "Established acts: Experimented with the genre" section? Musicaindustrial 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the whole section is a bit unnecessary here, and certainly unnecessary as a separate page. If you check the edit where the section was introduced, the section was basically an expansion of a single sentence about David Bowie's NIN-influenced Outside album, and it's since grown out of control.  Honestly, a massively codified list of every instance in which any band incorporated industrial-rock-like sounds seems like trivia to the extreme—could you imagine how long the jazz, punk, or hip hop would be if each listed any artist who's been influenced by those forms of music?  I think the whole thing would be better served by collapsing it down to a paragraph or two summarizing key artists who've been influenced. -- rynne 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have placed the rewrite tag on this page. Major problems, from the first line this article has major original research problems. All the sections are a mess of conflicting information. The entire "experimented with" section needs to be deleted. Everything after that either needs to be rewritten or just be removed. The article is way to long and 99% of it just rambles off the subject. Wow what a mess. Ridernyc (talk)


 * ...from the first line this article has major original research problems.

Point out the sections where "original reasearch" was used.


 * All the sections are a mess of conflicting information.

Same as above. And for the record, the problem with this article is that it's largely unfinished. There are entire sections missing, which screws up the text's logic. But conflicting information? Again, point that out to me.


 * The entire "experimented with" section needs to be deleted.

I disagree. This section's objective is to trace the influence of Industrial Rock on other music genres - which is important. Like I said before, I can create a new page devoted to that specific subject.


 * Everything after that either needs to be rewritten or just be removed.

I guess you didn't have the patience to read the entire article, did you? Read it again and come back with a more mature opinion.


 * The article is way to long...

I agree with that...


 * ...and 99% of it just rambles off the subject.

...but I can't agree with that. Again, did you realy read the whole article? I really think you didn't.


 * Wow what a mess.

How juvenile can you be? You're like, fifteen? Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire first few sections of the article. Show me a source that uses the term "i-rock".  As I h ave pointed out below the entire VS. section is nothing but original research, it has references but none of them support the overall claim.  Ridernyc (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you about the lack of reference for the "i-word" term; it has been removed since, although the intro section as whole still needs a proper reference.

About the "Musical style" section: this one could be greatly improved by consulting a Master's Thesis by Florida musicologist Bret Woods. It's called Industrial Music for Industrial People and is available here.

Now, about the "VS." section: I've already had this discussion with other users, such as rynne and NcLean. Like I said to both, anyone would be hardpressed to find a single source on the Web discriminating Industrial Rock from Industrial Metal - although the difference is surely there. That's why, along with some references, I provided a short list of songs which used some properly Heavy Metal elements, so that the Wikipedia could easily identify them, and tell Industrial Metal and Industrial Rock apart. rynne warned me that this might still not be suitable in light of the Wikipedia guidelines, and I asked for suggestions in making these differences viable (for Wikipedia, anyway.)

So now I'm asking you the same thing.

Musicaindustrial 22:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You need a reference to show that your thesis is true. The other problem is most of the most prominant bands record albums acrossed the spectrum of both categories.  A section like that may work if properly written and refernced, but as it is written now it's a personal essay with no references to show connection to the thesis and the list of evidence.  This is also why the two articles should be merged. A good portion of the bands would need to be talked about on both pages, creating a content fork and I'm sure if not now there soon will be contradicting information between the 2 articles. The subject mater needs to all be apart of one flowing prose since the subjects so closely related. Ridernyc 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge
There is no difference between the two terms. No can show a difference and satisfy WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:V. Ridernyc (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you rightly say that Fear Factory (Industrial Metal) and Chrome (Industrial Rock) are in the same wavelength, music-wise? That's like saying that you can easily pair the Rolling Stones with Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath with the Sex Pistols - which is atrocious. Industrial Rock is more akin to Punk and Post-punk, while Industrial Metal... Well, the name says all.


 * I mean, have you the ability to distinguish Heavy Metal from Punk Rock? Or Alternative Rock? If you did, this point would have never have been raised. Looks like the problem isn't the definitions per se, but someone else's lack of information on the subject.


 * Do me a favor - read again the Industrial Metal vs. Industrial Rock section and tell me specifically what is wrong with this section.


 * And last - point out the specific sections on this article where WP:OR, WP:RS or WP:V are infringed. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are the one making the claims it's your job show me references that show the difference. The terms are interchangeable and I argue Original Research invented by the editors of these articles. If there is a difference it's an arbitrary hair splitting difference that would not justify having 2 articles on this subject.  Most bands clearly fall into both categories, by your definition Ministry has recorded in a different genre for almost every album. 19:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a difference it's an arbitrary hair splitting difference that would not justify having 2 articles on this subject.

"Arbitrary hair splitting?" Ok, so show me a trustworthy reference proving that the difference between both is nil. Musicaindustrial 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

...by your definition Ministry has recorded in a different genre for almost every album.

By my definition? With Sympathy (1983) was Synthpop and Twitch (1986) was EBM, but the rest of their discography is Industrial Metal. And you know Ministry invented Industrial Metal, right?

Also, if you eliminate all their singles, compilations and remix albums, they've released a total of 9 albums. That's seven Industrial Metal albums against, what - two records using different styles? This makes their first records an exception to the rule. Hardly a band that "...recorded in a different genre for almost every album". Musicaindustrial 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Further more all your references simply point to someone referring to a band by a certain term. They make no explanation of why they are using the term.  Your statements and references actually do more to prove that the terms are in fact interchangeable. Also many of the sources would fail to meet WP:RS. The reason you can not find references noting the differences is in fact because there is no difference, you are twisting every tiny piece of information to try to make a statement that is not supported by any sources. 19:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)

Your statements and references actually do more to prove that the terms are in fact interchangeable.

Humm... Go back to the Origins section of the Industrial Rock article - the first sentence of the third paragraph where, according to the reference used, Michael Gira confessed to Wire magazine on being influenced by No Wave, Industrial Music, Noise and Punk Rock. So, what would you name The Swans? "No-Punk-Industrial-Wave-Noise"? Or, simply, Industrial Rock?

Interestingly enough, on the Swans's entry of Dave Thompson's out-of-print book Industrial Revolution (1994), Gira claims that he changed musical direction from 1988 upwards because he was "...seeing that we were attracting a heavy metal crossover audience (and) they can kiss my ass" (p. 114).

So, would you call The Swans Industrial Metal after Gira's explicit rejection of the genre? Wouldn't Industrial Rock be more a fitting term for them, bearing in mind the type of musical influences they had? Musicaindustrial 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Also many of the sources would fail to meet WP:RS.

Which ones? Musicaindustrial 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Im with Musicaindustrial here, Dont Merge. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * want to explain why and maybe provide some sources to deal with all the issues being discussed. Ridernyc 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

While I do think that there actually is a somewhat noticable difference between the two genres, I agree with Ridernyc, in that there is just simply to much crossover and disagreement amongst fans over what can be labled what. Merge it, and keep and expand the current section explaining the differences between the two. Avador (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on starting to do a rewrite somewhere in my userspace. Merge the 2 articles and talk about metals influence and how it could be considered a sub genre, rather trying to make some black and white definitive line. You really can not just all sudden stop talking about ministry in this article and move it to another article.  Theres also the simple fact that massive amounts of this article are spent explaining the topic of the other article.  Ridernyc (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between Industrial Rock and Industrial Metal as any fan of either could tell you, a merge is ridiculously pointless. --General Jazza (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have sources for this statement. After months of searching the only reference I can find is this which clearly shows both genres being the same. Ridernyc (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something you can't use a source for, just find an example of Industrial Metal, Marilyn Manson or Rammstein are good examples and a band like Nine Inch Nails and listen to a few of their songs.--General Jazza (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it is a distinction you can not make according to wikipedia policy, see WP:OR. Ridernyc (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is your proof that they are the same then? --General Jazza (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The source I already posted. Ridernyc (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rock and Roll?
Just as a note of curiosity; should we really put a link to this at the start of every paragraph, and should it really be stated as Rock N' Roll, as it seems to me that that term is primarily used to refer to the mainstream Elvis-style rock of the 1950's and 60. Wouldn't it be better to just link it to Rock Music, at the start, and drop all the other links altogether? Avador (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say there is a general over use of wiki links in this article. I also find it funny that all of the styles of music that are listed have pretty much nothing to do with the non-metal description of industrial rock. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Weeding out the rest
I've noticed that there is not only a problem with distinguishing industrial rock artist's with industrial metal artist's, but there's also a problem with distinguishing alternative rock artists who've had frequent flirtations with industrial rock (ex. Depeche Mode) from i-rock itself. This has led to much confusion and proves how vague the definition of i-rock is. Though artists like Depeche Mode have had notable experamentations with i-rock (most notably b-sides such as "Sea of Sin", "Kaleid", "Painkiller", and "Better Days") it must be noted that in the future this could become a more serious problem. What adds to the confusion is that Industrial rock is considered itself a subgenre of alternative rock, thus possibly making all industrial rock artists alternative rock artists as well, therefore contradicting the argument and causing more contraversey. This also applies to alternative metal and industrial metal. Hopefully in the future this problem will be cleared up. Argezas (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Argezas: first of all, I don't think distinguishing Industrial Rock from Industrial Metal is really troublesome at all. The people who complained about these two being indistinguishable are: (a) apparently newbies to the subject and, (b) so far failed to produce any reliable references stating that both are one and the same.


 * Secondly, Depeche Mode didn't experiment with Industrial Rock. What they did, like WesleyDodds pointed out, was in fact experiment (first half of the 1980s) with the ideas of early "Industrialists" - artists such as Boyd Rice, Einstürzende Neubauten and SPK. Also, Depeche Mode's 1990s records weren't influenced by Industrial Rock, but by Grunge and electronica. You cited the song "Painkiller" as an example of DP's brush with "i-rock", right? This track was done in collaboration with DJ Shadow, a producer well-known for his work on the Trip-hop / Underground Hip-Hop fields. "Painkiller" would fit nicely along with Shadow records like Endtroducing (1996), Preemptive Strike (1998) or even The Private Press (2002), which means "Painkiller" isn't really Industrial Rock.


 * And last: what is "Alternative Rock", anyway? In the early 1990s "Alternative Rock" was an umbrella term for anything in the charts that wasn't cock-rock or glam metal-related (you know, the Skid Rows, the Mötley Crües, the Bon Jovis, etc). Ministry, Nirvana and the Red Hot Chili Peppers were all tagged "Alternative", but really: what do they have in common with each other? And how "Alternative" is Pearl Jam when they have sold tens of millions of copies worldwide? Seriously, does "Alternative Rock" mean anything these days? Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternative rock is basically a grouping of genres descended from punk rock, post-punk and hardcore. Thus all grunge, Britpop, goth, shoegaze, and indie rock bands are alt-rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer WesleyDodds, but it was a rhetorical question. What I was really truly aiming at was to show how strange is the notion of "Alternative" in "Alternative Rock", when it has been de facto the most popular and mainstream subgenre of rock in the last 15 years. Before it may have been an "alternative" (pun intended) to cock-rock and MOR, but these days are long gone. Musicaindustrial (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was way worse a few weeks ago. There was a huge section about artists that have flirted with the genre, at one point Puff Daddy was mentioned in this article.  You are right though this article needs to be edited and maintained to removed endless listing of artists. I cleaned up and still maintain the concept album article at least 3-4 time a week I have to remove edits.  People will just add mentions of bands and albums, they pay no attention to the prose of an article. Ridernyc (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Depeche Mode: they've definitely been influenced by industrial (The high point of this was circa Some Great Reward), but they aren't any form of industrial per se. they've always been more of an outright dance band (By the way, Depeche Mode's classification as "alternative" is a fluke of history, given they came from a completely different background--the New Romantic movement--than all the other alternative bands they were labeled with in the late 80s and early 90s. It's mainly that Americans who were into alt-rock bands of the day like The Cure and The Smiths also generally liked Depeche Mode.) WesleyDodds (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re:You are right about that. It's been shown that Depeche Mode are fans of Nitzer Ebb, they've even wore Nitzer Ebb t-shirts in music videos and during some concerts. It was about this time (Violator - Ultra era) that they began to use more guitars in their music (such as in "Personal Jesus" and "I Feel You"). But it was their heavy use of distorted guitars in their albums Songs of Faith and Devotion and Ultra that probably led to their clasifiction as an "Alternative" or "Industrial" rock band and is supported by the fact that industrial rock was at it's peak in popularity in th US at the time (mid- 90's). Some people just dismiss this as their synth rock phase. That has just brought something else to my attention; What's the difference between Synth Rock and Industrial Rock!? Argezas (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)




 * As far as I can tell, Synth rock is made up and should be deleted. I've never seen the term used anywhere. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From the research i've done, the only band to be considered just plain "Synth rock" is Orgy. Though i've never listened to them.Argezas (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it should be deleted. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Final Solution: Industrial Music
I rarely distinguish between Industrial "rock" or "metal," for the simple fact that the music itself rarely distinguishes between the two. Fans of rock music in general (of which metal is a type) seem to enjoy dividing and inventing "genres" to the point that each individual band is considered its own friggin genre. Shut up with that. Just integrate it all into Industrial music and it'll then make perfect sense. Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The original Industrial movement was the antithesis of Rock music. They dabbled in discothèque (universally hated by Punks and Rock 'n' Rollers alike); they used synthesizers, sequencers and drum machines, which were openly despised by the late 1970s rock intelligentsia; and their Dadaist shock tactics were an "up yours" to the (Rock) music industry. So, declaring "Industrial Music" and "Industrial ROCK" one and the same reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge towards this particular genre.


 * Please, go read Industrial Culture Handbook or Tape Delay: Confessions from the Eighties Underground to improve your knowledge of the genre.


 * And if you think that Rock fans "enjoy dividing and inventing genres" just for the sake of it, you're wrong. Motörhead influenced both Discharge and Bathory, but why do their fans (Punks and Metalheads, respectively) hate each other so intensely? Music is not just organized sound, you know... People attach memories, expectations and cultural values to their favorite (and not so favorite) music. Try to understand the subcultures surrounding those styles before saying their difference is arbitrary, OK?


 * And last, "Just integrate it all into Industrial music and it'll then make perfect sense". I doubt very much that powernoise fans would like to be grouped with Futurepop fans and Noise fans with NIN fans, likewise. Not only they differ musically, but they operate under different mindframes and ideals.

Musicaindustrial (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * only problem is there is already a well written article on Industrial Music that covers the very early formative years of "real" industrial music. Industrial Rock/Metal has little to do with early industrial music. I'm pretty sure the Industrial Rock sections were split off from this article years because of all the issues we have right now. Ridernyc (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the Industrial Music page isn't "a well written article". Why? For one, there's the noticeable lack of references (only 4), which means that that most of it is written unsourced. Second, the said article is very poor regarding the history of the genre. It's "Post-industrial developments" section, for example, has only four paragraphs in it. This limited space doesn't do justice the style, to say the least.


 * Want to see a truly well written Industrial Music article? Check out NIN's page - it is considered a featured article on Wikipedia. Look at the size of it and look at the number of references they used (111 sources, to be exact). That is what we should strive for, and not a badly edited article by some guy who would gladly call The Swans "Industrial Metal". Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you have some major ownership problems with this article. You argue every point no mater how much consensus disagrees with you. Having 100's of source sis not the answer if your original statement is not referenced. You really need to take a step back and let other people work on the article and improve it. Ridernyc (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also read Tendentious_editing. Ridernyc (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The merge proposal
I'm not an expert on the genre. I only one have album by Ministry that I listen to about once every two years and that's about it. Since this is wikipedia though and not an online music forum, I do not really need to be familiar with the music genre to weigh in on it. As Ridernyc has pointed out, it's all about using reliable sources not our own original research. So out of curiosity, I looked up industrial music at two reliable sources: allmusic.com and rockdetector.com. Neither sources are perfect by any means but they are far more reliable than the personal opinions expressed by anonymous contributors to wikipedia. Allmusic.com does has a category for industrial music and another category for industrial metal. There's no category for industrial rock. A google search on Rockdetector.com see the use of the word industrial on a total of 1,410 pages. The exact term industrial metal is used on Rockdetector.com on a total of 607 pages. The exact term industrial rock is used on the same website for the measly number of 31 pages. A similar google test on Allmusic.com indicates the respective number for industrial, industrial metal and industrial rock to be 4,470, 843 and 91. I do not know what any of you fans of the genre make of that but it seems to me (an uninformed, neutral observer) that if anything should be merged, it should be the industrial rock page into the industrial music article and not the industrial metal page into the industrial rock article if only because the term industrial metal seems to be more widely recognized and used by such reliable sources as the above. --Bardin (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Allmusic.com does has a category for industrial music and another category for industrial metal. There's no category for industrial rock.


 * Yes, the All Music Guide is a trustworthy source but, like you said, it's not perfect.


 * Are you familiar with The Swans? They're a New York band that had a huge impact on Industrial Metal bands (such as Godflesh and Ministry) and even some extreme metal groups (Napalm Death and My Dying Bride). I have a The Wire (n. 233, July 2003) interview with Michael Gira - that's their former frontman and leader - where he confessed to this british magazine that he was influenced by the local No Wave scene as well as Punk rock (Buzzcocks, The Sex Pistols), Noise (Whitehouse) and the original purveyors of Industrial Music - Cabaret Voltaire, Throbbing Gristle and SPK.


 * I also have Dave Thompson's very informative Industrial Revolution (1994). On the Swans entry there's a comment made by Gira where he claims that he changed musical direction from 1988 upwards because he was "...seeing that we were attracting a heavy metal crossover audience (and) they can kiss my ass" (p. 114).


 * So, here's a band that draws from both the Industrial and the Rock genres, and loathes the metal genre.


 * So, to what genre the Swans belong to?


 * Industrial Metal? No way. They hate metal.


 * No Wave? Not correct either. I have another Wire issue (n. 225, November 2002) which features a "No Wave" special. According to this magazine, No Wave lasted about two years - roughly from 1978 to 1980. The Swans released their debut in 1982, which means it came after No Wave died out.


 * Industrial Music? According Mark Paytress on a Record Collector (n. 185, January 1995) article about this genre, the original Industrial movement from 1976 to 1982. Would the Swans be a part of this genre, when they released their debut on the year when Industrial, on it's original form, supposedly died? Furthermore, on the Industrial Culture Handbook (1983), Genesis P-Orridge - that's the man behind Throbbing Gristle - said that Industrial died the day Industrial Records folded (around 1981) and the remaining bands were "maggots eating a corpse" (p. 11).


 * Noise Rock? That's a reasonable category.


 * And what about "Industrial Rock"? Could be an interesting alternative. It couples both the Industrial and Rock influences.


 * And how does AMG handle this situation? Simple: they put groups such as Killing Joke and The Swans under the umbrella of two über-genres - postpunk and alternative rock. They're so broad that they're virtually meaningless...


 * A google search on Rockdetector.com see the use of the word industrial on a total of 1,410 pages. The exact term industrial metal is used on Rockdetector.com on a total of 607 pages. The exact term industrial rock is used on the same website for the measly number of 31 pages.


 * That's hardly surprising. The emphasis of Rockdetector is on hard rock and heavy metal acts. Compare the Big Black or Swans biography with, say, Pantera's. Of course, Pantera is much more popular than those two but, if Rockdetector's focused on alternative rock instead, I suspect that Big Black's biography would be substantially bigger.


 * Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you bothered to write such a long reply to something I wrote a couple of months ago. Look carefully and you would noticed that I was not the one who proposed the merge nor did I expressed any support or criticism of it. I was merely offering my opinion on the merge proposal and that opinion of mine was expressed in the last sentence I wrote above: if anything should be merged, it should be the industrial rock page into the industrial music article and not the industrial metal page into the industrial rock article if only because the term industrial metal seems to be more widely recognized and used by such reliable sources as the above. Let me emphasis the first word again: if. Bear in mind that I also explicitly qualified my opinion as that of an uninformed person. I have little to no interest in industrial music of any kind and what I wrote above was pretty much all I had to say. --Bardin (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)