Talk:Korn/Archive 3

Backing Vocals
Should Munky and Fieldy have backing vocals as one of their music duties? Jon does lead and backing vocals on all albums except for the original which Head did backing vocals for. My point is Munky and Fiely never do backing vocals on albums so they shouldn't be given credit for something they don't do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.148 (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject?
Now that Korn's page has been locked ('til June of 2008), how about we start a Korn Wikiproject or task force? It's relieving now that the stuff is less likely to get edited or removed by a anonymous user. Tjohnsond (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a Wikiproject specifically for Korn, but because not enough members joined, the project failed and was redirected to the main task force, Wikiproject:Metal. Talk to User:Thundermaster about it, though. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to put video clips as sources?
...Because on Kornspace.com a few days ago, a video was posted. It was Fieldy, talking about making a new solo album (jazz fusion), an inspirational book and Korn making a new album in 2008 that's more of a return to their roots. However, I don't know how to put the link that'll take you directly there. If anyone can help me out... please do. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Disregard, I figured it out. :) Dark Executioner (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone..
Make the redirect link to Korn: Live in Montreux 2004 work? Much thanks would be apreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornography (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to use the same capitalization. I fixed it for you. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. = ∫tc 5th Eye 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update for band picture?
Based on the fact that David Silveria is basically out of the band (JD practically confirmed it), Maybe we should have a new picture of the three remaining members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornography (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

'Practically' and 'basically' do not a 'fact' make! Since JD, Head, David, Fieldy and Munky created 75% of Korns music together, shouldn't the picture show all 5 original members? Devil's Advocate, me. Boredofitall (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)boredofitall

I think you're right. Perhaps we can get one of all five soon enough.--Kornography (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And given that this band sucks serious chode, shouldn't we serious consideration to adding that fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.249.142 (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever if David's offically in the band or not the picture is in serious need of update. I say it should be of a picture they've done more recently. I've removed the picture so that MAYBE somebody will upload a new one. The Asia Awards picture has been in use for 4 FUCKING YEARS.Teresa44 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "grammy-metal" :
 * "billboard-album-peaks" :
 * "billboard-album-peaks" :
 * "billboard-album-peaks" :

Industrial rock/metal
I updated the "Genre" info to be changed from "Industrial Metal" to "Industrial Rock". I think their later stuff does not have any metal influences or enough of a metal influence to be considered "Industrial Metal", but more of "Industrial Rock" sound....I know, probably not that much of a difference, but think of it as comparing NIN (who are Industrial Rock) to Fear Factory or Dagoba (Industrial Metal). AnthonyG (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad individual opinion is not appreciated here on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to something as touchy as genres. Besides, industrial metal was sourced. It's best to not mess with sourced stuff. Remember that this is an encyclopedia next time you edit, man. Dark Executioner (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is industrial metal mentioned in the infobox? I think it's superfluous because only See You On The Other Side showed some industrial appeals. Alternative metal and Nu metal is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-Jay215 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why there isn't industrial rock Or industrial metal in the infobox???? Both untitled album and See you on the other side are Industrial metal!!!And why alt metal is not there?And why HARD ROCK is there????Just name one song that is hard rock!!!Solino the Wolf (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see why Industrial metal is needed either. Its just a genre they simply just included slight elements from in certain parts of their career from what I gather. Just Nu metal and Alternative metal are a more straight forward categorisation so surely those are the only genres that are needed in the infobox. If there was something stating about Industrial metal elements in the styles and influences section, that I would agree with. 86.143.232.16 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The last two albums(See you... and untitled) are strongly industrial+ I have source for it.Solino the Wolf (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK I'm tired of this! We have talked it before in a discussion above.The last two albums(See you... and untitled) have strong Industrial music elements.And I have source for my claim.so there is no reason to keep changing it whithout even talking it it here.Please stop doing it OR at least talk your opinion here.thanx.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot add a link that fails Wikipedia's reliable source policy as a reference for your pov. 203.97.49.128 (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you finally desided to talk before editing.You're right.I'l need to find a better source.By the way every edit anyone does here IS pov.I know it shouldnt be.But even your reverts are because of your pov.But you're right.Now I have more sources for it.Solino the Wolf (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Zimbio.com fails WP:RS and Sputnik can only be used if it's a staff writer... which the writer in that link is not. So they will have to be deleted. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Libs is correct. Zimbio has copied that material from another site which is just a metal vid site. And Libs is dead on about the Sputnik website; that little entry was written by a fan who hasn't been active since 2007. And the giveaway? "11 out of 15 people [or whatever number it was] thought this review was well written." - If you're a professional journalist you wouldn't even need to have a rating system like that; by default your work would be considered top notch. Find something better or quit the argument please, Solino. Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are three sources mentioning industrial while describing SYOTOS and Untitled. Should it be industrial rock, industrial metal or any of it? In my opinion the albums contain parts of both genres but to me Korn will always be more of a metal band then a rock band, so industrial metal is my vote....


 * Elsewhere, cuts such as "Do What They Say" and "Trained Response" sport almost dance-y, industrial grooves....
 * See You on the Other Side" turns out to be Korn's version of a Nine Inch Nails album - a good one.
 * ...is very contradictory piece of work -- korn made it in a very industrial key, instead of their common alt/rap-metal path...

Roger Workman (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nu metal
Has it never occured to call them "nu metal" as thats what they are...--Issueskid (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

lol. Dark Executioner just mentioned genres being a touchy subject, and you're already mouthing off about Korn being nu metal (according to whom?) This is why I just leave it as "rock" and nothing else. Rock covers everything, including metal and its subgenres. Lovetoadmire (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Korn are nu metal according to almost everyone except themselves and the reason for that is that they disregard the term altogether. They don't think that nu metal doesn't apply to them, just that it is meaningless and that they prefer not to be categorised. Many bands are like this. This does not mean that wikipedia should say that these bands do not have a genre or anything like that.

Also, they have only been industrial metal since See You on the Other Side so this should be included in the infobox. It would not be anything for this sort of thing to be in infoboxes in any case: check out Napalm Death and Carcass. Munci (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Korn is one of the most perfect examples of a band affiliated with the nu metal genre. Also, what the band or one of its members calles the band has little relevance. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for nu metal being placed in the background information of the infobox, but anywhere else isn't really necessary. Also these recent edits in the infobox are getting out of control (almost as much as the vandalism.) People are adding hard rock, alternative rock, experimental, and rapcore to the list without any sources... and I think every Korn fan could agree that Korn have nothing to do with rapcore in their sound. The others are debatable. Lovetoadmire (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

75.139.103.133 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)No matter what people say. They are DEFINITELY not "Rock" or "Metal" they are "Nu Metal" they pretty much invented the Genre. And they will be classified as such. I'm tired of seeing "Korn (often typeset as KoRn or KoЯn) is an American Rock band". ROCK!?!?! Jet is rock, U2 is Rock. Korn is NU METAL. Everybody just comply and keep their classification as "Nu Metal". It seriously amazes me that anybody could argue that they are "Rock, Hard Rock, or Alternative Metal" Rather than just being sensible and leaving them as "Nu Metal"--75.139.103.133 (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Korn is nu metal. They have had Grammy awards in Metal category and are classified by almost the entire music industry as Metal. They are not rock.128.211.183.162 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock music
Well rock is what I'm going with, not what some critic or magazine says. Lovetoadmire (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not what wikipedia goes with. Sorry for shifting your comment but it was too ambiguous the way it was. Munci (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock is so vague and doesn't describe Korn at all... and who put "hard rock" up there? That's gone... Tanner9461 (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

--75.139.103.133 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Yeah, Rock is very Vauge and DOES NOT describe korn at all. I'm gonna fight this stupid "Hard Rock" Classification and keep it as "Nu Metal". Its not an Opinion, its a classification and a Fact.

^^ Wholeheartedly agree with the above128.211.183.162 (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

^^THANK GOD THERES SOMEBODY SANE ON WIKIPEDIA! Its stupid that they keep re-claffiying them as rock. I say they either go with Nu Metal or "Korn Metal". Its not ROCK.--75.139.103.133 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And of course somebody had to "Warn" me for "Attacking" wikipedia members. I didn't attack anyone. Its just so painfully obvious that they arent "Rock". Its such a generic term. And Korn ISNT generic...--75.139.103.133 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, then it would intersect with the alt-metal genre. The furthest I can go with this is calling it a metal band-- F-22 Raptor IV 01:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But then again they aren't just "Metal". They are nu metal. I changed it to Nu Metal, You can change it back. But it doesn't change the truth. They are Nu Metal.--75.139.103.133 (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, they are not "just" nu-metal, and that is why they should not be declared a nu-metal band, how many times do I have to mention it, they have alt-metal elements along with maybe a few other hidden genre elements. This is why Wikipedia umbrella terms in situations like this. I can't make this any more central. It will stay as metal. Any edits to the genre situation without consulting a proper discussion on the talk page will now be considered vandalism.-- F-22 Raptor IV 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I have been trying to avoid, I recently reverted an edit stating they were alt-metal, you sided with the nu-metal argument, therefore, clashing genres can result in edit wars, therefore again, umbrella terming was necessary.-- F-22 Raptor IV 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative metal
I think they should be alternative metal. Alternative basically includes all the rock, heavy metal and nu metal influences that ppl keep adding. Portillo (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided on a solution thought of by the administration, we'll just say Alternate Metal/Nu metal on the title.-- F-22 Raptor IV 04:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better to call it alt-metal/nu-metal? Or something like that? Alternative metal/nu-metal looks a little untidy. Portillo (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as these two genres are covered on the title. It seems we just can't keep it as "a rock band", because then, it will be changed to metal, and either it will be a war between metal and rock, which will result in more conflicts, or eventually it would be further changed to one of the genres described as Korn.-- F-22 Raptor IV 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pro with the double-genre title, and Portillo is in an agreement.-- F-22 Raptor IV 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the earlier consensus to have rock in the lead-in and a detailed description in the infobox should remain. Numerous bands with multiple genres are being changed to the parent genre rock for their intro sentence. Look at Motorhead or the Manson page. All will eventually reflect this format following wp:lead. Wether B (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All articles are moving in that direction. It's simply a matter of keeping wet-behind-the-ears-teens from changing them to their personal pov labels. This one should just say rock in the lead sentence. All the rest will be changed over time. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is fine just as is now in its locked state. Rock in the first line and alt metal, nu metal in the musician infobox. Fair Deal (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pro for both choices. Why I chose the double-genre situation over the rock is because it satisfies the IPs and would likely be left alone. If it's going to be rock, my only regret is that it would be changed around frequently by IPs.-- F-22 Raptor IV 01:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

How the hell can it say rock in the intro, but nu metal and alternative metal in the genres? Nu metal and alt metal arent even rock subgenres. So instead it should say heavy metal or metal band. Either that or nu metal-alt metal band. Portillo (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heavy metal is a sub-genre of Rock. Alt metal and nu metal are sub-genres of heavy metal. So Rock is still the top of the parentage. Heavy metal is not a genre unto itself. Even the Black Sabbath article says they are a rock band in the opening sentence but heavy metal in the box. wp:lead says that lead-ins be general. Fair Deal (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine then. Portillo (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Corey Cinque
As the original Korn vocalist, Corey Cinque should be added to the "former members" list. Machinehead09 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No you douche bag that asshole was in a completely different band with James, Reggy, and David. Jonathan Davis is the one who came up with the name Korn in the first place. How could Corey be in a band that doesn't exist?Teresa44 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike Bordin
I don't think Bordin should be listed as a Backup Band member, because he was just a fill in from 2000-1, while the backup band started in 2005 and its members are more permanent. Mattpaige (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Untitled Korn album article
This page was renamed to Untitled (Korn album) without any prior discussion, even though there is a source for the album literally being without a title. Lovetoadmire (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's apparently the new standard for naming articles about untitled albums. See Untitled (album). = ∫tc 5th Eye 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

untouchables
just questioning one of your facts on the take a look in the mirror section... wasnt untouchables the album that was released 4 days early? due to opie and anthony playing about half of the cd on the radio about 2 weeks before it came out, and then after that every other radio station started bitchin saying if they could play we can???? cuz the same thign happened when they did it to eminem that year. just questioning it cuz i rememeber that happening and you dont say why the album was released on friday instead of a tuesday 76.119.204.91 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was Take A Look In The Mirror because of an internet leak. EverBe (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Niedermeyers Mind
Ummm, where did it go? It was here not long ago? Please explain why this was removed?--Kornography (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in accordance with WP:N. = ∫tc 5th Eye 05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Its more important than half the demo articles on this site. I expect all other demo articles to be deleted unless they were really famous.--Kornography (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are. Articles about demos are generally not allowed unless the demo is really notable. Most, including Korn's, are not. It's spelled out pretty clearly here. This demo didn't get "significant independent coverage in reliable sources". = ∫tc 5th Eye 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then what is All mixed up doing still on the site? Hell, I never even heard of it until the page for it was up one day.--Kornography (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the article, it states that All Mixed Up isn't a demo album, it's an EP of alternate mixes and a rarity. It's not a demo, it was released after the band was signed, and it's available in stores. Nothing wrong with it. = ∫tc 5th Eye 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The demo was sold on eBay for over $600. Ross Robinson, "godfather" of nu-metal, produced it. The album is definetly "notable" Machinehead09 02:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Matrix Criticism?
I seem to remember reading something in this article about Korn receiving negative criticism for employing the Matrix production team to write/co-write their songs. Was this removed due to lack of sourcing or POV issues or what? Livingston 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Thank you
Fior finally updating the bands picture with the 3 surviving members--Kornography (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well its not there anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.72.150 (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Influences
It [the article] doesn't mention their influences. -- ↑ɻ⅞θʉɭ  ђɥл₮₴Ṝ  19:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed. It's an essential element in telling this band's story that is not being represented. There's this weird argument of whether or not they are alternative/industrial/nu/metal (since when does every heavy band have to be a kind of metal?), and a citation to a broken link in which they flat out state "We're not metal. We were influenced by metal, but we're not actually metal", but it doesn't discuss where their final fusion came from. The band's very popular; it's not as if no one cares enough about them. So why the lack of effort? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

I think Pink Floyd should definetely be added as an influence, both because of their ominous sound and their cover of Another Brick in the Wall. I don't have any links proving it though. If any one finds them it should definetely go up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.189.28 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

JD on TRL
is there a source for this?Llama lom (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
I have protected the page for three days due to the edit war currently going on regarding the genre sourcing. Please discuss this issue on this talk page. Useight (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ninth Studio Album article created
The Korn's Ninth Studio Album album was created long ago, but removed since it had little or no good refernces. I just recreated the page with refrences so when the protection is dropped from the main article please incorporate a link to the article, removing some of the more intricate details about the akbum might best be moved to the albums own article aswell. Roger Workman (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ray Luzier and David Silveria
Is Ray an official member of the band now?
 * Also, I've heard some rumors that David Silveria is dead. According to those rumors, he died sometime in 2007, but Korn kept it a secret, and so this is why it was said he never officially quit Korn. I'd like some clarification on both of these subjects. 98.174.219.194 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You got that off of a Youtube video didn't you? No he isn't dead. He really did leave to start a chain of restaurants and be with his family. Here's a link to one of his restaurants on Google Images.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Silveria+steakhouse,126+Main+st+huntington+beach,+california&sll=33.865854,-118.078308&sspn=0,358.769531&ie=UTF8&ll=33.657875,-118.000851&spn=0,359.997597&t=h&z=19&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=33.657932,-118.000929&panoid=VrUZJlMF7Qi6XtMkJmZRrw&cbp=12,222.78446993376838,,0,-15.290178571428573 --Teresa44 (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright. But is Ray Luzier the official drummer of Korn now? 98.174.219.202 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has said he is. As far as I know they're still going by the "Not Let Anyone Else in the Band and Use Session Musicians" policy.--Teresa44 (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ray is an official member now. 98.174.219.194 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Discography
Hi there. Just thought I'd drop in and offer a suggestion about the album articles. I don't think that every compilation produced without the band's involvement needs an article. Maybe the compilations that charted on Billboard could be kept, and the rest could be deleted. Just because the band is notable doesn't mean that you have to have an article on everything with their name on it. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

New Album?????¿????????
Has any one heard any info about an upcoming Korn album? I was searching images on Google for Korn, and I got about 11 pictures of an album cover by Korn called left out. Could this be a new album? This is what the picture is Is this a sign of a new album? I hope so :D --Kyle O'Brien 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

IT's not Korn. It's band from russia called Flymore that sounds almost exactly like Korn. They had an album called Left Out, somebody just put Korn's name on it in confusion. 98.174.219.202 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Type of band
People keep changing the type of band Korn is. Could we just get an answer to witch one it is? --Abce2 (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a really touchy subject for a lot of people sadly. They are obviously Nu metal. They pretty much invented the genre and laid out the framework of all many other Nu Metal Bands. But For some reason, people keep classifying it as "rock" which just, isn't true at all in any form. They aren't rock, metal, alternative metal, rap-core, hard rock, or anything like that. The only classification that they can actually be described by is Nu Metal. So it should be that way on the article. --75.139.103.133 (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all there albums are nu metal. Some are alternative metal. Portillo (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You raise a good point but More of thier albums are Nu Metal than any other genre so that should be the main classification. --75.139.103.133 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And why exactly can't you use both? I'm sure the wiki won't explode if an article say's Nu/Alt-metal. D rew S mith  What I've done  05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The IPs are still editing the thing around without using the talk page, So I went ahead with the option above.-- F-22 Raptor IV 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Something regarding the Korn Kovers album
On the page, this is the personell list:


 * Jonathan Davis – vocals
 * James "Munky" Shaffer – guitars
 * Brian "Head" Welch – guitars
 * Reginald "Fieldy" Arvizu – bass
 * David Silveria – drums
 * Xzibit – guest vocals
 * Chester Bennington – guest vocals
 * P. Exeter Blue I – guest vocals

Considering that Ray Luzier is the drummer now, I was suggesting adding his name under David's. If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, let me know. 70.169.130.99 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the name of the unreleased new album to left out
whoever changed that needs to read the comments on youtube videos, left out was the name given by the idiot that posted all the Flymore songs (band that sounds alot like korn) saying they were korn and that was the name of the album. Drugyourlove Monday, July 27th, 2009. 12:55 am —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC).

Slipknot
" Korn borrows elements from such acts as Pantera, Jane's Addiction, ""Slipknot"", Rage Against the Machine, Primus, Helmet, Faith No More, Mr.Bungle,..."

LOL! Korn borrows from slipknot? thats funny... anyway the actual quote from allmusic doesn't say slipknot so I'm removing them from the list. Ducky610 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it should be the other way around. Daeth (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)slipknot took from korn

Follow the Leader
Hi, im looking for a source for the 9 million copies sold of Follow the Leader. I found this but im not sure what it means. Maybe someone can help. Thanks Portillo (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

New album
Has not had its title announced. It is not Korn II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.196.44 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"My Time" Leaked Korn song...
Read the section on Korns 9th album, it states "'Rumor began to circulate that the song would be cut from the album. When asked via Twitter to confirm this rumor, Ross confirmed that it was indeed an album cut.'" This is an unclear statement, when he was asked to confirm that the song WOULD BE CUT FROM THE ALBUM, and he replied that it would INDEED BE AN ALBUM CUT. Can someone just tell me if it's going on the album or not, no wiki jargon thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.177.81 (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Source?-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 20:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is Ross Robinson's twitter - google it. I think him saying, "It's an album cut," may have been an amusing way of fucking with fans as the question was if the song was cut or not - it can be taken either way. Until it's absolutely confirmed, I'd say it should be taken literally: saying, "It's an album cut," would mean that it IS on the album. This is likely the actual truth anyway, maybe I'm thinking Ross is more clever than he really is. 68.32.194.67 (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A question
where the name Korn comes from, why they chose thta name??--DanTorresROCKS (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) hit me up on aim and ill tell you, i have this book that explains it, i wrote it all here but then the internet crashed and i didnt wanna write it all over again haha my screenname is NOTBRENDANMALLEY Branden mellay (talk)

Backwards R, "do not change" comment
Firstly, I'd love to add "do not change" comments to all my edits that I'm "real sure" should not be changed, but on Wikipedia that's irrelevant for obvious reasons. I've removed the comment.

Secondly, regardless of what the backwards R symbol available during Wikipedia page editing is meant to represent, it still is visually identical to a backwards English letter R which is needed to spell the stylized version of Korn, so there's no reason we can't use it as such. I've therefore made that edit as well.

Just wanted to expand on my edit summary. If anyone has any argument against either of these edits feel free to comment. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:42, 2 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * First, a backwards R is as "visually identical" to a ya as a lowercase L|l is to a capital I|i and the numeral 1, and just as interchangeable. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. If you look at the source code of korn.com, the same character is used for the meta content and page title. Equazcion ( talk ) 19:05, 3 Feb 2010 (UTC)


 * So the web designer is someone who likes to shit all over Unicode and semantics. That doesn't mean that when Davis scrawled out the "logo" he meant for the third letter to be a ya. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If people do happen to use this backwards R character even on websites, and the website on korn.com happens to use the Я in Korn, the part saying "typeset as KoЯn" is indeed accurate, reversed R or not, because it comes down to not how the letter is used, it is how frequent it happens to be used. My two cents.-- F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 01:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

online leak
I keep removing a claim that July 1, 2010, studio album Korn III - Remember Who You Are was leaked online in its entirety due to lack of source. Please don't add it without source. And no, a username (on what system?) does not count as a source. --Muhandes (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you check for yourself? It leaked. Everywhere. Youtube, torrent sites, rapidshare, you name it. It's out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.247.28 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:V and WP:NOR. --Muhandes (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how album leaks are even notable. = ∫tc 5th Eye 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MEH, what ever. I give up on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.247.28 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

the leak is notable because its going to lose millions for the band. why would you even question it being noteable? <--i asked that like a normal questio not in like a douchey way as it comes off haha. sorry that it does Branden mellay (talk)

I dont see the point in noting it as leaks happen all the time. Nothing special to Korn. But I can see it may be interesting to some for the history of music how soon leaks happen before release. Especially if there is controversy with accidental leaks and unfinished songs. Dralezero (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

Well, i will admit when im wrong, adn i was, thats a good point, this was leaked with finished songs. i agree with you guys. Branden mellay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

No Mention of Nightmare Revisited
There is no mention of the song they covered for the album Nightmare Revisited, released in 2008. They preformed the song "Kidnap Mister Sandy Claus." It deserves mentioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare_Revisited

72.165.54.237 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Blast Beats
I got a laugh out of the phrase "Metallica-esque blast beats." Metallica does not now, nor have they ever, used blast beats in any of their recorded material. Much less should such a thing be considered a Metallica signature, or its use considered "Metallica-esque". 216.246.225.57 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

cooliolishish
what is this word? the mtv interview does not mention it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.253.29 (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

backwards letters
How do you get backwards Rs? For that matter, how do you get any backwards letters? I've tried symbols on here and I've tried symbols on Word. HOW DO YOU GET BACKWARDS LETTERS?! The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't. Please read MOS:TM. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for introduction stating Korn as a "rock" band.
Do not change the introduction genre from rock to nu metal. Nu metal is a fusion genre of heavy metal; which itself is a genre of rock. The introduction needs to state it's main genre, in this case, rock. Any edits to change the genre without reliable sources will be reverted. Thank you. 'GWPSP' 'Ø9Ø'    7thAdv.    05:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the issue was previouslly discussed above, so please go and give a look there. if so you will see that it's not ok to give that general examples to a genre because it makes wikipedia imprecise and thus an unreliable source, i bet that if you go on a grab a physical enciclopedia about contemporany music, korn will be listed as A)- Metal B)- Nu metal. i appeal to your neutral point of view here. And please don't change the genre again untill a real consensous (I mean, one involving more users than you) being reached. Better regards: Ledforce (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Korn page is a mess!
Wow! Absolutely atrocious! I can't believe how bad Korn's wiki page is! I'm willing to help out, but only if Wikipedia allows me to cite Kornspace.com as an source. It is simply not worth my time if they refuse that request because most of Korn's news is released through Kornspace.com Tjohnsond (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

new album
The new album, The Path of Totality is obviously dubstep. No arguing with that. It's not because Skrillex is involved. It's because if you listen to it, you'll hear all that sound that dubstep has. Just if you look up what dubstep is, you'll know. I cited my source while adding dubstep(recently) to the genre list korn has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One album isn't enough. yawaraey (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

So? We just put dubstep(recently) there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMetallican (talk • contribs) 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bands influenced by Korn
Can we get direct sources from the members of the bands listed DIRECTLY STATING that their band was influenced by Korn? Allmusic's overview section (to distinguish from their biographies -- the biographies are usually written by people, the overview generation seems to be computer-generated) is not a good source for tracking artist influences, because they mostly seem to categorize bands as "following" other bands simply for having a similar style or location (I.E., numerous rappers from Detroit categorized as being "influenced" by Eminem, even if they started out before Eminem). --WTF (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

alternative rock & hard rock
ima go get sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

can someone change the main photo?
they don't look like korn, they look like a bunch of imposters — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will upload an updated photo on the Wikimedia Commons and update the photo. Josie Borisow 13:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)  Josie Borisow 19:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Nbcwd Josie Borisow 19:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoever changed the picture THANK YOU. It has been the same for 6 years now. Teresa44 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! ;) Nbcwd (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

changing title genres
This has to stop. Ever since the protection was lifted, people are once again changing this from rock to metal. I remember in a previous argument saying that rock is favored over the metal genre since it's a bigger umbrella term, but now I'm looking for other people's opinions on what we should do. Should we just change it to metal and make everyone happy, or take the hard route and request another semi-protection?-- 猛禽22 •• 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No answer? I'm changing it to metal.-- 猛禽22 •• 02:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Im happier with it being called metal than rock. It is more decriptive. Calling Korn "Rock" is like calling a vehicle an "Object" just because its an umbrella term that vaguely describes it. --75.139.107.252 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Earlier I did favour "rock", but now I agree that it is too broad. But it should be "heavy metal", which I changed it to a little while ago. The reason for this is because "metal" isn't the proper name for the genre, the genre is called "heavy metal". If we call it a "metal" band that'd be like referring to Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath as "Sabbath" or "Maiden" on their pages. Other similar bands such as Slipknot and Godsmack also have "heavy metal" in the lead. Ximmerman (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative metal and nu metal are definately korn's main genre Metalfan72 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, even in Billboard they are referred to as Hard Rock. Just because a consensus is reached once, doesn't mean a consensus might need to change.  Refer to WP:CCC.  Apparently more discussion is needed to come to another consensus.  Korn have changed a lot since this last "consensus" was done.  If a citation can validate one or many genre's, it shouldn't be thrown out just because a person believes it to be invalid or non-applicable because a consensus was reached "a long time ago".  Nbcwd (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Genre
Before you post hiddent text, you might want to consider reading about Wikipedia's "don't revert due solely to "no consensus" policy" WP:DRNC Korn have said themselves many times they are not nu-metal or even metal at all. They fit into many categories of music. A consensus may or may not be necessary but to put a hidden text telling everyone they can't edit the article is against Wikipedia policy. WP:Hidden I have seen several people cite that a "consensus" needs to be reached before making any edits to the genre, yet no one has started an actual consensus! WP:CONS No single person owns this wikipedia article, therefore, changes can be made to any information at any time by any one without regards to hidden texts telling them they can't change it. If you feel so strongly that there should be a consensus, then start one, don't just state that no one should/can change it until a consensus is reached when you never started one. Thank you. Nbcwd (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, even in Billboard they are referred to as Hard Rock. Just because a consensus is reached once, doesn't mean a consensus might need to change. Refer to WP:CCC. Apparently more discussion is needed to come to another consensus. Korn have changed a lot since this last "consensus" was done. If a citation can validate one or many genre's, it shouldn't be thrown out just because a person believes it to be invalid or non-applicable because a consensus was reached "a long time ago". With that said, nu metal is defined in wikipedia as a subgenre of heavy metal and classed as alternative metal.  Korn themselves have always said that they aren't metal and even they don't know how to classify their music.  They have had so many styles incorporated into their sound its going to be difficult to come up with only one genre to define them unless you keep it very broad, such as rock music.  Besides, where does it say that a band must only be classified as one genre?  Is this a rule in wikipedia that I'm not aware of?  Slipknot has 3 genre's listed, Deftones have 2 genre's listed, even nu metal isn't on theirs yet they are classified in the same categories as Korn are.  Go look at the list of List of nu metal bands and tell me how many of those bands ONLY have 1 genre listed as their genre.  I see no reason why multiple genre's can't be listed for Korn.  My suggestions would be the following: nu metal, rock, industrial metal, alternative metal, and possibly even electronica due to the incorporation of electronica in their latest album, The Path of Totality.  Take a look at the List of alternative metal artists and List of industrial metal bands and you'll see how Korn can easily fit in each of those categories as well as nu metal and rock.  I do feel that even one album such as The Path of Totality can add a new genre to their style because they have always evolved throughout the years from one style to the next fusing many genres into their style.  But that's only my opinion.  Nbcwd (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Record Sales
Spoke to artist management this morning and the actual number is in the 30 million range. Nielsen Soundscan has total US sales are 19,509,563 as of this week. Will continue to look for a citation to add to this number, but this is the most accurate number available as of today. Nbcwd (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Would like to add this reference for 35 million record sales.   Thank you!  Nbcwd (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Formation
The formation was 1992. NOT 1993. Please carefully read the sources. Find this quote saying "Formed   1992 in Bakersfield, CA " over on this source. Notice how it says 1992?

On this one find the quote saying "Korn formed in 1992 as the Bakersfield metal act LAPD"

On this one find the quote saying "The pace is unrelenting, but Korn is used to it by now. Formed in 1992, the California band spent its early years honing its chops on the road in a succession of opening gigs for the likes of Ozzy Osbourne, Marilyn Manson and Megadeth."

Notice how they all say 1992, not 1993? It specifically says it was in 1992

Any edits reverting that will be considered vandalism

Ihy34 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit changing the date are only vandalism if they are a deliberate attempt at compromising the article. These seem like good faith edits to improve the article, this a content dispute not vandalism.  GB fan 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

LAPD formed in 1992...KORN didn't form till 1993. Sometimes articles use 1992 because that's when LAPD started. But that was not when Korn started. LAPD changed their name to Creep and then when they found Jonathan Davis in 1993...they changed their name to Korn and Korn was born! There is nothing to argue here, these are the facts. Your sources used the date of the birth of LAPD not Korn! I can find many other sources that will dispute this date. Please read the Wikipedia policy on ownership of articles before you being this edit warring. WP:OWN Thank you! Nbcwd (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ACTUALLY LAPD formed in 1989.

If the sources say 1992, then it is 1992. Jonathan joined in 1992 or 1993 beginning. Could be they formed as an instrumental first just to find a singer and jonathan joined, so therefore, it's 1992. Also, I removed vandalism. Because 1992 is the formation year.

Ihy34 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No...Jonathan didn't join the band till 1993. NO article out there disputes that!  Korn was formed in 1993...their first EP came out in Oct 1993.  And for the record, you apparently don't understand what a consensus is.  And you also are participating in an edit war.  Consider this a warning.  Nbcwd (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if Jonathan joined in 1993, still they say they formed in 1992, but got their singer in 93. Some bands begin off without a singer, then get one.

Ihy34 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No they had a singer in LAPD. Richard Morrill, Pete Capra, and Corey...James and Brian found Jonathan signing in a bar in Bakersfield in 1993.  Soon after Jonathan joined the band they changed the name to Korn.  Prior to that it was Creep.  Nbcwd (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ihy34 you really should use this talk page to settle the dispute rather than the article itself with the edit warring you and Teresa44 partook of. You requested a consensus and then you refuse to participate in the consensus and stop the edit warring.  Now, on to this dispute.  In an issue of Meanstreet Magazine from October 1993 it talks about Korn and referred to them as "the six-month old band" which means that they were formed in March/April of 1993.    This is a reputable source that documented them right from the beginning.  Regardless of the sites you find that say 1992, that was LAPD and Creep, NOT Korn.
 * Here's several other soruces that state Korn formed in 1993:
 * Marquee Magazine -
 * Discogs -
 * Antelope Audio -
 * Loudwire - ,
 * TC Electronic -
 * IMP Magazine -
 * Roadrunner Records -
 * Roadrunner Records Canada video -
 * And for the final proof...their official merchandise store states the following: "Hailing from Bakersfield, California, Korn formed in 1993."  Are you actually going to dispute the band themselves on when they considered themselves to be a band?  What more proof and sources do you want?  Ultimately the right answer is 1993, even according to Korn.  So why do you hold on to 1992 even when the band themselves say 1993? Here's another one that is OFFICIAL FROM KORN, their publicist has their biography posted as well, and it says....1993!   Nbcwd (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the guy that got me blocked from Korn's page for constantly changing it back to 1993. He's really stubborn and misinformed. Keep up the good fight guys, someone block him for me please.Teresa44 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comments: First, please discuss content, not contributors. Second, if you're topic banned, you might want to avoid the talk page of said topic as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for the genre
There has been WAY TOO MUCH genre warring lately on this page. Since December when someone added industrial metal with this edit to the genre field for Korn with NO sources or even discussing it here. Sure we've seen the musical style and influences whatever section, but we're not going to add all those genres to the field. Nu metal is a hybrid of metal, grunge and rap. Thus, it is NOT hard rock. The band only played industrial metal in 2005. Please see the sources for See you on the other side and read the article. And I guess 2007 maybe. But that article's genre field wasn't sourced with industrial metal. If you look at their other stuff, they are nu metal. Industrial metal is Static-X, Ministry, Rammstein, etc. Then someone added a source in the genre field to allow industrial metal on there, but all genres got put in the musical style section, industrial metal was there, but long ago there openly was a consensus made for the genre to say (((((Nu metal, alternative metal))))) and the list of industrial metal bands article did NOT have korn in there, but you can't source wikipedia for itself. Anyone can edit it. Also, that article is barely sourced anyways. Another thing is that if the consensus was made, I reverted to pre-genre war state. Before 12/9/2012. An IP also vandalized a section in the page calling the members "homosexuals" and talking about their name having to do with diarrhea or corn or something. It was ridiculous and unsourced and obvious vandalism. Also, the sources for their formation year SPECIFICALLY say they formed in 1992. NOT 1993. The band only experimented industrial metal (precisely 'nu-industrial') with See You On the Other Side, and MAYBE Evolution. It just was unsourced. But for SYOTOS it WAS. Please don't edit the genre without a discussion.

2601:A:4100:5A:A538:D76B:C74F:B580 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You should consider reading about Ownership of articles WP:OWN. The one consensus that was done before is no longer valid if others now feel that other genre's should be added.  Anyone can edit the article.  You are no more entitled to this than any other.  Billboard is a valid and reliable source by the way.  This "edit warring" is actually you.  Mulitple people come and change the genre, not just one.  By this comment, "but we're not going to add all those genres to the field", who are the "we're" you are referring to?  Do you speak for every member of wikipedia that makes updates to Korn's wikipedia articles?  The band only changes their musical style every single album!  None of them are the same so it's completely valid to add additional genre's for their genre.  Many other bands have multiple genre's listed as their genre so why can't Korn?  Why would you revert this page back to 9 Dec for no valid reason?  Just for the genre?  Nbcwd (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Myxomatosis57 Please stop reverting additions just because YOU feel that the source is not reliable. Allmusic IS considered a reliable source.  You keep reverting on the page but have not contributed to the talk page.  You have been given an WP:EDITWAR warning.  Please stop reverting other's inputs, particularly when they have cited valid and reliable sources.  Nbcwd (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Myxomatosis57 I read your link to WP: ALBUMS and even there they state, as the consensus, that the overarching genre used on Allmusic is an acceptable reference. Only 1 person disagreed amongst the 5 people involved in the discussion.  Therefore, electronic music and pop rock is a valid genre to list for Korn  Nbcwd (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * My point is that Allmusic reviews are the reliable texts. Nevertheless, the genre sidebar, the sidebar next to the reviews which provably have actually no relationship with the reviews, is not. Nearly every band and review are branded with generalized "pop/rock" or "electronic" or etc., which actually makes the sidebar obsolete. For instance, user page of Mayhem also contains pop/rock labeling, but they're obviously not "pop rock". The users who participated in the consensus I've send also can be showing distaste/disapproval for the sidebar while totally agreeing upon the accepted usage of the written review itself. Another question-answer session regarding this issue can be seen here. Apart from that, I've been warned twice by other users not to refer to the genre sidebar, as it can be seen from here and here. I'd like to make an exact quote from one of them:

(As exactly quoted from Dan56) "Thank you for your contributions to articles like How I Got Over, but the source you used is a bit questionable. Editors in the past have pointed out that Allmusic's sidebar is often incongruous with the reviewer's prose (possibly not the reviewer's choice), including at WP:ALBUMS and RSN. A perfect example is Rhythm Killers and its entry at Allmusic; the sidebar lists it as "reggae", but the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight really". If this is the only source available for a certain article, then it's fine, but more explicit, authored sources are preferred." Dan56 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If the Allmusic review itself (the text not the sidebar) indicated that the band was primarily a "pop rock" or "electronic" band, I'd not intervene with your edit at the first place. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you READ the review that is cited it is stated IN the review itself. Therefore it's valid/reliable nonetheless.  Nbcwd (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the review and I can't find any mention of "pop rock" and solely "electronic" in the review. "The dark electronica" term which is used, while being subtle, can open something new for the discussion though. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting as the word electronic is in the review 4 times. 1) "Korn remembered who they were just in time to forget it all again on The Path of Totality, an unexpected left turn into dubstep and all manner of dark electronica from the kings of nu metal." 2) "Korn always emphasized texture over riffs, so shifting from a gray guitar grind toward claustrophobic electronic collage doesn’t induce shock, apart from the shock that the album actually works." 3) "The difference of arrangement -- heavy on skittish drums and electro walls of assault -- has the curious effect of making Korn seem not adventurous but rather mature: the content of Jonathan Davis’ rants matter less than his tone, and the producers have folded his vocals, along with Munky’s buzzing guitar, into a web that feels like Korn even if it doesn’t strictly sound like any other Korn album, not even the industrial-funk of See You on the Other Side." 4)"Despite all the electronics, there’s no mistaking The Path of Totality as a Korn album...and one of their better ones to boot."  As for the pop rock, no it's not in the review.  For anyone that wants to put their thoughts into this, here's the link to the article in question: http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-path-of-totality-mw0002235657 Additionally, take a look at Korn's Billboard Chart History: http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/korn/chart-history/1820890  Rock, Dance, Club, Electronic, Alternative, and Hard Rock.  Nbcwd (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the term electronic is used for 3 times but in order to indicate the elements in the album and describe the type of musical instruments used (electronic musical instrument), rather than to describe the genre they're playing most often. As far as I can see, besides the defunct sidebar, nothing explicitly brands Korn as an electronic music band in that review and it is really hard to decide on a band's genre by considering just an album review, especially for an one that changes its style too frequently. If they pursue on their "dubstep influenced-metal" genre for their next albums, "electronic music" branding will be valid. However, it is too early to include that on the infobox for now. And, about the Billboard issue, I'd like to say that the charts does not necessarily indicate the bands' (or even the songs') genre. Their only album that has been charted in "electronic" charts is Path of Totatily, their latest work. Apart from that, only 5 songs of Korn has received a dance/club charting; one of them being from Path of Totatily. Nevertheless, Nine Inch Nails' The Hand That Feeds also received charting from dance charts and their next song Every Day Is Exactly the Same even topped Hot Dance Singles Sales, despite not being solely electronic or dance music. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion here before my last edit. It is important to put things in context here.  I think the general consensus is to not include too many genres in an artist's infobox, but stick to a middle ground between too precise and too vague, such that it's possible to differentiate their sound without going into a sub-sub-sub-sub-genre of two bands.  Pop rock is probably the vaguest genre name extent, and doesn't provide useful information.  As for electronic, since you're citing the review for an individual album, that would be more appropriate to use as a source for that album, not for the band in its entirety.  If you can find a bio on the group describing them as electronic, that would be more acceptable. —Torchiest talkedits 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the reference to Korn as "industrial metal" isn't valid or reliable either. This article is clearly only speaking about another band and I would have to say that Korn are not and have never been and "industrial metal" band.  "STRIKE-O-MATICS SEEK HELP ON NEW CD COVER  Taking a cue from industrial metal act Korn, the Strike-O-Matics are seeking the assistance of their fans in designing the cover for their upcoming compact disc." As you have stated clearly, "heavy metal" is a genre of "rock music" and "nu metal is a sub-genre of "heavy metal" just as "industrial metal" is also a sub-genre of "heavy metal".  So even by that logic, only "heavy metal" should be listed since you don't want to delve into sub-genre's.  Nbcwd (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe Korn are industrial metal, since they are nu metal, which is an amalgamation of genres, including industrial. Calling Korn industrial metal is like saying alternative bands like Pearl Jam and Radiohead are post-punk because they are influenced by it, which is wrong since they play alt rock, which is a derivative of post-punk. I call the big one bitey 12:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mark Chavez standalone bio back
Mark chavez, partially recreated... redirected by 2009, presumably there was discussion. Does someone want to decide what to do with this? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Chavez has nothing to do with Korn other than being Jonathan Davis' little brother. He had his own bio because of being a member of Adema, which he is no longer a member of either.  Supposedly he has a solo project that he's been working on for years now but still nothing is out there yet.  I haven't seen any discussion on recreating his bio.  Nbcwd (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I just left the message here as I guessed this would be a better watched Talk page than Adema. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha! Thanks, good info to know!  Nbcwd (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)