Talk:System of a Down/Archive 3

Removing peoples comments from talk page archives
An IP (User_talk:202.12.233.21) )has been continually removing opinions from editors on the archived page, regarding the band's genre. They have removed opinions (from other editors) which are oppositional to their own. They have been doing this for a while without reason until now, providing the reason:

"removed flaming of discussion post - this will constantly be changed back to reflect this. various posts involved abuse of users opinion, vulgar language, and un-necisary responses."


 * There was no flaming on the thread (maybe one editor had been slightly careless with their language i.e saying "shut it", which wasn't extremely helpful but none-the-less they were just trying to express their view).
 * The user abusing opinions is the editor who had made 9 separate comments trying to POV push that SOAD are emo/emo rock n roll. Whenever someone else had tried to oppose this, their comment got deleted by the IP.
 * I found no vulgar language (on the parts that kept being removed).
 * No-ones opinions should be regarded as unnecessary. Even though other people had opposed the IPs opinions, no-one had removed them.

The talkpage archives shouldn't be edited and I would just like to ask other editors to state their opinions, as I don't want to become too subjective about this. Thank-you. --Seraphim Whipp 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to this
Yes I was one of the original people editing this section of the discussion. Although I think it is hypocritical to suggest what you are suggesting above, namely: "They have removed opinions (from other editors) which are oppositional to their own." When exactley the same thing has been done, towards them, when adding "Emo Metal" to the "list" of genres, whilst not removing any of the other genres on the list, namely by the same author above in many cases. ^^Comment from User_talk:202.12.233.21


 * Ok, I understand the point you're trying to make, but those changes are to the article and not the talk page. The edits I made in the article reflect consensus, by removing the category of emo/emo rock n roll/emo metal. I was not the only one to do this, take a look in the page's history here. Your changes had been reverted by a number of users:
 * Seraphim Whipp (me)
 * 156.34.208.164
 * Artaxiad
 * Sub-Z3R0
 * Ormi
 * Anger22
 * Gerrish
 * Corpx
 * 68.116.70.59
 * 172.144.0.252
 * Dfrg.msc
 * Tene
 * Imroy
 * AirCombat
 * Infosocialist
 * ChopAtwa
 * By removing information from the talk page archive you are violating wiki policy. And as always, don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes ~ --Seraphim Whipp 10:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to the recent removal of this discussion, I checked the location of the IP's which had edited out the comments. The IPs are located in Australia, the same location as the IP that this discussion was originally with (who was blocked for 3 months).
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, as a person locked inside the same network the person doing the edits I'd just like to vote that they are in-fact EMO-Metal. There's no disputing. So please do ignore this slower individual who works at the same workplace as I and re-enstate "Emo Metal". 202.12.233.21 07:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you referring to exactly? If you are referring to me, I do not work with you and I'm not even in the same country. Do refrain from making personal attacks. It is against consensus to add the nonsense genre of "Emo Metal". Hopefully now your IP isn't blocked, you can begin to make more constructive edits.
 * Seraphim Whipp 12:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.12.233.21 obviously. While I post from that same IP I am not the person making the edits people are complaining about.
 * 202.12.233.21 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are not the same user that kept adding Emo Metal even though you've just made a comment saying that Emo Metal should be added. Right.
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ozzfest (Freefest)?
Hmm, I don't know how to deal with this. Someone edited the page to say that SOAD will be at the Ozzfest this year (which is called Freefest now, btw - since it's free), and the Bands-page ( http://www.ozzfest.com/bands.html ) does have SOAD in there, but is the Bands-page actually up-to-date or is it still from last year or something? The page is also a bit weird because it seems to list the artists twice with some more in the end, or something. 212.213.90.13 10:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, apparently the bios link to 2006, so this seems to be a false alarm. Too bad =/

Heres a Question I was wondering if the song Plastic Jesus was done by system. I listen to it and although it said, "by System of a Down" it sounds nothing like them, or like thier style of music.
 * It's not by SOAD. Flag_of_Poland.svg gracz54 14:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ya, they changed the page. it has a bunch of pics with question marks.

Oriental metal?
Where is this guy (the one that keeps adding "Oriental Metal" under genre) getting that from? There's nothing "oriental" about them at all. Am I the only one confused by this? This is not a personal attack...I just don't understand it...at all. Bsroiaadn 17:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who was adding it, but after looking at the page, it seems understandable. They do have elements of fol and middle eastern music.


 * I wish people could get over the temptation to add weird genres to band articles, without references. "Oriental metal" is just weird.. and although the term "emo" has lost almost all meaning, I can still say confidently that SOAD share few similarities with "emo" music. Unless there is some sort of consensus (and reliable source) for the term "emo", it should not be applied. Rhobite 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * SOAD is not emo. Not saying they don't talk about serious, and sometimes mildly depressing, things...but they're not emo. Unless "emo-metal" is a new genre, I don't think the word "emo" should be in the article anywhere. Still wondering where this guy/these guys are getting "emo" and "oriental metal" from. They all seem like sock puppets, but I can't prove it. There are at least 3 accounts that make VERY similar (mostly to genres like adding "emo" or "oriental metal", or changing "bass" to "bass guitar", "vocals" to "backing vocals" or "lead vocals" and things like that) to articles, almost always having something to do with System of a Down. They haven't gotten banned on any of them (that I know of) so I'm not sure if it's against the rules or not. I'll have to read up on it, again. Either way, I can't prove it right now, so I won't even try to report it. Bsroiaadn 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could be sockpuppets, or it could just be a common thing to do.. this is similar to the "nu-metal" edit war, which you can read about in the archives. Rhobite 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP mentioned at the top of the talk page consistently made changes to the genre. They have since been blocked from editing for 3 months. It does seem a bit odd... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Damn...HagermanBot beat me to sign my post.
 * Seraphim Whipp 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I got the oriental metal genre from the Orphaned land article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.49.64 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok, but why apply it to System of a Down?
 * Seraphim Whipp 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because, based on the description in the oriental metal article, i would say it describes their sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.49.64 (talk • contribs)


 * You'll notice that it keeps being removed. That is probably because the majority disagree with you. There's been a number of discussions regarding genre already. Check out the archives. If you want to make changes to it, make a case on the talk page and people are more likely to accept what you're saying.
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WHERE THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE GETTING "EMO" FROM? THEY'RE NOT FUCKING EMO AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now Oriental Metal seems a little understandable, but people, I ask you, EMO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hiatus
yep, so the band is taking a break for a while. so in the meantime, check out my new band Syndrome Of a Down. just kidding system kicks ass.


 * This doesn't belong here. please see No one cares about your garage band Doc Strange 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden comments
Please, don't delete them. The only one I know of that's ever been in this article is the one by the genres, which I had to re-add today because someone, and I know exactly who..check the edit summary of that edit for it, deleted it. This is to everyone, though I'm sure most of you know, do not delete that hidden comment. There's a reason it's there. Bsroiaadn 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Singing Style
I don't mean to offend any of System's fans, but is Tankian trying to be funny when he sings? Whenever I hear a System song, half of me is angry that a man that sings like that has become such a successful musician, and the other half wants to fall over laughing because of how he actually sounds. Is he actually singing or is he trying to make his listeners laugh? Do we have any information on WHY Tankian sings like he does? I'd really like to know.PowderedToastMan 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's part trying to sound funny (only a part of the time tho), but there's also very serious singing too.
 * 212.213.90.13 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion is unimportant, as the concern of the article is not whather Serj's voice makes someone laugh. Please keep your opinions to yourself. ) 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide survivors?
..' grandsons of Armenian Genocide survivors '.. ? What ??

Should this be one of the first sentences to explain the band? I know the band is among the people who support genocide theory, but isn't it offensive for Turkish fans of SOAD?

Just a thought.

There are Turkish SOAD fans?

Thanks Miller 88.106.11.115 18:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a article that has to do with Armenians since obviously they are, considerably removing that is offensive also since Serj and others have strong feelings about this, the genocide that is. The majority view the Armenian Genocide as genocide for example Scholars, historians, preferable all reliable. Its like removing important figures of the Jewish holocaust only its more known and accepted. Just like the Armenian Genocide, only of which Turkey denies, like Germany trying to take over and saying it never happened in which they did before but now they admit it, I hope you understand us. Mexicana 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored to protect anyone's feelings. Why should it be offensive to Turks? Why is it a big deal to admit your country did horrible things in the past? I'm an American and don't deny what the American government did to the Native Americans was a horrible thing. I'm sure you can find many a German (or other European country that collaborated in the slaughter) who isn't exactly proud or even defensive of the Holocaust. Turks need to grow up and admit what the Turkish government did to the Armenians as WWI was winding down was genocide, and move on. Parsecboy 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Song
Was the legend of zelda song I've seen all over the net in places such as |Flash Flash Revolution that has been attributed to System of a Down actually done by them? 74.69.245.119 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a song by The Rabbit Joint. Someone tagged it wrong and now people are fooled into thinking it was made by System. Gracz54 13:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's good to know, thanks for clearing that up >.> 74.69.245.119 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not a song by the Rabbit Joint. From the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_Joint (which redirects to Zelda).


 * Joe Pleiman created a song parody of the main Zelda theme for his album The Rabbit Joint.[23] The song is commonly mis-attributed to System of a Down or The Rabbit Joint. 212.213.90.13 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rabbit Joint is a side project of Joe Pleiman's, not just the album title the Zelda song was on. That track is freely available, and properly attributed, at http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR00022/ - Liontamer 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal
Is'nt System of a Down nu metal? I would add that to the genre but the note there says not to do so without mentioning on talk page. --69.119.193.192 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * System of a Down has Absolutely nothing to do with nu metal. This was settled months ago. Why can't you guys who keep adding that to the genre unsourced understand that? gees --Charles Montgomery 04:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They are Nu-Metal and I know Daron does not want to be labeled which I respect but in this case they will always be that genre. So I'm going to put that genre as the only one. It settled in this case.--Orlandinho 06:13, 25 April 2007
 * Not settled without reliable sources that support your claim. –Pomte 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a source. A website all about rock genres. So i'm going to switch it back. --74.97.35.21 19:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That means the site sucks. Flag_of_Poland.svg gracz54 20:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in like this but: System of a Down is a nu metal band. This is a portion of the "Common musical traits" section from the nu metal article:

"''Unlike traditional metal, the overall defining trait of nu metal guitar-playing is the emphasis on mood, rhythm, and texture over melody and complex instrumentation, achieved largely through performance or effects. Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat -- ideally, both at once. However, guitar-playing in nu metal still often varies vastly in complexity, sound and usage. Bands take elements from several forms of music when composing the riffs for their guitars, causing a high variance between the bands. One common trait of most nu metal bands however, is to emphasize the guitar as a rhythmic instrument. Riffs often consist of only a few different notes or power chords played in rhythmic, syncopated patterns. To emphasize this rhythmic nature, nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting, that is often widely spaced out and blend easily into the surrounding riffs, in a manner similar to grunge and hip hop.

''Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. Strings 'de-tuned' in this way, are often drop-D or lower, sometimes adding a seventh string. This technique is often criticized as a misuse of alternate guitar tunings, with detractors emphasizing the ease and frequency with which power chords are played, particularly in nu metal. Guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs, and when they do appear they are often short and simple when compared to those of traditional metal genres.''"

These characteristics totally fit System of a Down's guitar work. Now I'll give you other characteristics of nu metal that fit System of a Down pretty well:


 * System of a Down uses the "verse-chorus-verse" song structure and its variants that are common in nu metal.
 * System of a Down has a nu metal fan base.
 * System of a Down has popped up around the time of the nu metal boom.
 * System of a Down has incorporated rap-like vocals in several songs (Chop Suey, Psycho, etc.).
 * System of a Down has been labeled "nu metal" by Rockdetector, a viable source.
 * System of a Down has (or had, since they're not active those days) coverage on mainstream radios and TV channels like MTV, which is common of nu metal bands and not so common of metal bands, with some notable exceptions like: the 80's, Metallica, etc.
 * Google stats:
 * System of a Down nu metal ---> 255,000 results
 * System of a Down avant-garde metal (excluding Wikipedia results) ---> 972 results

I think nu metal should actually be at the top of the list, but getting it at second place will be fine too. It is a fact that SoaD is a nu metal band, even though they do not use turntables and do not always use rapping vocals or similar techniques, for nu metal isn't limited to this.

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is my reply (and I hope very sincerely that this doesn't sound rude or misconvey my meaning):


 * Pop music uses a verse-chorus-verse song structure. Does that mean they are pop? Clearly not.
 * System has an emo fanbase, a metal fanbase, a rock fanbase, a pop fanbase. My mum who listens to soul music even likes them!
 * Lots of bands popped up around the nu-metal boom; blink-182, Nirvana, Reel Big Fish etc. Doesn't mean that they are nu-metal simply because they arrived at that time.
 * Rap-like. Answered yourself there really.
 * It's a ridiculous notion to suggest that simply because a band got coverage on MTV that it makes them nu-metal
 * Here, google stats are redundant as the search terms are not similar in form. Avante-garde metal has A.) A hyphen in it B.) Three words. The more you narrow a search, the less results you'll get.


 * So that's just what I think.
 * Seraphim Whipp 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No don't worry, your reply does not seem rude.


 * We both know that SoaD is not pop, no need to argue over that. The point is that it shares a very significant characteristic with nu metal. The reason this characteristic is so significant is that bands from most of the subgenres of metal do not use the "verse-chorus-verse" structures (this is a fact). That is one important similarity.
 * System of a Down has coverage on the mainstream media, which is one other thing that many nu metal bands have in common. It has a very significant number of fans from the nu metal fanbase, although they also have fans from other communities (I thought that was kind of obvious...). That makes it two important similarities with nu metal bands.
 * Yes, except Nirvana, blink, and RBF do not even play in the same musical genre! It's not even worth bringing up. What I am saying is that it is kind of weird to deny all the evidence that is there. The time period they come from is one third similarity.
 * Rap-like means at least some influence from rap or other subgenres, and some parts could actually be considered rapping vocals, which is widely used in nu metal. Fourth similarity here.
 * Really? I think it is significant. But let me clarify this: being on MTV occasionally on a special metal-dedicated night is one thing; being on MTV on a regular basis as a "metal" band is another. Apart from Metallica, 80's metal, and few other exceptions, I don't know of any bands who are associated with the metal genre that are or were aired on MTV regularly, apart from nu metal and some metalcore bands.
 * Another close link between nu metal bands and SoaD: The band toured across America in 2000 with Limp Bizkit (which is undiputably a nu metal and rapcore band), Method Man, and Redman (which shows a link between rap, nu metal, and the band). This is a fifth significant similarity.
 * Okay now I got several comments about the Google stats:
 * The word is avant-garde, not avante-garde.
 * It has a hyphen in the name, and even if we take it off, the results are still exactly the same. Google doens't make a difference out of the hyphen in between avant and garde. Your argument is therefore invalid.
 * The reason I put three words is that if you look at the search for System of a down avant-garde instead of System of a down avant-garde metal, you get many results that do not label them avant-garde, but that cite a collaboration with what the author of the page claims to be an Armenian avant-garde folk musician. Other results from this search include forums called Music Reviews of Crossover, Avant Garde. The rest include reviews from other internet users, and this is not a viable source. Thus, limiting the term to "avant-garde metal" in the search is legitimate, since 1) many results don't really relate and 2) it's the term avant-garde metal that is being used in the article. Also, just so you know, I know the list of avant-garde metal musical groups pretty well, and System of a Down has nothing to do with any of these bands.
 * You forget that Rockdetector not only classifies them as nu metal (since the classification is limited by certain musical genres), but then, in the band page, clearly states that it is a nu metal act: "Los Angeles Nu-Metal band with an Armenian heritage". Sixth similarity.
 * And on top of all of these similarities, the paragraph I put up above from the nu metal article clearly fits with SoaD's sound. Overall, I think there is so much evidence that SoaD's is a nu metal band that there is no point in even denying it.


 * Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, genre debates get long. I'm just going to refer you to the archives, where all the arguments that have prevailed countless times will hopefully prevail once again! :-) It's cool for us to agree to disagree. My advice is get consensus.
 * Seraphim Whipp 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see. You say verse-chorus-verse makes SOAD (well, not alone, but anyway) nu-metal? I say that's nonsense. Like mentionend before, it's used in pop/rock too. I wouldn't label SOAD nu-metal because of that.


 * Well, "nu-metal fanbase" is arguable, since people that I know (that listen to SOAD) do not listen to nu-metal. Maybe one exception. The rest don't listen to SOAD at all. My friends don't count, however, but where did you get this info? Also, how does the fanbase effect the genre? If most of the people who like SOAD listen to classical music too, does that make SOAD classical music?


 * I don't think timing counts. As Seraphim Whipp mentioned, a lot of other bands popped up during that time, and they aren't nu-metal. It doesn't make you nu-metal.


 * Yes, they had rap-like vocals in a few songs. However, I'd hardly call that something that makes them nu-metal. A lot of bands have strings on their songs, but again, it doesn't make them classical music. The focus is almost always on sung lyrics.


 * Rockdetector eh? So SOAD is nu-metal because a website says so? It may be credible, but I don't think that makes them nu-metal either. A website is almost always the opinion of one person, maybe multiple people.


 * So, they're nu-metal because they get coverage on MTV and radio? ...right.


 * "Apart from Metallica, 80's metal, and few other exceptions, I don't know of any bands who are associated with the metal genre that are or were aired on MTV regularly, apart from nu metal and some metalcore bands."


 * Few other exceptions - like SOAD, maybe?


 * Oh, and like mentioned, Google is not exactly a reliable source on this. I think the things that make a band nu-metal are in the music. So far you've brought up the guitar playing and some (not very many) rap-like vocals on their songs. On the other side, there's not a lot of rapping, and no turntables. Also I'd say the bass doesn't have such a big part in SOAD's sound. I'd like you to mention things that make SOAD nu-metal musically, not stuff like "their fans like nu-metal!" or "they popped up at the same time as some nu-metal bands did!". This has been argued about before, decided as not nu-metal. You haven't exactly brought anything new into the discussion.


 * 212.213.90.13 13:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd first like to say that avant-garde metal was put there even though SoaD has nothing to do with that genre of music, but then when nu metal is proposed, despite all the common points between SoaD and the nu metal movement, the arguments get all over the place.

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 19:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "nu-metal fanbase" is arguable, since people that I know (that listen to SOAD) do not listen to nu-metal. Maybe one exception. The rest don't listen to SOAD at all. My friends don't count, however, but where did you get this info? Also, how does the fanbase effect the genre? If most of the people who like SOAD listen to classical music too, does that make SOAD classical music? ---> I'm not saying the fanbase defines the genre (I know a lot of mallcore kids who listen to Cannibal Corpse), but I am using this as one of the most important hints and clues.
 * I don't think timing counts. As Seraphim Whipp mentioned, a lot of other bands popped up during that time, and they aren't nu-metal. It doesn't make you nu-metal. ---> Same. I'm pointing out that it's yet another characteristic of nu metal that applies to SoaD. Being a band that popped up in the early 90s doesn't make it nu metal, but a band that has an extremely similar sound with many other common points with the movement including the time period, I would say it should at least have the genre in the infobox!
 * Yes, they had rap-like vocals in a few songs. However, I'd hardly call that something that makes them nu-metal. A lot of bands have strings on their songs, but again, it doesn't make them classical music. The focus is almost always on sung lyrics. ---> Me neither; I don't necessarily think that having raplike vocals necessarily make you nu metal. But it is an important characteristic of nu metal to have rap vocals and modified techniques of rapping.
 * Rockdetector eh? So SOAD is nu-metal because a website says so? It may be credible, but I don't think that makes them nu-metal either. A website is almost always the opinion of one person, maybe multiple people. ---> SoaD is nu metal because that's the musical genre they belong to, and this is because of the music they play. Rockdetector is not just "a website". It is the greatest rock archive on the internet. If Rockdetector classifies them as nu metal, it's probably because there is a reason behind it. Rockdetector is extremely neutral and does not display any POV. This is reliable source for the addition of "nu metal" in the infobox. Plus, Rockdetector probably knows more about the heavy metal and rock subgenres than the MTV journalist who claimed them to be avant-garde metal.
 * So, they're nu-metal because they get coverage on MTV and radio? ...right. ---> Again, they are nu metal because that's what kind of music they play. Honestly, have you ever heard any avant-garde metal band on a mainstream radio? Or MTV? Look through the list and tell me. Now, this doesn't prove anything, but if you look at the bands that play on MTV and that are associated by the mainstream audience with the metal genre, it's mostly bands like Linkin Park, Slipknot, Ill Niño, Korn, Limp Bizkit, as well as SoaD. And SoaD isn't an exception to the rule, for it has many other characteristics of nu metal, contrarily to Metallica (although their more recent style is considered by some to be nu metal).
 * Oh, and like mentioned, Google is not exactly a reliable source on this. I think the things that make a band nu-metal are in the music. ---> Agreed. But Google does show a good approximation. Let's take another example that is clearly established and let's test it on Google.
 * "Black Flag" "hardcore punk" ---> 144,000 results.
 * ''"Black Flag" "grindcore" ---> 43,700 results.
 * ''"Black Flag" "doom metal" ---> 24,800 results.

it doesn't make sense to call a band a genre but then quickly say "without this and that". calling system nu metal without rapping, turntables and all that other shit is the same as calling some gay pop guy like justin timberlake classical music without cellos, violoins and all the other instruments, but with vocals. in order for a band to fit a genre, they should fit the genre perfectly. you wouldn't buy a kid xxl mens clothes, which is basically what you are doing when you say system is nu metal. it just doesn't fit. also, other metal bands came out around that time, and they aren't nu metal. ex. Tool, a prog metal band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boozeclues (talk • contribs)


 * It does actually. Nu metal doesn't limit itself to rapping and turntables. A band can be part of a genre without "fitting it perfectly" as you say, and I doubt there is any band that "fits perfectly" to a specific genre. Your metaphor for "XXL" clothes and kids has harldy anything to do with SoaD or nu metal. And instead of simply saying "it just doesn't fit", please bring some constructive evidence. I have brought evidence with sources with reputation and NPOV (contrarily to the MTV article claiming them to be avant-garde metal). Never in this discussion it was said that "all bands that came up during the nu metal boom are nu metal". Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

if you look at the other genres listed, system fits in them pretty well, considering they have a very wide sound. because one song, chop suey, has some "rap-like" vocals doesn't make them a nu metal band. also, if you compare system with actual nu metal bands, similarities are rare to come across. calling soad nu metal is comparing them to bands like korn and limp bizkit, and i don't know what you think, but they don't really have anything in common. plus, nu metal has more personal lyrical themes, and system talks more about political issues or just plain randomness. Boozeclues 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh really? I think it doesn't. For one thing, many do not consider SoaD metal at all (I won't go that far, but it's a point of view we must consider); and for another, classifying them as avant-garde metal is purely ridiculous. Also, I think that they shouldn't be classified as experimental rock. Yes, they do have some experimentation, but that does not make them "experimental rock". I think the term alternative is best to describe their degree of experimentation.
 * 1) They do not have rap-like vocals only in Chop Suey!, they have it in other songs, like "Fuck The System" or "This Cocaine Makes Me Feel Like I'm On This Song." 2) Yes you are right, they could still be nu metal without any rap or rap-like vocals, since nu metal doesn't limit itself to such characteristics.
 * Similarities are rare to come across, huh? I just cited like five extremely significative similarities between System of a Down and the nu metal movement. And that does not include the paragraph describing the guitars from the nu metal article. But I can give you more. In "This Cocaine Makes Me Feel Like I'm On This Song," before the vocals actually start, you can hear some beatboxing noises made from the throat/mouth of one of the band members (similarity to hip hop). On "Old School Hollywood," the electronic effects play a central part of the intro and come back often during the song (similarity to nu metal). I can also note the lack of guitar solos in most songs, which is often noted of nu metal bands.
 * Does nu metal limit itself to the lyrical themes? If you think about it, unblack metal bands still play black metal, even though their texts reflect the Christian ideology. Same thing applies here.
 * Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

earlier you gave some stats about how people think system is nu metal. i think some idiot just made them up. do you really think the fans agree when this discussion is going against it? Boozeclues 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave some stats to point out that SoaD belongs in the nu metal subgenre (as well as the other subgenres like alternative metal), not to point out that "people think" they are nu metal. I actually know many SoaD fans that have no problem admitting that they are listening to nu metal and that classify SoaD in nu metal. "when this discussion is going against it"? Who says? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 09:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i have a source that talks about how they aren't nu metal, but a mix of speed metal, folk, and other genres, not including nu metal. also just because the wikipedia page gives some similarities, doesn't mean they are nu metal. if you compare theme with actual nu metal bands, they aren't alike really. the source is http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A7191975 Boozeclues 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You say: "just because the wikipedia page gives some similarities, doesn't mean they are nu metal". Well I could say the same thing to you: Just because a paragraph on the BBC website (which is not specialised in music) says they aren't nu metal, doesn't mean they aren't. For the infobox, I think it's fine for now. For the dispute around their genre, we could keep that in the "Genre dispute" section. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that you have not gained consensus on this still/yet. You are now the only person pushing that they are nu metal...
 * As aforementioned, if you say a band is nu metal except they are missing this, this, this, this and this etc then, clearly, they don't belong in that genre. It's simply influences.
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not missing anything really. A band doesn't necessarily need to have turntables to be a nu metal band. All the evidence above points out that the genre at least needs to be put in the infobox. In the "genre dispute" section, it is clearly said: "System of a Down has been labeled as "nü metal" by some fans and media since their incarnation." Therefore wouldn't it be just fair to put in that in the infobox? I am not the only person pushing that they are nu metal. Do you really think Rockdetector would classify them as nu metal for no reason? Putting it in the infobox is just normal. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I obviously meant that you are the only one pushing it here, in this place (wikipedia). Why won't you simply listen to consensus and leave it to the genre dispute? Doesn't it say something about them if the nu metal label has been contested soooooooo much and has to have its own section about it? Also, now your editing is becoming so heated that you reverted my helpful change!
 * Seraphim Whipp 11:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops. Sorry about that, my bad. If the consensus is to leave only one side of the genre dispute in the article, then I guess there is a neutrality issue. The reason it's being contested is because fans of the band just won't accept the fact that they are nu metal, because this genre has a bad reputation in the metal community, and therefore they try to find any excuse to label them as avant-garde metal or even death metal. Now it's only a matter of logic, they are definitely not avant-garde metal nor death metal. The nu metal label should go in the infobox, since it's pretty much one big side of the debate. Putting "heavy metal" and "alternative metal" on the infobox without putting "nu metal" is revealing only one side of the debate to the reader of the article. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this discussion has continued. There are plenty of reliable sources that label SOAD as nu metal. There may be as many sources refuting it, it doesn't matter, the controversy stands and so the genre stays attached, with detail given in the Genre dispute section. Doesn't really matter what fans think here, unless it's cited. It's just a genre, and we all know words and labels say nothing substantial about the music; people already have their own opinions about SOAD and whether the word exists here or not is probably not doing anything to change their minds. I'll keep adding citations if that helps, there can be hundreds of them, but fans will still think what they think, so why bother with this article? –Pomte 12:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I hope that will keep the article more neutral. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 13:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

some sources may seem reliable, such as rockdetector, but at one point, a person had to think of a genre to put. just because some random guy at rockdetector says they are nu metal, doesn't mean they are. rockdetector may be respected -- and i don't even know about that -- but they obviously didn't have a vote of a number of people. it's just one guys opinion. and the only reason you are finding sources that they are nu metal is because they showed up around that time, and people who never listened to any song besides sugar called them nu metal, and it stuck for no reason. its the same with the legend of zelda song, someone thought it was system, wrote it down, and to this day, it is still associated with the band. no matter how many similarities you find, some of which don't even make sense, it may seem like they are nu metal on paper, but if you compare them with nu metal bands, they have nothing in common. Boozeclues 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

to Zouavman Le Zouave, i went to your wikipedia page, and read how you despise system. if you don't like a band, why do you edit the page. its pretty sad that you don't at least have respect for them. their music has helped open the eyes of many people to what's around them. wihtout them, a lot of us wouldn't even know about the armenian genocide. i still don't agree with you that they are nu metal, but you have the right to your opinion. but the least you could do is have some respect. also, it seems to me that the only soad songs that you have listened to are the poplular ones such as chop suey, or maybe the toxicity album. if you listen to steal this album, and the mezmerize/hypnotize double album, nu metal is not shown at all. if nu metal is to be anywhere near soad, it should only be for the first album, but only for a couple of songs. these songs should not decide whether they are nu metal or not. Boozeclues 18:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinions are not interfering with my contributions on Wikipedia. Now I do respect System of a Down, but not for making music that I judge intelligent, not for making heavy metal music, not for making music that is enjoyable to my ears (I do enjoy listening to some mallcore artists from time to time). I think I respect them for making music that reflects the ignorance of the mainstream audience when it comes to music. I respect them for making true metal fans remember what true metal is like and what pseudo-metal is like. I respect System of a Down for giving heavy metal such a crappy image. Yes, if that was their goal in the first place, then they were very good at it, and so I respect them for that. I have actually downloaded the double album (and listened to it several times, for that matter), and sorry to dissapoint you, but it sounds to me like nu metal. I would be really glad to continue this conversation, but if it's not in direct relation with the article, it would maybe be better if we would write on our talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 19:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i don't beleive that at all. the double album has no songs like nu metal at all. if you could list songs, that would be appreciated. in order for a band to be called nu metal, they should at least follow its main traits. rapping, tuntables, personal lyrical themes, its a huge part of nu metal, and system doesn't have that. also, calling them mallcore as you do makes no sense either. what does system have to do with hardcore punk? 23:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to disagree. :) But as I said earlier, if you want to continue this conversation, let's use our talk pages. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 06:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Zouavman Le Zouave, your basically saying that you respect System of a Down for making music that to you, sucks. That seems kind of stupid. But your intelligence is not what we are discussing. I really don't mind if the nu metal genre is put in the info box, though I don't think it should be put first. I don't consider them nu metal, and they lack more of the common nu metal traits then they have. But I could understand them being called that, and Zouavman Le Zouave did have some good evidence for them being in the genre. I do believe that they should be listed as experimental rock though, as they have a higher level of experimentation in their music then most of the several hundred bands that are listed as alternative rock/metal. Chicken Twinky 03:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it may seem kind of stupid, but, as you clearly said, my stupidity isn't part of the discussion ^^. I think that experimental rock is another good way to describe SoaD's music, but I would think it incorrect to put it at the top of the list (experimental rock being bands like Fantômas or Mr. Bungle, who's experimentation has not much to dou with SoaD's originality). I would consider restricting the genre box to nu metal, experimental rock, & alternative rock (in this particular order). I think, and this is only my opinion, that this would give a good summary of SoaD's genre. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, Zouavman Le Zouave. I think listing them as just alternative rock, experimental rock, and nu metal would be the best way to describe their sound, though I think maybe hard rock also, and you make a good point about experimental rock not being at the top, because despite their experimentation, then aren't as experimental as experimental artists like Mike Patton. I believe the order should be alt. rock, experimental rock, nu metal, and then maybe hard rock. I don't think Nu metal shouldn't be the first genre listed, as it is the most debated genre. I also believe it should be stated that nu metal is heavily debated, like it is now. I don't consider them a heavy metal band either, though I believe alternative metal is ok as it is fairly different from heavy metal. Chicken Twinky 08:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We agree. ^^ How about: Alt. rock, Nu metal, exp. rock, hard rock (if you really insist), and then a link to the debate section?


 * Why not just leave it in alphabetical order, as it is now? That way, subjective decisions about what genres affect their style more don't have to be made? Parsecboy 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Most readers will be most likely be affected more by the first genres on the list. Plus, I think putting too many genres on the list is bad for the article's quality. If it was up to me, I would put "Nu metal, Alt. rock, Exp. rock". Unfortunately it's not up to me. Therefore I think the compromise for "Alt. rock, Nu metal, Exp. rock" is good. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree to that, the trouble is getting everyone else. Chicken Twinky 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the cover of Toxicity Rolling Stone calls it the "Nu Metal album of the year". SOAD may not be new metal anymore but they deffinatly were at one time and should be listed on the genres list.ROSALES 27 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because they were lumped in with the nu metal crowd at the time doesn't make them nu metal. We've had this discussion several times now. When did system EVER use turntables? When did they EVER rap? (other than the Wu-Tang collaboration). Those are two of the most important facets of the nu metal scene in the late 90s, and are notable absent from all system albums. Parsecboy 02:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nu metal isn't limited to using turntables and rapping. Plus, SoaD uses vocals extremely similar to rapping on some songs and even use electronic effects on the vocals on "Old School Hollywood". Plus Serj Tankian was featured as a guest artist with Limp Bizkit, which is definitely a nu metal band. Therefore you can't say the connection is solely made by the media, it's also clearly made by the artists. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do all nu metal bands use turntables? Do all of them rap? No one's saying SOAD are nu metal, only that they've been frequently labelled as such by multiple independent reliable sources, and sources (not personal argumentation) are the way to write an article. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It doesn't matter if they're wrong about as subjective a thing as genre; this article isn't here to tell people the righteous truth. The Genre dispute section already argues against nu metal using sources - you're free to add more. –Pomte 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

if nu metal is going to be on the genre list, it shouldn't bes first, if it is the most debated genre. can't you nu metal people understand that.
 * True. I think it should be first as well. It is the most sourced and one of the most widely accepted genres for the band. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

just because it is the most sourced, doesn't make it the most fitting genre. there are way more sources for the other genres, but we don't feel that its necessary to have 10 numbers beside them. it looks sloppy and i think we should take away all of the sources excpet for 1 beside the nu metal. and how is it one of the most accpeted genres for the band. look at this discussion. it goes on forever because it is debated. do you see debating going on like this for the other genres. 74.124.28.243 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, nu metal should be listed last because it is disputed, unlike other established genres. I only added so many citations so that people are less inclined to remove it by thinking one source is the only evidence. –Pomte 22:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The other genres are disputed as well. Many heavy metal fans, including myself, do not see SoaD as alternative metal or heavy metal, but rather as alternative rock or more properly nu metal. Nu metal is as debated as heavy metal. There isn't only one side to the dispute. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 10:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

i know rockdetector might seem like a reliable source, but i don't think its genres are always accurate. its lists the mars volta as alternative rock, when they are clearly, and on every song, progressive. thats why i dont feel nu metal should be left on there. it seems they got some of there genres from what random people told them. 74.124.28.243 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, the fact that there is so much arguing going on in this discussion simply proves that nu metal should be listed. I'm not saying that because I'm one of those people who hate them and automatically label them as nu metal. System of a down is one of my favorite bands, and while I think lots of nu metal bands are derivative and sometimes almost comically stupid, I still like some. I like korn, slipknot, and linkin park. And I personally don't even think system of a down is nu metal. They lack rapping, turntables, introspective lyrics, and most things nu metal bands are known for. To me they are as far from nu metal as possible, and I really can't see why anyone would call them nu metal, but they do. The nu metal argument is heavily debated, we can all agree on that, right? Well, you can't have a one-sided argument and call it heavily debated. For it to be debated so much, a pretty large amount of people must consider them nu metal. So, as much as I may disagree, as much as you may disagree, and as much as several other people on this discussion may disagree, the point is a fairly big amount of the human population considers soad nu metal, and for that reason alone, it should be included as a genre. Chicken Twinky 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, about that Nu metal thing... The only genre I think could describe SoaD is "alternative", just because it's an alternative any other genre. I mean I've never heard any other band that even remotly sounds like System, and I've heard almost anything from metal and rock genre. And besides, the band genre is above all influenced by the band members. It's what the band members want it to be. And since the quartet aren't labeling any genre on the band, neither should we. Just enjoy the music. XanderKage 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i think that a lot of people, including some promoting nu metal for this article, listen to system of a down, and think that just because they arent as heavy as slayer or cannibal corpse, they are nu metal. most people who think they are nu metal think that they are more like rock. so if they are rock, why is the term metal coming up at all. also, when people say soad's guitar playing is like nu metal, i thoughti should listen to some nu metal and compare. i listened to some korn, and the guitar playing doesnt sound the same at all. soad's guitar isnt the most complex, but its still 100 times more complex than korn or limp bizkit.

Ok, whoever removed the debated next to nu metal, don't try to fuck with the article again. I don't think there needs to be a nother genre war, so just leave it at debated so it's neutral. Also, I think 4 references s a bit excessive, we know references show where you get your info from but 4 references just to make your point seem infalliable (sp?) isn't fair. I could argue about the nu metal tag all day anyway. There also seems to be too many genres in general.

The order of the genres
Why does it make any difference what order the references are in? I arranged them neatly, according to the way they appeared in the sources, mainly so that if anyone clicked on it, they could verify them at a glance. Also I put the AOL reference at the top because it was used three times and the pure volume one twice...just thought it made it far more organised being in a numerical order.

Seraphim Whipp 22:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I made a change to the order, I arranged them in the order in which i believe the genres are most prevalent in their music. I really don't care though. It doesn't really matter what order they are in.

Chicken Twinky 11:54, 10 April 2007
 * I was discussing this in the section above, and I think that it is most appropriate to continue the discussion here. So here is my proposition of the genres in the infobox: "Alternative rock, Nu metal, Experimental rock" and I wouldn't mind "Hard rock" being added at the bottom of the list, but I think we should limit ourselves to three genres in the infobox. Of course at the bottom of the list we should include a link to the genre debate section of the article. This is a compromise, as I wrote above, for I wouldn't put it that way if I was to decide. But Wikipedia is not only edited by myself, therefore I came up with this compromise. :) Any objections? comments (constructive, please)? suggestions? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think nu metal should definitely be placed at the bottom as it is the most contested (or has the most obvious controversy around it). However I don't think the genre list has to be limited to three; check out Queen. I agree with your proposal otherwise :-).
 * Seraphim Whipp 19:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What about alternative metal? I would probably put that in, as well.Mezmerizer 17:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer

Years Active
can someone add years active to the side box, i tried but it didn't work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boozeclues (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Current Page
Hi guys,

the current page's differences to the last are the change to "greatest" band which is of course an opinion, and also "three" members from Armenian Descent. I've checked all relevant websites and the band (while on a hiatus) have in now way split up, which leaves the older articles of "four" members accurate. I don't want to revert just yet, in case there's something I don't know. Any ideas?

Cheers

Celticsapien 11:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Avant-garde metal
I don't think the band is anything like avant-garde metal. Yes I have looked at the source, and I think the term is used incorrectly. System of a Down is nu metal without any turntables and rapping (although some songs actually do have some rap-like vocals), it could be seen as alternative metal, but it's definitely not avant-garde metal (for those who are not familiar with the genre, see bands like Karaboudjan or Secret Chiefs 3). Yes I know there is a source, but you can't trust everything that MTV says, because we all know (I hope) that MTV is everything but expert in metal music. I would consider taking it off, because it gives a wrong image of the band's genre. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think SOAD is nu-metal. I agree, however, that it's not exactly avant-garde. It has some similarities, but not that many. I think alternative metal works best.
 * 212.213.90.13 12:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am planning to take off avant-garde metal from the list in the infobox. Reasons: 1) Factually incorrect. 2) Source is definitely POV and I seriously doubt that the author of the article knew what he was talking about when he referred SoaD as an avant-garde metal band. Any objections? Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess if no one answers that pretty much means no one objects. I'll wait a little longer, though. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Band entirely made of members with down's syndrome?
A friend told me that the band was called system of a down because all of the members have down's syndrome. Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.249.202.53 (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
 * This is wrong. If they had Down's syndrome, they would have a lot of trouble playing instruments like that, and for another thing, when a person has Down's syndrome, they have particular facial characteristics that make them easy to recognize. It's simply a joke/insult to the band. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 18:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Split
someone keeps adding to the first sentence that system WAS a band without any source that they broke up. if you don't have sources, don't change the page.Boozeclues 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people don't know the difference between "indefinite hiatus" and the band breaking up. Although a majority of the time when a band goes on an "indefinite hiatus" they do break up, but that doesn't mean it's always true. Where did they add it? I haven't been watching the SOAD article lately. Is it still there? Bsroiaadn 05:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

genre?
i've always heard them being reffered to as "Nu" or "Alternative" Metal; but, correct me if i'm wrong, they sound thrashy to me, especially in "toxicity". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.247.124.237 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Maybe you should listen to some thrash metal before classifying them as "thrashy." I would recommend Slayer's Reign In Blood or Venom's Black Metal for some good thrash. It sounds nothing like System of a Down, trust me. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

i've listened to alot of thrash metal. i didn't say they were pure "Thrash Metal", i said they sounded thrashy. i wouldn't consider them to be a thrash metal band, but, i wouldn't be surprised if it was on the list of genres...music nazi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.124.237 (talk • contribs)
 * Well you said earlier "correct me if i'm wrong," but now that I am correcting you, you call me a music nazi. Remember to be civil when you interact with other editors. System of a Down are nothing like thrash metal. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me!) 09:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Look i tink system is a typical nu metal band, so does everyone i know.Ahvazi-31st June

Don't. Even. Start. We don't need another one of these. It's been more or less proven, by people who can spell, that System of a Down is not nü-metal, even if we're not in agreement on what it is. We've decided it is not nü-metal. Unless you've got some shocking new evidence, I'd like to politely ask you to just not bring it up. It's not just a dead horse. It's rotten. --RockMaster-talk|contribs 01:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Perry
Whoever added him, thank you. I was trying to figure out that guys name. lol. Although, I didn't see him actually do any playing...he just seemed to go up on stage..fake-play his guitar...then get off. XD Bsroiaadn 05:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Genre
FOR EVERYONE: System Of A Down IS NOT nu-metal band

if there is evidence within the article that they do not fall under a heavy metal category, then who keeps on changing not only the genres in the side box, but also in the article at the beginning. I think that experimental rock is a good genre to put them under, but since they are more "metalish" than most rock groups, Avant-Garde Metal, which is basically metal and experimental rock mixed, is a better genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.28.243 (talk • contribs)


 * This has already been discussed here and another genre debate here (although do bear in mind, when reading through the archive, that one user continually tried to point of view push that System were emo/emo metal/emo rock/emo rock n roll so some of the posts do not reflect the general consensus). I agree that experimental is a better genre but it is recognised in the infobox. They are also well known as a heavy metal band and there is a reference for it.
 * Seraphim Whipp 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

im not meaning to put down System or anything, but i think calling them Avant-Garde Metal is pushing it just a little. Avant-Garde imply's that the group is pushing music into an entirely new direction, throwing away old views of what music IS and redefining it. though they are, to most, an entirely new sound in music... they arent. they're musical style is extremely Bungle influenced (Mr. Bungle being an Avant-Garde group), and repeating an existing style is polar opposite to what it means to be Avant-Garde. their style can also be related, in some ways, to Primus (some), Dog Fashion Disco and so on. both of which came before SOAD... dont get me wrong, System is quite the group but they are by no means innovative enough for the term Avant-Garde. if your into lookin up some neat Avant-Metal these days tho (since Bungle is long past gone) some good choices may be Fantomas, Buckethead, Naked City, or Secret Cheifs 3. (Avant-Garde metal is an extremely prestige and exclusive genre, not to be used lightly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.168.141 (talk • contribs)

i just wanted to make a comment about the genre in the opening paragraph. whoever put "band", you are the smartest person i know. it makes no sense to just change the genre every 5 minutes when you have a band that to some are one genre, while to another are something different.

System of a Down are by no means nu-metal. All the bands that play the style Korn started are nu-metal. System of a Down was releasing demos before Korn.


 * SOAD are Nu-Metal, sorry. It has nothing to do with the age of a band, you can have Nu-Metal older then Korn realistically.  It's a style, not an age group.  Just because you don't like to be called a fan of nu-metal doesn't mean the band you like isn't Nu.
 * 202.12.233.21 08:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To the guy stating that the genre avant-garde metal means innovative.. well, you have the wrong idea, man. Avant-garde refers to the style the avant-garde metal bands play, like Sleepytime Gorilla Museum, for example. It is a genre. It does by no means mean that THOSE bands are INNOVATIVE. You may not think that SOAD are that innovative, but most people would disagree with you, and state that every avant-garde band isn't innovative. They're just a bunch of bands not caring about casual song structures and make music in a different way, the way they want to, innovative or not, just like SOAD, who are one of the most innovative and groundbraking bands of the 00s. So, I don't think that avant-garde metal should be included as a genre to SOAD, not because they aint innovative (because they are), but because they don't sound like an avant-garde metal band, in their style. And, for that other thing you said, about Mr Bungle being called innovative just because no one has made music like that before. They're an avant-garde band, in the genre. And they too have their influences just like SOAD. Maybe you ain't into that, but take Zappa, Gentle Giant, ELP and other fucked up bands from the seventies, and for god's sake, circus music. Bungle aren't as original as you say.Revan ltrl 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Descent?
I may be wrong and I have no source so I haven't changed it yet but i'm almost certain that not all members of SOAD are of armenian descent as is stated in the first paragraph. I think it might be the case that john isn't. Anyone know any more? 202.12.144.21 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it says in the last interview they did with kerrang that one of them is of iraq deccent though im not entirly sure i dont kkeep hold of my magazienes Samuraimather 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)samuraimather

Daron Malakian is half Iraqi from his mother's side. His father is Iraqi only because he was born in Iraq, but is not of Iraqi blood. John Dolmayan.... I don't know. He is of Armenian descent but born in Lebanon, maybe his parents too. Shavo Odadjian was born in Armenia so he is Armenian. Serj Tankian was born in Lebanon too but is of Armenian descent.

I'm not sure if John and Serj are anything else other than Armenian. But Daron is half Armenian and half Iraqi, and Shavo is a full Armenian.

Vandalizing the genres
I know some genres may be disputed, but at least they have valid sources. i dont agree with nu metal, but because of its sources, i dont really care. its just when dumbasses change it it to "nu emo" and "experimental emo", while leaving the sources so it appears to be valid. this is a informational site where people could be getting information for various reasons, its not a band hate site, so just stop it.

Ugh
We're gonna end up having to fully-protect this page one day so only admins can edit it if we ask them to.  Bsroiaadn Talk 03:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Soad logo.png
Image:Soad logo.png 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 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 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nu-Metal Quote
It's really of no consequence, but the quote Darron Stated: "They used to call us nü-metal, now they call us prog rock. I think they'll call us anything that's popular."

Is actually:

""They used to call us nü-metal, now they call us prog rock. Whatevers popular at the moment, I think that's what they'll call us."

I have the audio, it's from the Ogden Theatre in Denver, 4/27/05, following the end of "Deer Dance".


 * Thanks, I've corrected it along with a citation. –Pomte 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not emo
The article can't be accurate if the band is constantly referred to as "emo" throughout the entire article. If no one can agree on a genre, it's best to just not have one.

this is the most random thing ive ever read. it says no where in the article about them being emo, and there hasn't been a person proposing this in months. why even bring it up??? 74.124.28.243 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not Funk Metal
i read the article about funk metal, and system has no similarities. they lack any hip hop influence. also, looking at the other bands listed as funk metal, system doesnt fit in. 74.124.28.243 14:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another genre topic
in the disputed genre part there's a template ("The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed."). Is it really needed? Many sources are used to back up the facts... Emmaneul (Talk) 19:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Band politics
Why doesn't the thing have anything on band politics? They make songs about the Armenean Genocide, more recent wars, e.g. the Iraq war, and a lot of their music contains references to war, peace, genocide and poverty.

Nu-metal
System of a Down is NOT nu-metal. Quit saying it is. 70.122.25.223 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree. nu metals main four traits - rapping, turntables, lyrics of teen angst, and bass as lead instruument - do not fit with systems sound at all.74.124.28.243 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think they're more of a scene band rather than a band from that genre. They just appeal to nu-metalers. Maplejet 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally do not agree with labeling them as numetal, but for the purposes of Wikipedia, reliable sources have been provided labeling them as such, so it should be included. It's discussed enough in the Genre Dispute section of the article. Parsecboy 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Metal?
Eh...are you sure they fit the genre? Songs aren't very long you know... Maplejet 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

song length doesn't define the genre. 74.124.28.243 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with SoaD being labeled as such. They have nothing progressive (although this has nothing to do with song length). I would like to point out that it is not because a random journalist describes a band as a genre that it should be labeled so in the article, especially when it is obvious that the journalist is praising the band and/or when he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I would consider restricting the infobox to a minimum of genres: Alternative metal, Alternative rock, Nu metal. Hard rock could also be added, but I don't think it's necessary. The article already has a "genre dispute" section, therefore I think it's best if we keep the infobox vague and specify in the genre dispute section. No? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  13:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the source is Rolling Stone, which has plenty of credibility, not just "a random journalist". I don't necessarily agree with them being labeled as prog metal myself, but it's sourced. (Just like I don't agree with them being labeled as nu-metal, but again, it's sourced). Parsecboy 13:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * SOAD sometimes play music that is progressive (Question! comes to mind). It surely isn't their main genre. They don't play progressive metal like Dreamtheater and other bands heavily influenced by traditional progressive rock. They nevertheless play progressive metal (metal that is progressive) in some occasions. Emmaneul (Talk) 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But does "in some occasions" need to be pointed in the infobox? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  14:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * progressive metal is used to define bands that go against mainstream musical norms. System of a down may be creative, but not enough to put them as "progressive metal". Sheesh, every band is being put under "Progressive" as of late. If a band plays "metal that is progressive in some occasions" it doesn't make you that genre, and one Rolling Stones review doesn't make a band a genre. Zanders5k 21:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very nicely said. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  22:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I agree progressive metal is out of place, like I said "It surely isn't their main genre". I think progressive metal and its source should be incorporated in the article. By the way, what Zanders5k said is not that brillant. If playing genre X and having reliable press stating the band plays genre X still "doesn't make you that genre", then what does? Emmaneul (Talk) 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there are idiots and ignorants everywhere, including in "reliable press". It's pretty probable that the author of the "reliable" article that claimed SoaD as avant-garde metal did not know a single thing of the genre he was mentioning. Many people don't make a difference between the different subgenres of metal, and probably don't even feel they have to. For many people, it's all the same. Now what we can do to improve the article is: keeping three genres in the infobox (nu metal, experimental rock, alternative metal), and stating all the diverse labels that have been applied to SoaD in the genre dispute section, in a similar way as in the Cradle of Filth genre dispute section. It will lead to a very simple sentence describing it all: "System of a Down has been labeled by the press as progressive metal, avant-garde metal, brutal death metal, doom metal, mallcore, and polka." With a little reference after each genre mentioned. That is most probably the best solution. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that that's probably the best way to proceed with this issue. Parsecboy 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Emmaneul, I said that one review by a popular magazine isn't really enough to make a band a genre if they are not referred to as it commonly anywhere else. Zanders5k 20:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I already figured out that's what you meant, but it still isn't what you said. But let's forget it.


 * Zouavman Le Zouave, I could easily find 5 or more articles where SoaD is labeled as progressive metal. OK, they all might be "idiots and ignorants" but still they have a point. If you look at SoaD from an alternative rock perspective SoaD could easily be defined as prog metal (as in heavy metal that is progressive). You seem to be looking from a metal POV with a fixed definition of prog metal. Both POVs are OK, but I'm trying to be objective... and even then it still isn't their main genre. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When you say "from an alternative rock perspective," it doesn't necessarily mean "from a perspective that doens't make any difference between the different subgenres of metal." Progressive metal does have a fixed definition. DragonForce uses a little growls in their last album, does that mean they are death metal? "Oh it's still not their main genre, but its certainly one of their genres," people may say. Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays. It then leads to a domino effect where some kid reads it and spreads the word about how SoaD is a brutal death metal band and how their lyrics hide Satanist messages. And that leads to other journalists hearing this and replicating it in their articles. This was just an example, by the way, but this is how it works. Yes, try to be objective, but don't ignore the genre definitions. Also, Alice in Chains's Them Bones has a time signature of 7/8, and their sound is similar to heavy metal. Does that make them progressive metal? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 11:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the whole point... genre definitions. Genre definitions (as you or I know them) are not sacred. Different people with different musical backgrounds have different definitions. Music is no science and is highly influenced by POVs and opinions. Like I said all different POVs are OK, there is NO real truth in music. "Progressive" is just a stylistic adjunction with specific traits (just like Symphonic, Folk and Industrial). I can imagine a Tool fan looking for prog metal would be disappointed after listening to Symphony X but would be pleased to hear SoaD songs.


 * "Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays" and the domino effect arguments are very weak. I could use those for every disputed genre in every article. We could even make a template that would generate the following text:
 * Music critics and other journalists tend to say whatever they feel like saying nowadays. It then leads to a domino effect where some kid reads it and spreads the word about how System of a Down is a Nu metal band. And that leads to other journalists hearing this and replicating it in their articles.


 * If I can easily find a couple of reviews where SoaD is labeled progressive metal then it just might be true from another POV than you have. Just be open minded about these things. We agree on the main point: prog metal shouldn't be listed in the infobox, so I'm not gonna discuss this any further. Thank you Emmaneul (Talk) 12:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah okay, so we agree on this point. I am totally okay with it mentionned with all the other genres in a sentence in the genre dispute section. Like I said, I think the best way would be to list them like it is done on the Cradle of Filth article. I think in this way we can stop the infobox from being loaded with various POV's, and keep the genre dispute section for that purpose. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE, that the genre box shouldn't be flooded with various genres. But i think labeling them as nu metal in the genre box sums up the bands sound in the wrong way. if progressive metal is going to be taken out of the genre box, then so should nu metal. when the average person hears the genre nu metal, the first few things that come to their mind (or at least me and my friends minds) is a genre of metal that involves rapping, and lyrics of angst against parents or school for no reason. therefore, since system of a down do not really fit into nu metal compltetely, why should that genre stay in the genre box when progressive metal is being left out because soad do not fit into it completely. i think neither of them should be in the genre box. 74.124.28.243 20:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "average person" you describe obviously doesn't know that nu metal isn't defined by rapping or turntabling, although it is a fairly frequent characteristic of bands of the genre. For another thing, System of a Down has more than enough similarities with the nu metal scene and sound to have this genre in the infobox. We had this discussion before, and the decision has been made. Taking out progressive metal (which is a label which has been used a couple of times) from the infobox, okay; taking off nu metal (which is one of the labels which has been most used throughout the bands' career), no way. I am sorry if you feel I am too harsh on this, but I have made up my mind. Its for the sake of the article. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, i would like to give you some praise for the the rhyming in the last sentence. "Taking out progressive metal from the infobox, okay; taking off nu metal, no way." Maybe i was being a little general with the nu metal similarities, or lack there of. Lets go through the checklist of nu metal. Rapping - No Turntables - No Lyrical themes of teen angst - No (Arent they all 35+ anyway) Hip Hop influenced drumming - No Bass as a lead instrument - No Nu metal like guitar - only on first three albums if all of this isnt proof enough, the i dont know what is. so if nu metal is going to be left in the info box, why shouldn't prog metal? 74.124.28.243 20:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahah, hadn't noticed the rhyming I made. ^^ All of the "checklist" items you cited are indeed stereotypes, but not characteristics. I will take the following directly from the nu metal article on Wikipedia (if you don't consider that a reliable source, then I really don't know what you're doing here).


 * Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat. --- Yes, SoaD does not have teen angst, but it definitely does have emphasis on motivating the crowd to move with the beat. I must say, both in the music and lyrics. On "BYOB," the chorus is extremely pop-like (from an alternative rock POV) and says "Everybody's going to the party have a real good time, Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine" which is an incitation to dance and "move with the beat". On "Lost in Hollywood", one part says "All you bitches put your hands in the air" which is another incitation to "moving with the beat" and is sounds like something a rapper would say (that's my opinion).
 * Nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting. --- SoaD uses a lot of palm muting. First examples that pop up to my mind are "BYOB", "Radio/Video", and "Old School Hollywood".
 * Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. --- A technique that SoaD uses. "BYOB" is in Dropped C (I believe), but anyone with the slightest guitar knowledge would notice that SoaD are tuned down.
 * This is typical of nu metal bands in that guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs in general, and when they do appear they are often short. --- SoaD have very few guitar solos, and if they do they are extremely short or do not emphasize on technicality (which, in general, is what most metal bands do in a guitar solo).
 * Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal, hardcore punk, and rapping. --- SoaD uses (most of the time) melodic singing and shouting, and in some occasions uses some rap-like vocals (most notably in their "Chop Suey" intro and verses). Although it is not, properly speaking, rap, the link must be considered. I would still like to remind you that rapping does not necessarily make you a nu metal band, and that being a nu metal band does not necessarily means you rap. There are nu metal bands who don't rap, and they are still nu metal.
 * Normally, nu metal songs have a song structure of instrumental introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, sometimes another verse but almost always ending with a chorus. --- This is characteristic of SoaD. Most of their songs (I'm not saying all of them) have a very simple "verse-chorus-verse" structure (as well as the slight variants).
 * It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses. --- Listen to "Attack" on their last album.
 * Another thing I'd like to mention is that Serj Tankian worked with Limp Bizkit (a well known nu metal band), Saul Williams (a hip-hop artist), M.I.A. (a rapper), and The Notorious B.I.G. (another rapper & hip-hop artist). The link to hip-hop and rapping with System of a Down's lead singer is therefore established. I don't have the material that Tankian produced with those artists, but seeing how those artists are predominantly hip-hop and nu metal (in Link Bizkit's case), it is probable that the material is similar to hip-hop and nu metal in style.


 * Now with all these similarities between System of a Down and the nu metal sound and scene, I think that it is more than legitimate that nu metal remains in the infobox while progressive metal departs it. Progressive metal must depart from the infobox because 1) only used a couple of times to label the band, 2) the band has very few progressive elements/songs. Voila, I think that this is it. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  21:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I must agree with 74.124.28.243, they're not a typical nu metal band. But like ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  says, they share a lot of similarities, have been classified as nu metal a zillion of times by the press and they became popular during the nu metal era. In their infobox there is alternative metal, alternative rock, progressive metal, experimental rock, hard rock and nu metal. They're hard to categorize... they're nu metal combined with a lot of other genres. We'll keep nu metal in the infobox. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

But since Soad isn't a common nu metal band, i dont think the infobox should be limited to three genres. its giving everyone the wrong idea of hows they sound.

I would also like that serj tankian hasn't worked with the notorious b.i.g, or m.i.a. Mia just remixed something of his, and serj remixed a b.i.g track, and was probably persuaded by shavo to do so.
 * The relationship is still there. And even if he had been "persuaded by shavo to do so", as you say, Shavo is still a SoaD member and the relationship between the bands and the artists is there. The facts are there, if you really want to know about the tiny details, I think the best solution is to ask Tankian yourself. ^^ ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the similarities that guy did between nu-metal and SOAD. First of all, I laughed out loud while reading them, your point being as shallow as glass, ignorant and plain stupid. What the hell are you trying to do, you little wiki-nerd. I HAVE AN IDEA! Why don't we compare another band to the nerd's genre-definitions. Like... TOOL! Yea, let's turn Tool into a nu-metal band! Hm.. 'motivating a crowd to move with the beat'. Check. On the song 'Vicarious' singer Maynard James Keenan repeatedly sings with a raised fist (lyrics being generally angsty and somewhat hostile) 'why can't we just admit it, why can't we just admit it' with a very, very catchy 5/4 guitar/bass/drum-pattern in the background. I sure get motivated to move with the beat. Nu-metal!

Hm.. Guitarists making use of liberal palm muting. Man, If you tried to make yourself look like a fool, you succeeded. ALL OF METAL USE PALM MUTING!! Then, according to you, all metal bands in the world should be called nu-metal! Has it ever occured to you that maybe, uh, a band called, like, BLACK SABBATH influenced some metal bands in the world with that technique? You might as well say, like, 'Nu-metal makes use of distortioned guitars, whereas SOAD is a nu-metal band'. And Tool too, making more than just a liberal use of it. Check!

Hm.. First of all, B.Y.O.B. is dropped C#, a tuning which Tony Iommi used on 1972's genre-defining masterpiece 'Sabbath Bloody Sabbath'. Tool also have dropped guitars. And probably EVERY FUCKING METAL BAND IN THE WORLD! Not every, but you get my point. Once again making a fool out of yourself. Check! Hm.. Yea, solos. Tool guitarist Adam Jones does even fewer solos than Daron Malakian, which basically (according to you) makes Adam more nu-metal than Daron. You claim that the solos that are there don't emphasize on technicality and that most metal bands do that in general. Once again, making yourself look like a fool. I suspect your metal-knowledge doesn't reach any further than Iron Maiden's 'Belly of the Beast' or Sabbath's 'Paranoid'. Have you even hard Daron's solo on 'Lonely Day'? That's a hell of a technichal performance, if you ask me. Much more technically difficult than Adam's solo on 'Jambi'. Hell, it's going real good for Tool here! Check!

Hm.. 'Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal, hardcore punk, and rapping'. You say that the link between the VERBAL DECORATIONS on 'Chop Suey' should be considered. I'm turning you into a retard, sorry, but when one relies that much on a stupid article and with, obviously, no knowledge at all, it's hard to avoid. Tool will have no problem with this one. The 'rapping' and guttural screaming on 'Ticks & Leeches' is, like, nu-metal. Not to mention the contrasts between soft vocals and pure screaming on 'The Grudge'. Not to mention the 'rapping' on 'Rosetta Stoned'!! Geez, this covers a hell of alot bands. Nine Inch Nails! Nu-metal?? Nu-metal! Hm.. Yea, the song structure thing. The only 'nu-metal characteristic' (lol) that Tool ain't THAT big part of.. But we can't forget the verses on 'The Pot' and the many different verses and choruses on 'The Patient', 'Parabola', 'Ticks & Leeches' and the title song 'Lateralus' from 'Lateralus. In case you didn't know, man, verses and choruses existed a hundred years ago and your point weighs as much as helium. Geez, it's barely worth commenting.

Hm.. 'It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses'. FOR FUCK'S SAKE! IS THIS ALL YOU GOT?! Oh man.. what a big genius you are, it's louder in the chorus than in the verse... Yea, wikipedia deals with absolutes, didn't you know? Hmm.. so to prove Tool also does this. Listen to the title song on 'Lateralus', you'll hear that the chorus is louder than the verse.

Hm.. Yea, Serj Tankian's work with other artists, nu-metal artists and hip hop artists. THIS SHOULDN'T EVEN BE CONSIDERED. WHAT A BAND MEMBER DOES OUTSIDE THE BAND DOESN'T MATTER! Did you know that Serj also've worked with Tool? In your case, that's a CLEAR proof to add 'progressice metal' to SOAD's infobox. Saul Williams did guest vocals on Nine Inch Nail's latest album, let's call Trent Reznor a hip hopper!

'Now with all these similarities between System of a Down and the nu metal sound and scene, I think that it is more than legitimate that nu metal remains in the infobox while progressive metal departs it'. Well, I object. I object as hell! These so called 'similarities' are as cheap as Bush is intelligent. If you all are okay with this, I'll go right away and add 'nu-metal' on Tool's infobox. Because what the fool did was stupid as hell, pure incompetence, relying on a stupid, shallow article. What we all know is that SOAD is an organic band with organic sounds. Their sounds and atmospheres don't recall the studio over-production that flourish Nu-metal, SOAD's atmosphere recall politics and action, in the name of themes, and influences from armeninan, greek and world music, pure creative freedom, in the name of music. As far as Mezmerize/Hypnotize go, they're a hell lot of more prog metal, than their previous albums are nu-metal, which they are not.Revan ltrl 23:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If like wiki-nerds, you can get some wiki-nerd stuff to read: If you can prove your statement in a civil way making your tirade verifiable by using sources instead of making a point, then we could start talking about SoaDs genre. Thank you Emmaneul (Talk) 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's the point, Emmanuel, there aren't really any sources for music genres except for the music itself, THAT's the real source, and you don't seem to get that. And what to include in the infobox should be discussed here and not decided by some articles or reviewers that write whatever comes to their minds. And my other point is that the guy you answered to with your "nu-metal" characteristics, that go for most rock and pop music, is actually right! It IS the turntables that makes nu-metal nu-metal! It IS the rapping and the lyrics about teen angst that matter! It IS the hip hop influenced drumming and the bass's role in the music that matter! It's these shallow things that creates nu-metal and SOAD don't fit in anywhere. That's why I was ironic and sort of disrespectful, I wanted to make my point clear, just like the other guy, because his obvious statement wasn't considered, you obviously thought there was a deeper meaning with nu-metal, but there isn't really, not necesseraly. I don't think 'various influences' should be there either, it doesn't offer anything at all. What do you say about alternative metal, experimental rock,pop and folk? Just an idea, a scetch =PRevan ltrl 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

im happy to see someone agrees with me. SOAD IS NOT NU METAL!!!!!!! 74.124.33.181 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this nu metal? http://youtube.com/watch?v=DcuOckbYx4w im not seeing the limp bizkit, korn, slipknot, disturbed or any other nu metal band musical styles in this. Dissectional 01:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Science

 * There seems to be some controversy regarding the meaning behind the song 'science', more specifically whether it is about science Vs. faith, or science Vs. religious faith. The song makes no mention of religion, however there are various forums debating in the favour of the song being pro creationism. I have not found any official statement regarding the meaning of the song, but further research might lead to some authorative interpretation of the song.

User:shyal-b 16 July 2007 (UTC)

'In the beginning'
'They called on Shavo Odadjian, with whom they knew from when Soil shared a recording studio with Odadjian's previous band as well as when Odadjian was briefly their guitar player'. That is the clumsiest sentence ever. Please someone edit this for clarity.

I fixed it some, not sure if I made it any better though. FallenWings47 18:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical Style and Influence section
I don't think the disputed genres such as prog metal, alt rock and hard rock should be discussed in this section. Shouldn't we talk about this in a separate genre dispute section. 74.124.28.243 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's part of their music style, isn't it? I don't think we need a new section for just 2 sentences. By the way, this construction is fairly common: Queen, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmaneul (talk • contribs)


 * The current section should suffice. Talk page disputes are not to be confused with public controversies and as far as current sources go, there isn't one. The press prints whatever it happens to come up with and the band does not care - end of the story. Also note that after the recent removal of several uncited assertions the style section is already rather short (though now thoroughly referenced) and further fragmentation would not improve the article. - Cyrus XIII 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, we've discussed a lot, analyzed many different possible solutions for the infobox problem, and there is absolutely no problem with having three very general genres (whom most of the fans, critics, and non-fans agree with) in the infobox, with a little link to the genre section. To say the band genre is disputed is a thing; to say that the band genre is "various" is another. System of a Down has a very specific genre, one that I could easily recognize from the radio, while bands who have "various" genres are bands like Mr. Bungle or Secret Chiefs 3 who have radically different genres switching within a song or album. I am reverting your edit until concensus is reached on the talk page (and I am particularly waiting for Emmaneul's opinion of this). Please do not revert my edit, we don't want to start an edit war around here. Let's figure this out on the talk page first. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  08:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem with a tandem solution that lists a few genres and then offers readers a "various others" link to the style section for further reading. I have championed that approach in a few articles myself. What I take issue in is having over half a dozen references in an infobox, as it makes the code near-unreadable and hard to maintain. It's just not practical. Infoboxes usually summarize what is already in the article's main body and that's where we can source the genres much more conveniently. - Cyrus XIII 08:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then maybe moving the references to the main body would solve the problem. We would put the references in the Style and Influence section in the sentence (which is already in the article): "..., among them alternative metal, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal.[23]", but where we would put all the references along with the genres in the main body, not in the infobox. Do you see what I mean? This would leave the main body with all the references, and the infobox would be clean. Could that solve the issue? ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  08:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's pretty much what I intended to do with my edits, save for the genre links that would now remain in the infobox (again, no problem with that). A few previously used sources did not appear in my revision, but that's because we probably don't need to throw five sources per genre at the reader to illustrate that content, especially if it puts fairly generic listings like AOL Music or only arbitrarily related stuff like the Mel C review next to articles by the likes of Rolling Stone magazine and the New York Times, which actually deal with what the band does. Linking to experimental rock on the basis of the Pure Volume reference (by the way, who wrote that source?) alone also seems a bit thin and the current wording of the style section already addresses the experimental nature of SOAD's output. In short, I believe editing the genre field of the box like this (even without changing the Style and influences section) would already do the trick:


 * Alternative metal, nu metal, various others


 * What do you think? - Cyrus XIII 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think that moving the references will do the trick. But since the style section of the article overall addresses the experimental nature of SoaD, I think it would be best if we keep experimental rock in the infobox as a means of making a little summary of what the style section says. We have concluded on the talk page that it would be best to keep those three genres in the infobox. If you really feel that experimental rock should be taken out of the infobox, we can discuss this further, but I really do think that putting it in the infobox is better. Now I'm open for discussion, but it's only if you really feel like it's needed. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I wrote another revision, that includes all previous genre links in the infobox and relocated the Purevolume source to the style section - I'll leave it to others to contemplate its quality. The remaining sources throughout the article have been updates as well, which I hope will be good soil (no pun intended) for future additions. - Cyrus XIII 18:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE, I agree with what you said on 08:18, 25 July 2007. Alternative metal/Nu metal best reflect SoaD's genre, having experimental rock is questionable but it shows SoaD is not your average nu metal/alt metal band. If a good source can back it up, it's no problem (I was looking for better sources but couldn't find any except for ). I agree on those 3. "Various" is too broad and could only apply to totally uncategorizable bands playing a load of genres (Sonic Youth, Estradasphere) (but even then experimental music or the like is more suitable). We should keep it like it was on 23:18, 21 July 2007 and like it is now. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts - Should The Apex Theory really be there?
In the associated acts section, should the apex theory and vokee even be there. andy was only a part of the band before they were signed. He doesn't really have anything to do with soad at all. i think that section should be limited to side projects, or other projects where the main four members are involved. Dissectional 00:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Vokee deserves a mention since its a currently active band and they have played a show with the Axis of Justice or something of that sort. I'll find the link on SOADfans later... 216.8.148.88 19:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing Experimental Rock
We just had an extensive debate on SoaD's genres, and due to the wide range of genres they have been labeled, we think experimental rock is a suiting genre. so stop removing it. Dissectional 23:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If someone wants to remove experimental rock, then a discussion has to be made. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  12:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Groove Metal
A lot of people have been proposing thrash metal as a genre for them, but since they aren't really pure thrash like slayer or metallica, should we add groove metal?Dissectional 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The current genres seem good enough, I don't believe it is necessary to add "Groove metal" or "thrash" since they don't quite fit either genre. Zanders5k 21:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think?
Please tell me what you think about this. gracz54 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Future
What's the deal with SOAD? Are they gone forever? I sure hope not.... I think there has been talk about Daron taking over. Is this true? If so, is Scars on Broadway going to be merging into SOAD? I want some answers, please. The Coolest dude on the PLANET  (Chat wit meh ([[Special:Contributions/69.156.127.89|The coolest dude on the planet)]]) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Serj: Surreptitious Rhythm Guitarist?
Serj is credited with "Rhythm Guitar" on the band members section, yet I have yet to see any crediting on any of the actual albums to Serj on rhythm guitar. If he actually did, it needs substantiation or citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.58.212 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

--

Serj has played rhythm guitar on live performances, such as Big Day Out 2002 on the live performance of "Aerials".

JimmyNikaidoh —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyNikaidoh (talk • contribs) 04:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Serj Tankian has been doing his rhythm guitar for awhile. I belive he First stared it back in the Axc Of Justic tour thing. But we all know he's got his own solo album out now Elect The Dead I love SOAD and All they do in SOAD or not. they rock- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Down With The System (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Soil is not an associated act!!
Soil was a band for like 2 months. not to mention theyre not even active anymore, so theyre not associated Dissectional 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Soil was a band for three years. You'd know that if you actually read the article. And I figured Soil would be an associated act being three of four SOAD members were a part of it. If being active is a problem, Serart probably shouldn't be on there either being Serj hasn't really done anything with it since 2003. FallenWings47 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, but soil officially broke up, and serart is a side project, and serj and shavo are probably going back to it once their own records are out. Dissectional 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying. Do you have any references to Serj and Shavo doing that? FallenWings47 15:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it says that in the serart article. also, soil never released anything. if you still think it should be added, then i have a source of daron talking about his first band, snowblind, when he was 15. that would have every right to be on the article then too, but i feel that the associated acts should either be active, or at least have released something. Dissectional 00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. Hey, maybe you should add anything you have about that band to Daron's page. Just a thought. Do you have anything on any other bands? Maybe the bands Serj and Daron were in before Soil? FallenWings47 21:11, 4 August 1996 (UTC)

I found out about his band snowblind in an interview i found on his high schools web site, glendale high. it doesnt really give any info on the band, so i wouldnt really be able to add anything to the page. Dissectional 02:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well do you know anything about any other pre-Soil bands? FallenWings47 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From rumours I hear that Soil songs were long lasting songs that were up to 10 minutes or so in length... 216.8.144.254 00:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's awesome! I wish I could get my hands on some!.. FallenWings47 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I say its wasnt an associated act becuz soil is sytem of a down, they just changed the name.

Daron thought of the name system, not serj!!!!!!
http://www.hardradio.com/shockwaves/system1.html in this interview daron states.................. ''I'm sure many of you are probably wondering, what is the meaning, or concept, behind "System Of A Down"? Daron explains, "I thought of the name from a poem that I had written. It was originally called 'Victims Of The Down,' but Shavo didn't really like the word 'victims' in the title, so I thought up 'System Of A Down' and it just clicked...Plus, now our album will be under the 'S' section, next to Slayer!" '' and you can see that shavo was the one who didnt like the word victims, not serj. also, im not sure if it is a typo or not, but they put victims of THE down, instead of victims of A down. Dissectional 21:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get the "Maximum System of a Down" CD, I'm pretty sure it says it was Serj who came up with Systen. FallenWings47 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maximum system of a down is an unauthorized biography, and the accuracy of it is unknown. this is an actuall interview with the band. i think its more reliable. Dissectional 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose that's true. I guess I'll take your word for it. FallenWings47 21:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So it's official, the name means nothing and makes absolutely no sense24.4.56.146 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, SHAVO thought of the name 'system' on a poem Daron made, 'Victims of a Down.' Shavo thought system was a stronger word, and Daron and Serj agreed. 86.112.239.13 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oriental Metal
i know it has been proposed before, and no one thought anything of it, but reading the article, they have some similarities. They have used middle eastern intruments such as ouds and sitars, and have worked with middle eastern artists such as arto. i think they have more similarities with this genre than they do woth nu metal. Dissectional 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * SoaD have Armenian folk influences but "oriental" influences are rarely introduced in their music. These influences are mentioned in the Style and influences section.


 * I think oriental metal is a dubious genre. The oriental metal article does not cite its references and was nominated for deletion once. The bands in the article are far more extreme than SoaD all being death or black metal bands. I don't see similarities with oriental metal. I however see a lot of similarities with nu-metal (explained in the Progressive_Metal section). Eman (Talk) 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

to the second person who posted. if you read the article, you would see that when they say oriental, they mean middle eastern, which soad has a lot of influence from, and have used middle instruments ans worked with middle eastern artists. i think you are thnking oriental as in asian or chinese, which is not what the genre is. Dissectional 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I know exactly what the oriental metal article is about, and SoaD don't fit the genre (listen to the bands listed in the article, and you'll probably notice the difference with SoaD). Eman (Talk) 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nu Metal.....
For everyone who still thinks Nu Metal should be left, I think you should watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7vPcGRTVuA Korn, who basically invented the genre, are talking about how Nu Metal is basically Metal mixed with Hip Hop. System of a Down have NO Hip Hop influence AT All. Also, and I dont mean to offend anyone, but when I think of Nu Metal, and I know a lot of people will both agree and disagree with me on this, I think of the "white trash" or "trailer trash" persona. A prime example is Limp Bizkit's lead singer. Whenever you search Nu Metal on google or youtube, you get something to do with Rap Metal, and for that reason, I dont think Nu Metal should be left in the info box. i also think that Alternative Metal is the genre that best describes their music, and when most people think of Alternative Metal, they think of Nu Metal without the Hip Hop factor. I know some of you are going to say that Nu Metal doesn't have to involve Hip Hop or Rapping, but the fact is that pop culture will always think of Nu Metal as Rap Metal, and I think these articles are made to cater to the average person. Dissectional 05:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough sources state SoaD is nu metal:


 * and like ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  said earlier, SoaD has a lot in common with Nu metal:


 * Generally speaking, the emphasis in the music is on either communicating feelings of angst and hostility, or motivating a crowd to move with the beat. --- Yes, SoaD does not have teen angst, but it definitely does have emphasis on motivating the crowd to move with the beat. I must say, both in the music and lyrics. On "BYOB," the chorus is extremely pop-like (from an alternative rock POV) and says "Everybody's going to the party have a real good time, Dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine" which is an incitation to dance and "move with the beat". On "Lost in Hollywood", one part says "All you bitches put your hands in the air" which is another incitation to "moving with the beat" and is sounds like something a rapper would say (that's my opinion).
 * Nu metal guitarists generally make liberal use of palm muting. --- SoaD uses a lot of palm muting. First examples that pop up to my mind are "BYOB", "Radio/Video", and "Old School Hollywood".
 * Another common technique with nu metal guitarists is the use of de-tuned strings whose lower pitch creates a thicker, more resonant sound. --- A technique that SoaD uses. "BYOB" is in Dropped C (I believe), but anyone with the slightest guitar knowledge would notice that SoaD are tuned down.
 * This is typical of nu metal bands in that guitar solos are rare in nu metal songs in general, and when they do appear they are often short. --- SoaD have very few guitar solos, and if they do they are extremely short or do not emphasize on technicality (which, in general, is what most metal bands do in a guitar solo).
 * Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock, guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal, hardcore punk, and rapping. --- SoaD uses (most of the time) melodic singing and shouting, and in some occasions uses some rap-like vocals (most notably in their "Chop Suey" intro and verses). Although it is not, properly speaking, rap, the link must be considered. I would still like to remind you that rapping does not necessarily make you a nu metal band, and that being a nu metal band does not necessarily means you rap. There are nu metal bands who don't rap, and they are still nu metal.
 * Normally, nu metal songs have a song structure of instrumental introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, sometimes another verse but almost always ending with a chorus. --- This is characteristic of SoaD. Most of their songs (I'm not saying all of them) have a very simple "verse-chorus-verse" structure (as well as the slight variants).
 * It is generally louder in the instrumental parts and the choruses than in the verses. --- Listen to "Attack" on their last album.
 * Another thing I'd like to mention is that Serj Tankian worked with Limp Bizkit (a well known nu metal band), Saul Williams (a hip-hop artist), M.I.A. (a rapper), and The Notorious B.I.G. (another rapper & hip-hop artist). The link to hip-hop and rapping with System of a Down's lead singer is therefore established. I don't have the material that Tankian produced with those artists, but seeing how those artists are predominantly hip-hop and nu metal (in Link Bizkit's case), it is probable that the material is similar to hip-hop and nu metal in style. the 'introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge' is used by every genre of music: rock, country, punk, so that doesnt make them nu metal either


 * SoaD is nu metal. Cheers Emmaneul (Talk) 08:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the only reason they were labeled as Nu Metal is because all of the hard/metal music that was popping up around that time was following Korn and adding the Hip Hop element. Because they happened to play music that was more hard or agressive than a rock band, they were considered Nu Metal. As for the things that ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE  said, I can easily say how they are wrong. When he gives the reference about BYOB, and how that line "everybody's going to the party have a real good time, dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine." That line is metaphorical. BYOB stands for bring your own bombs, going to the party is metaphorical for going to war, blowing up the sunshine in the desert is like dropping bombs in Iraq. So those lines dont have anything to do woth the crowd moving to the beat. The detuned guitar doesnt make nu metal either. metallica did their st anger album in drop c. and almost every hard rock/metal band today uses drop d or lower. the 'introduction, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge' is used by every genre of music: rock, country, punk, so that doesnt make them nu metal. as for the working with the rap artists, MIA just remixed one of his songs, serj was writing poetry with saul williams, and i dont think he even did anything with B.I.G. as you can see, all of the things he said are either irrevelant, or fit with other genres as well.Dissectional 18:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But then, there are still tons of professional reviewers who call it nu metal, I (and all editors should) take their opinions into account, not our opinions. If you can find reliable sources where is mentioned that it's a total mistake to call SoaD a nu-metal band, then maybe we could incorporate that information into the article. For now I trust the professional reviewers.


 * PS Not all nu-metal is closely related to hip hop (f.e. Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band)) Emmaneul (Talk) 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A7191975 is one i mentioned in another genre debate on this page. ill look for more later. i think proffesional reviewers label them as nu metal because their music doenst fit in with modern metal bands, such as dragonforce, meshuggah, isis or nile (all of which i am fans of), but it doesnt fit in with modern rock bands either. since their music is tough to classify, they figure they should put them as nu metal. i am a metal fan, and i listen to what most people call true metal. those bands i listed are just a few of my favourites. so im not just some kid who listens to korn and limp bizkit and think "itz the heaviest shit out thur" lol. in my opinion, even though SoaD doesnt fit in with those other bands i listed, i find more similarities with them than i do comparing them to korn, limp bizkit or slipknot. Dissectional 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Amber Cowan writes about Hyponotize which is more prog then every pre-Mezmerize release. The infobox covers that by stating SoaD is not purely nu metal, they are alternative metal, experimental, and nu metal. There are enough reasons to have nu metal in the infobox: The popularity of SoaD during the nu metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style. They are no less nu metal than Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band) etc. Emmaneul (Talk) 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nu Metal Survey
This is to see if nu metal should be kept in the info box or not. simply respond with Keep if you think it should be kept as a genre or Remove if you think it should be removed. We'll let this go on for a week and tally the results. Dissectional 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (Reason given for removing: unsuitable poll)

REMOVE Dissectional 06:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Polling is not a substitute for discussion.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Straw_polls Poling is suitable for finding a consensus in some occasions, and this is one of them.74.124.33.181 00:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is unsuitable because it is a topic that requires discussion, instead of !votes. That is why the comment has been struck out with a reason provided in brackets.
 * Seraphim Whipp 00:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

i think there has been enough discussion on this page already. 74.124.33.181 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then a straw poll will achieve nothing. Seraphim  Whipp 08:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been from both sides of the debate, and i fell there has been more said to remove nu metal. this poll will reinforce the answer. 74.124.33.181 19:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very doubtful anyone will participate. I for one, will not. I do not like the genre label of nu-metal, but I will not protest it further because thoughtful, well-structured arguments, backed up by evidence, have been brought forward to support that label.
 * Seraphim Whipp 09:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself along with other users have given our opinons as well, and i think we have proven the people proposing nu metal wrong. Just look at the really long repsonse by User: Revan ltrl. He may be a little rude, but his answers are correct. 74.124.33.181 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it really necessary to copy what User:Revan ltrl wrote once again? I've read it through twice already, and I've already commented on how uncivil this user is, and how threatening to harm another article sounds like something that would violate WP:POINT. I would consider removing the copy of the message; we don't really need to have two copies of it on the same page (especially considering it's quite a lengthy message).  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry 74.124.33.181 but I have seen no proof yet. Maybe I've missed it, I was on holiday. Please, could you show me the proof? We (editors) just cite sources, many sources state SoaD are nu-metal and many nu-metal traits can be attributed to SoaD. That's enough proof for me; nu-metal can be kept in the infobox. We should not add our personal interpretations of SoaD's music to this page (that would be original research), we should look at the opinions of professional reviewers on reliable sites. Emmaneul (Talk) 19:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The proof that SoaD is not nu metal is in what Revan ltrl said. the reasons you are giving to keep nu metal are true for so many different genres. 74.124.33.181 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Revan ltrl didn't prove SoaD isn't nu-metal. He did prove (if you can call a bunch of unverifiable statements 'proof') however that traits common in nu-metal can be found outside nu-metal (downtuned guitars etc.), SoaD is more than nu-metal alone (as we all acknowledge (see infobox)) and that his definition of nu-metal is very narrow.


 * Like I said before, SoaD is nu-metal because: "the popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style."


 * All people here opposed to nu-metal in the infobox seem to think we regard SoaD as 100% nu-metal. We don't. Just like Led Zeppelin isn't 100% folk-rock and Frank Zappa isn't 100% classical. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

SoaD isnt 100% progressive metal either, why shouldn't that be in the infobox. also, a lot of soad's lyrics are abstract, so should we add art rock. 74.124.33.181 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because we have to make a choice. Mine is Alternative metal based on their apparent heavy metal/alternative rock aesthetics, experimental rock because of their experimental nature (fusing folk music genres and heavy metal, the progressive aspects) and nu-metal ("the popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style.") Emmaneul (Talk) 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even discuss this when all that needs to be done is for Emmaneul to mention the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal? Like someone said before, wikipedia isn't a democracy. To be honest, all this 'full authority' thing kind of freaks me out, I'm very neat, used to discussions. Anyway, I'm glad my long response was read and supported by my fellow SOAD-fans, and I hold on to my answers, even though I regret my kind of rude and sarcastic tone, but I was caught in the heat of the moment, actually believing debating would help, but no. And I don't really think 'uncivil' was fair. But anyway, keep 'nu-metal' if it is mentioned in all those tons of reviews, since discussing the matter doesn't take it anywhere.Revan ltrl 15:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There were 5 refs to nu-metal in the infobox before this whole nu-metal debate escalated (see ). Now, two of the source are in the style section. If you want more, try these review sites. Kameejl (Talk) 10:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoring the demo tapes to the discography?
What do you guys think about restoring the demo tapes to the discography? I think they've been unfairly deleted. There are articles about demos of Metallica or Avenged Sevenfold, so why not SOAD? The demos are notable, they have been officially released (at least Demo Tape 1, 2 and 3). gracz54 (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem with mentioning demos in a discography, but any release that isn't widely available for verification needs reliable sources to account for existence and content. - Cyrus XIII 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "widely available"? Those tapes can't be widely available now, they're a) circa ten years old, b) no one heard about SOAD back then. Flag_of_Poland.svg gracz54 (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think all the tapes (Untitled, 1, 2, 3, and 4) deserve a mention as their own articles they were either officially released or part of a leak which now everyone has... If no one wants it as 5 pages we could merge it all into one and mabye that would clean up the discography page a bit more.216.8.154.10 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They are mentioned in System of a Down discography. I don't see why they should be mentioned here. Kameejl (Talk) 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's cause IMO the discography section looks ugly. The demo's deserve their own page(s). 216.8.134.178 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Genre consensus
The heated discussions seem to be over. Can I now assume we (again) reached consensus on the following main genres?

Alternative metal Experimental rock Nu metal Various influences

SoaD is too diverse to have all genres in the infobox. The genres not present in the infobox are explained in the Various influences section. Emmaneul (Talk) 19:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well said. I have nothing to add to that. ^^  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's probably the best option as far as this subject goes. While I myself do not agree with SOAD being labeled as nu metal, a plethora of sources have been provided stating as such. And as we all know, the threshold of inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily the truth, so I'm fine with this list. Can we finally stop arguing about this seemingly trivial issue? Parsecboy 20:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that since nu metal is debated, we should have that in fine print beside the genre.74.124.33.181 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the size of the infobox (which is relatively small), we'll have to leave the genre debate for the "styles and influences" section.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, i guess that would make it look a little better. Also, should we change the name of the Various influences link? I don't think the word "influences" should be used. 74.124.33.181 22:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine as is, but what would you prefer instead? Perhaps there is a better option. Parsecboy 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think it's fine as it is, but I'm open to discussion.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't really think of another word to be used. Hopefully someone will come up with something. I was also wondering what happened to the Genre Dispute section. I think it should be added to the article 'cause the style and ifluence section only talks about their experimentation and influences, and not the disputes with genres. ex: nu metal 74.124.33.181 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well post the ideas as you get them, we're not in a hurry. The contents of the Genre Dispute section (which mainly describes the style of the band) are included in the "Style and Influences" section. I think the section is extremely neutral and I don't think the "genre dispute" really needs more than a sentence in the article, which should be in the styles and influences section. I think the current version of the article is good in that it is sourced (for pretty much every sentence), neutral, and contains citations by the band on their genre and clearly states that the band is difficult to categorize.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Originally, the name for the link to the influences section was Various others, like Queens's infobox, but I think Various is fine too. Other suggestions: Various genres, Other genres…


 * Regarding the genre dispute section: I'm never in favor of a dispute section because it's always a section meant to point out band X is not genre Y (often original research). I don't feel such sections are encyclopedic. Better is a more positive style/influence approach where we can do the opposite; explain why SoaD is genre X, Y, Z and why they're different from those genres, backed up by sources. We have at least 1 source (BBC I believe) to back up SoaD are too prog to be nu. The style/influence could be expanded to meet those needs. Emmaneul (Talk) 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we change 'experimental rock' to 'experimental metal', but direct the link towards experimental rock? 74.124.33.181 22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... Why would we do that? By 'experimental rock', we mean 'experimental rock', not avant-garde metal.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   06:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So if Experimental metal = Avant-garde metal, then Experimental rock should = Avant-garde rock (I know that's is not a genre). Could you explain why in metal's case, Experimental = Avant-garde, but in rock's case, Experimental = just Experimental. 74.124.33.181 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, look at it this way: The name of the Experimental rock article is Experimental rock, and that of Avant-garde metal is Avant-garde metal. "Avant-garde rock" is not as widely used as "Experimental rock", and "Avant-garde metal" is used slightly more often than "Experimental metal". But anyways, that has more to do with the genres and their names than the System of a Down article. If you have an issue with it, you can always request a move.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we should change it to Experimental metal because System of a Down has a heavier sound than most rock bands. But I'm fine with leaving it as well. 74.124.33.181 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think that avant-garde metal (or Experimental metal, whatever you want to call it) doesn't suit System of a Down. I will make you listen to some experimental rock (which can be very heavy), and then I will make you listen to some avant-garde metal, if you really need to. Both genres have an extremely different sound. System of a Down does not fit into avant-garde metal.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   09:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I went to the wikipedia pages for both experimental rock and avant-garde metal, and i listened to about 5 bands from each page. i think that this is hard to judge, because each band has different levels of experimentation, and each band experiments with different elements. the experimentl rock bands i listened to weren't heavy at all, and a lot of them have punk influences, which are not present is SoaD's music. in the avant-garde metal bands i listened to, the heavier sound was consistent with SoaD, but artists such as Mr. Bungle changed between genres in one song. so i'm not sure where to put them. i agree that they are experimental. but they are heavier than most experimental rock, but not as "experimental" as the avant-garde metal i listened to. what do you think?74.124.33.181 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that putting experimetal rock is good. The "heaviness" of the band doesn't really matter in that case. Do you really want to push this futher?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain to me the difference between experimental rock and experimental metal, other than one is rock and one is metal.74.124.33.181 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is, like you said: "one is rock, and the other is metal". As a rock band, System of a Down has some experimental properties that make it part of the experimental rock genre (among others). However, if System of a Down was to be treated as a heavy metal band, it wouldn't be avant-garde metal. It would be original, maybe, but not experimental.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What i don't undertsand is that if you are a rock band with experimental elements, you are experimental rock, but if you are a metal band with experimental elements, you aren't experimental metal. the only difference between experimental rock and experimental metal should be that one is rock and one is metal, but the way you are explaining makes it sound like experimental metal is more experimental than experimental rock. 74.124.33.181 20:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple to understand. Compared to many rock bands, System of a Down is quite different; different enough to be classified by some sources as experimental rock. Compared to many metal bands, System of a Down aren't that different, especially when we think of the nu metal bands. Do you really want to push this further? I'm kind of tired of it, I must admit, and I think that the infobox right now is extremely neutral and representative of the band's unique style. Putting avant-garde metal was discussed and I think it is a ridiculous idea to classify SoaD as avant-garde metal. Compare bands like Fantômas and System of a Down. You'll see what I mean.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Experimental metal is a genre where the bands can't be compared, due to the wide forms of experimentation. I don't think it's fair to say, compare them to Fantômas and automatically say they aren't that genre just because those bands don't sound alike. I could say the same thing for nu metal. Compare system of a down to limp bizkit. i guess they're not nu metal either then because they dont really sound the same. 74.124.33.181 01:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very true. I was however comparing/contrasting them to Fantômas not in a context of similar sounds, but similar degrees of experimentation from the heavy metal genre. Fantômas stretches out metal much more than System of a Down do, that's my point.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss this matter as long as we want, but any change we make should be backed up by sources. I have found few sources for both experimetal rock and avant-garde metal (a total of 3, didn't look for experimental metal). If experimental rock is a problem then we might need another, better fitting genre to reflect SoaD's experimental nature, or completely remove it from the infobox and add the terms to the style section.

But like Zouave says, I don't think avant-garde metal will fit SoaD. AG metal is rooted in extreme metal (death/black), SoaD isn't. But experimental metal is not that bad, if you consider AG metal not to be a synonym (I don't know but to me, considering avant-garde metal to be the same as experimental metal feels like original research, the whole AG metal article is OR). Emmaneul (Talk) 09:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally think of avant-garde metal and experimental metal as the same thing. In both cases, I think it is wrong to use it to label SoaD's genre. If we were to change experimental rock to something else in the infobox, I would strongly recommend alternative rock.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think experimental metal and avant-garde metal are the same thing. I think experimental metal is the same as experimental metal, only with more metal influences. Experimental rock basically refers to bands that are very experimental compared to their peers, which System of a Down falls under. Avant-garde metal is similar to Progressive rock/metal in that it is more narrow. You could consider avant-garde metal a sub-genre under/form of experimental rock, just like metal is to rock music. From what I've heard, avant-garde metal is much more experimental and unorthodox, and draws influence from heavier forms of metal, and has has some traits in common with noise music. I think the way we have the genres now is best (though I may be biased as I helped come to this conclusion). If we were to remove experimental rock, I would propose we should put progressive metal in its place. I don't see it as being as correct as experimental rock, but it shows up more in reviews and the like by professionals, and out of all the forms of experimental rock (art rock, avant-garde metal, progressive rock, progressive metal, post-rock/metal), I think it is the most fitting, and appears more commonly in their music than any of those. This is all just opinion of course. Also, about the "varying influences" debate, I might be a little biased as I am the one who first put up that title for it, but I think it should stay. The reason I had switched the title in the info box to that (it was originally just "various") is because I thought it represented their music more. I am also the one who added most of that stuff about their genre influences into the styles and influences section. As I had said their, in my mind, System of a Down has a single genre throughout their career, but that that base sound is a mix of a multitude of different INFLUENCES. That is why I put varying influences and that is why I think it should remain. Of course, this is all opinion, and I don't mind compromising, or switching my views altogether. Mr. Nebbles 21:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Song
I'm pretty sure SoaD did not do this, but Flash Flash Revolution R1 credited this to SoaD. So what I want to know, is who actually did this song, if SoaD didn't? 74.69.245.119 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If no one understands what I'm talking about, it starts off with "So Link has come to town / come to save, the princess Zelda ... " to a remixed zelda theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.245.119 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, SOAD did not record that song. I can't remember who did, at the moment, but I know it's been discussed here before, somewhere in the archives. Here it is Talk:System_of_a_Down/archive2 Parsecboy 00:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The band who did the song is The Rabbit Joint. (Sources: 1, 2, 3)  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rabbit Joint is another band that is often credited with this song, but i beleive its by Joe Pleiman, who was the lead singer of the rabbit joint. It often gets mixed up because the album was called the rabbit joint, which was most likely named after his band. 74.124.33.181 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Any sources?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://lyricwiki.org/Joe_Pleiman:Legend_of_Zelda i might be able to find more. 74.124.33.181 11:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a good source. Flag_of_Poland.svg gracz54 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Song?
I've been hearing a song on the radio by System of a Down that ive never heard before. I can never catch the name. Is this a copycat band or them?

Ive listened to every song SoaD has too. Even ones that arnt on albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.70.254 (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Was the song called 'The Unthinking Majority' or 'Empty Walls'? Serj Tankian, SoaD's lead singer, has a solo album coming out and those two songs have been released to the radio. You probably heard his voice and thought it was SoaD. 74.124.33.181 14:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The radio and Digital Download singles, to be exact. Flag_of_Poland.svg gracz54 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

System of the Down
I have an old promo sticker of theirs from 1996 and the band was called "System of the Down". Relevant enough to include? 76.245.62.113 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you scan it and upload the pic, i would be interested to see it. It might have been a 3rd party sticker, and they got the name wrong. So its probably not official. 74.124.33.181 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't Put System of a Down as Nu metal PLEASE!!!
I deleted nu metal on their genre. People you have to know the difference between Nu metal and Alternative, or hard rock. I don't consider soad as Nu Metal, sense they don't consider themselves, and i don't consider them. Secondly, they never rap on their FU**ING songs! Then I don't consider Disturbed, and Godsmack as Nu Metal either. There more like Hard Rock bands. Nu Metal is a mainstream shi*t now. So there's lots of people calling several bands Nu Metal, like soad. Nu Metal is Slipknot, Korn, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, and I'm sure theres more bands like them out there. All those Nu Metal bands have at least a DJ, and they use sound effects, and they rap. So does System of a Down, Distubed,                   and Godsmack have any of that staff in their music??? NO!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.76.55 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What you consider genre X doesn't matter. We only need information that is verifiable and neutral. Do Slipknot and Korn rap on their songs? Please read what's on this page and in the archives to know why nu metal should be included. Emmaneul (Talk) 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) First of all they do, and Slipknot has turntables. They are nu-metal for a reason, SOAD has no nu metal sound or influince. Q.E.D.

Although a lot of people disagree with nu metal, we have come to an agreement that it should be listed. As for what Emmaneul said, both Korn and Slipknot do rap in a lot of their songs, and there are sources calling them both rap-metal and rapcore. But this is irrelevant. Even though SoaD do not rap, they have a lot of nu metal traits. A lot of people see nu metal as a derogatory term, which is probably because of a few bands such as Limp Bizkit, but I'm sure we all know SoaD is a more talented band than them. So don't look at nu metal as a bad thing, its just a genre. Why should it matter anyways, as long as you like the music. P.S, nu metal helped older metal bands get new, younger fans. 74.124.33.181 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WTF! SOAD kinda raps a bit i guess. I could see why that was put down as a genera for songs like deer dance, needles, psyco, etc. were Srj kinda starts to preach and just talk about shit.

Somebody changed the Nu-Metal tag again today. Whilst I have reverted back I need to make sure this is the right thing to do? Does everybody agree? Stefanjcarney 20:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Debated Nu Metal
Since nu metal is debated, i think (Debated) should be written besdie it.Boozer123 22:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The other genres are debated as well, just not by the same communities. A lot of metalheads, those who listen to the more extreme genres of metal (death, black, etc.) would not consider System of a Down a metal band. People who listen to a lot of experimental music including experimental rock artists like Fantômas or Mr. Bungle would argue that System of a Down shouldn't be listed as experimental rock because they judge that they do not experiment enough with sound and songwriting techniques. Nu metal is just as debated as the other genres are, and let's leave that for the "Styles and influences" section, for the infobox is very well balanced as of now. Now if you want to discuss the "Styles and influences" section, that's another story.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Band Member Name Deletion
I came here looking for the current band member's names, but some idiot has gotten rid of them. If someone who knows all their names would put them back I'd really appreciate it. Bhree 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Serj Tankian is the lead vocalist and he occasionally plays the guitar and piano. Daron Malakian is the lead guitarist and he is sometimes a vocalist. John Dalmayan is the drummer. Shavo Odadjian is the bassist.

the Db statement
It should read C#. While they are the same, C# is the more common usage in wetern music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otcconan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I know c# and Db are the same, but every source i see says Db, so we might as well leave it at that. 99.234.164.101 20:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a lowered D and not a raised C, "Db" is actually the correct terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.7.219 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

System is NOT reuniting
That thing about them reuniting in 2008 for a few songs is an unsourced website and will be deleted. As far as I'm concerned until the band or a reliable source of info confirms it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.154.163 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Serj Tankian
What is Eventually.... and why isn't it sourced? Also i don't Serj Tankian left hes just on hitas as is the rest of the band so why is her under left? Link287 (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Soil
I flip through these sections often and notice that many if not all of the side projects of the band have the related articles or something like that relating to Soil. Like I mean no one has or ever will hear Soil as it was a short lived band that for all we know could be a fricken b-boy group. The only things we know about it is that it featured the apex theory bassist, local hawaii drummer, shavo, daron, and serj and that's it. Given this we can assume that Soil has nothing to do with any side projects other than SOAD itself. So from now on don't link or add it to any of the side projects pages. But hey this is my opinion feel free to say what you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.134.178 (talk • contribs)

Years Active
I think it should be changed to 1995-2006, seeing as they aren't active as of right now. Just because they didn't officially break up, doesn't mean they are still active. They arent working together, and have no plans for tours in the next 4 or 5 years. Lets change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.164.101 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It states that the band is on hiatus, I think that's sufficient to describe the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

System of a Down is not nu-metal
If you think it is, you don't know what nu-metal is. 70.122.23.62 (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:System_of_a_Down, Talk:System_of_a_Down/Archive_3, and all the other sections where this has been discussed to death. Give it a rest. Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We have been through a lot (and I really mean a LOT) of discussion on the genres of the infobox. The most neutral and consensus-approved solution was the one that is still in place. This solution has remained for practically six months, which I think is a record. Developped encyclopedic coverage of the genre can be made in the appropriate section of the article. As for the infobox, I would say that it should only be modified after a great amount of discussion yields a clear and enlightened consensus.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Zouavman, the genres should only be changed after significant discussion leading to a clear consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

system is over
it should say 1995-2006 without the hiatus. because daron said that they werent talking about a reunion and he said if we are holding our breath for a record, we would turn blue and pass out. Nardulli22 (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of people can say a lot of things; until the band officially states otherwise, they're on a hiatus. If and when they do officially break up, the article will be altered accordingly. Until then, the best option is to stick with what the sources commonly state. Parsecboy (talk) 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the interview, and Malakian did not say SoaD was over. He said that there was no intention to reunite the band currently, but did not deny the possibility that the band will reunite someday.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i wouldn't assume anything based on one magazine interview. i've heard an interview where maynard says that there will be another APC album in the future and then in another interview done a week or two after that he says that there won't. people can say odd things on a particular day, or even change their mind after a couple of years. remember a couple years ago when billy corgan "broke up" the smashing pumpkins and made this big speech about him never performing those songs again and closing a chapter in his life? and here we are 7 years later with a new SP album & EP and another in the works all because billy had no luck with his 2nd band or solo venture. so when daron says in an interview "there won't be another soad album for a looong time", don't take it too seriously. wait for him to get bored with his side-project and spend all of his soad money, and i can guarantee that he'll be singing a different tune. i bet you we'll see at least 1 new album from the group before 2015.65.43.216.22 (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Daron is high almost all the time, so you can't really take what he says too seriously. OrangeRorange (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh my, what a constructive comment was that!  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   13:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it's true.OrangeRorange (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's verifiable. Please stick to constructive discussion about the original topic. -- Reaper  X  02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing the freakin' genres
It seems the only activity this page has seen over the past week or more is continual alterations of the genre, either in the infobox, or the lead. It's been primarily anon editors making these disruptive changes, and if it continues, I might just semi-protect the page to put a stop to it.

For all of you who disagree with the genres in either location, please remember that there is a talk page for a reason. This issue has proven to be highly contentious in the past. Take a look throug the old dicussions here and in the archives before making any change; your arguments will likely have been addressed at some point. Even if they have not been addressed (which is unlikely), you must still begin a discussion on the talk page first, before any changes can be made. Thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Parsecboy. This current situation with the genres in the infobox and the lead has been working for practically half a year, which is a record. All changes must require an enlightened and clear consensus.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Genres in the infobox
I'm against undiscussed changes about the genre that's why we need a new discussion about that. Why don't we put the big four classifications written in the part "style and influences" in the infobox (Alternative/Nu/Progressive Metal and Hard Rock)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Before making any changes, an enlightened, long-term consensus has to be found. I believe that the genres should not be changed for they are in good balance and reflect a neutral point of view. I would think that progressive metal and hard rock are unnecessary in the infobox since they cannot be applied on most of their songs. Progressive metal, which is dominated by time signature changes, would be difficult to apply to SoaD, which has a rather uniform 4/4 or 6/4 time signature in most of their songs. Hard rock is very closely related to blues, with bands such as Led Zeppelin and AC/DC. I would think that grouping SoaD with this movement would be an error. Mentionning those genres as what SoaD has been described as in the section is enough, in my opinion. I would also like to point out that this article used to undergo extremely frequent genre changes and revert wars until the current consensus was found. This current situation has lasted for more than 6 months, and I think we should keep the article this way, rather than try out different combinations just because we feel like it. Regards,  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I think it's best to leave the infobox as it is. It's probably the best combination, as far as accuracy as well as sourcing are concerned. I know the nu metal issue irks some people (I myself don't consider them nu metal), but they have been repeatedly included in that genre by quite a few reliable sources, so, to be frank, get over it. Again, there's no need to rock the boat for what would be at best no real gain for the article, and in all likelyhood would just cause edit wars and lengthy diatribes here on the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * yes but Disturbed is also described as hard rock and they played nu metal and not blues-rock before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a Parsecboy/Zouavman Le Zouave-Dictatoship about the infobox (genre). I changed the infobox because we have to give the visitors a short and easy to understand view about soad's style. I'm totally against the term "experimental rock" and there is no link to soad (see experimental rock). I'm also against the term "nu metal" but I'll accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "Parsecboy/Zouavman Dictatorship" going on here, we are just upholding the consensus that was reached several months ago, and has remained stable in the time since then. Again, if you think something should be changed, you must do so on the talk page first. That's just how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:CON for further information. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said the reasons some weeks ago. ALL of these "new" genres in the infobox (Alt.M./Hard R./Nu M./Progr.M.) have ONE or MORE links. The term "experimental rock" has NO link (in internet AND Wikipedia). I think it is necessary to write genres in the infobox who have links and who are accepted by music pages (like rollingstone or allmusicguide). I did not want to hurt someone, I only want to improve the page to give a good overview about Soad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The question of genres is elaborated in the section, no need to spoil the infobox with references, there is a section for that. As for claiming Parsecboy and I are collaborating in some kind of "Dictatorship", I would invite you to read WP:AGF, WP:TINC, and WP:NPA before making any other comments. The previous consensus has lasted for over 6 months on a page where the page suffered daily edit wars. This has been done through months of discussion which yielded a clear, enlightened consensus, that made the article concise, unbiased, and balanced. Now before you change the article around according to your views, which I respect, we should discuss the issue and get a consensus. I will revert your edits to the article and I invite other users to do so as well if you continue to modify this aspect of the article without a long-term consensus. Regards,  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but then give links to "your" genres, please. If you want you can change the infobox, I changed it before I read your new edit. I understand your position about the genres in the infobox (really) and I don't want to create my "own" dictatorship about it. But my position about that is the same as before. I think that we should write the 4 "major genres" in the infobox to give a good and easy (and right) info about soad's music. I gave you the the reasons of my opinion and I know that every one has an own opinion about that. That's why I think the four "major genres" are a good compromise for all because it's a kind of wide "umbrella term" to describe their genre/music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why Experimental rock? I know that their music is experimental but they are NOT EXPERIMENTAL ROCK. That's a false term to describe soad's music. In the article, "experimental rock" is linked to http://www.drownedinsound.com/release/view/4822. Those who read this link will understand my critic: There is a comparison to experimental rock bands (like Jane's Addiction) BUT the text says THAT SOAD IS HEAVIER AND MORE AGGRESSIVE than experimental rock bands("System of a Down, while considerably heavier and more aggressive ..."; line 8).
 * That's why this link is dead and there are no more links which support the term "experimental rock". Because of this reasons Soad should be described as Avant-garde metal (disputed, but there doesn't have to be a relation to death/black metal, look at the article) or (better and with ONE OR MORE LINKS) as Progressive metal. Soad isn't a full Progressive metal band, I KNOW, but they are not a full Nu Metal band, too. Mrdjulazat 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

System ARE Metal.
Linkin Park are rock. They're basic and mild, But System are heavy and fast,

They are metal in general.

Coagula (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to respect the neutral point of view, rock is used in the introduction for it does not exclude metal out of the picture. The style and influences section describes the genre issue, feel free to read.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   17:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

System are not Nu-Metal.
I know this subject was discussed a million times, but the fact is that an agreement (or "consensus" as you like to call it) was never reached. First of all, after reading the reasons you gave on the talk page for why System IS nu-metal, I have to say that most of them are illegible reasons. The fact that System follows a "Verse Chorus Verse" pattern doesn't make them Nu-Metal, or otherwise you'll have to call The Beatles nu-metal too. Secondly, you keep saying that critics have called SOAD "Nu-Metal", but that doesn't stand for anything. You can't really give a band who's genre changes in every song a label. You can call them Experimental, or Alternative - if a band doesn't fit in any known genre, Alternative will be a correct label for it. Lastly, quoting articles that call SOAD "Nu-Metal" does not prove them to be so, and is not a reliable source: Those articles didn't call SOAD "Nu-Metal" based on their musical knowledge, it was based on other articles or websites (i.e Wikipedia) that have stated the same mistake. An article might as well call SOAD a Jazz ensemble. If they'll do, will you put "Jazz" in the infobox? I don't think so.

Who cares? Just leave it; if people want to call them nu-metal, they can call them nu-metal. They'll just have to live with being wrong.

They have been labeled nu-metal by the press many many times. On wikipedia we only cite, we don't state our opinions. Some reasons posted earlier: "The popularity of SoaD during the nu metal era, the alteration of clean melodic/harsh vocals, the low tuned guitars, the mainstream popularity, the lack of solos, the tons of professional reviews mentioning nu metal, their catchy yet metal style. They are no less nu metal than Slipknot (band), Coal Chamber, Disturbed (band) etc". Kameejl (Talk) 20:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Half of the reasons you quoted here are not only wrong, but most of them are not even true. "The popularity of SoaD during the nu-metal area" - are you kidding me? Metallica is still popular in many places today. Does that make them a Hip-Hop band? "the low tuned guitars" - Huh? The fact that some nu-metal band tune their guitars like that doesn't make any band who uses Drop C a nu-metal band. Static X uses the same tuning and they're definitely not nu-metal. "their catchy yet metal style" - I'm sorry, but this is the most ridiculous reason ever, and it's not a legible one.


 * You might not agree, but there are sources to back it up. All the arguments refer to common nu-metal traits and can be applied to SoaD. What you do is turning around arguments. By turning around arguments you are not proving anything. I'll use an example to show you why your argumentation is flawd:
 * Argument: An eagle is a bird because it has 2 wings, 2 feet and a beak.
 * Counter argument: 2 wings? mosquito's have 2 wings, mosquito's are not birds. It can't be a bird. Humans have 2 feet, and humans aren't eagles. A beak? that is the most ridiculous reason ever, and it's not a legible one.


 * And by the way, Static X has been labeled nu metal by the press many times. I think you might want to reconsider your view on nu-metal. Do some research, listen to Slipknot, Disturbed, Papa Roach, P.O.D., Godsmack, Coal Chamber and SoaD's early releases and you'll see nu metal doesn't have to sound like Korn or Limp Bizkit (do it for the sake of research, not for sake of good taste :)). Kameejl (Talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But Soad has been labeled progressive metal and hard rock by the press, too. Why aren't these two genre in the infobox? Mrdjulazat (Talk) 22.Apr.2008
 * Because users decided through a long lasting consensus that those genres were to be developped in the section, not the infobox. One of the reasons users have chosen those three genres in the infobox is that they reflected a neutral balance and did not spoil the infobox with superfluous genres, since it was limited to three. As I keep on saying, this solution has lasted for half a year on a page where the infobox and introduction changed radically every day. I think disturbing the already well-established consensus would be a mistake, since we would be opening Pandora's box once again, and yielding to an eventual return to the unstable state it was before the consensus was found. This is why I think that we should keep the things the way they are, but I am willing to discuss that with other users if need be.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   11:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your position but I think the term "Nu Metal" is wrong to describe Soad's music. We all know that Soad is a succesful metal/rock band but that doesn't make them a "Nu Metal"-band like Korn.
 * Their experimental style - to combine heavy metal, thrash metal, punk rock and other genres - is known. But to describe them as "Experimental rock" is too low because their music is more aggressive. :I know that "Rock" should be neutral but we should describe Soad's as dircectly as we can: their music is more Metal than Rock. (NPOV)
 * That's why I think we (also) should categorize them as "Progressive Metal" (although disputed; but the term "Nu Metal", too) because that include their experimental style and their their heavy style.
 * We don't need daily changes about the genre, we need a compromise: Why don't we put one more genre in the Infobox? There are too many different opinions about the genre(s) (mostly the "Nu Metal" term) and I think one more genre would make the situation much better. But that's only an idea. mrdjulazat (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The nu metal genre has been applied an enormous number of times to System of a Down, by journalists, musicologists, etc. The incredible number of sources labeling them as nu metal makes it legitimate to put that genre in the infobox. One good example of how System of a Down has been labeled nu metal is by musicologist Garry Sharpe-Young, who is a specialist of rock and metal music, having released numerous books about diverse subgenres and scenes (see here). You say "their music is more Metal than Rock." I beg to differ. The underground metal communities do not consider System of a Down metal at all. One example of this is how System of a Down is not listed in Encyclopaedia Metallum. You are free to say that you consider the band's sound more metal than rock, I grant you that, but that point of view may not under any circumstance go into the article, for it represents a non-neutral point of view. As for "progressive metal", I don't see any reliable source that labels them as such.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, if Nu Metal means modern/experimental metal than you'll totally right. But I think the most people will think about bands like Korn or Limp Bizkit if they read the word "Nu Metal". I've nothing against the word, I'm only against a false interpretation about Soad's style to be like Korn or Linkin Park (I'm not against those bands!).
 * I know that the most underground metal communities do not consider Soad as metal but the press and many music pages do so. My quote "their music is more Metal than Rock" meant that their music is "closer" to heavy metal than the music of other Nu metal bands.
 * For what it matters, I'd definitely go for a vote for not being Nu-metal. I have no problem with Nu-metal, but SOAD doesn't fit the description of Nu-Metal (be sure to look at wikipedia's standing). Their lyrics, music style, and rhythm doesn't fit. Xe7al (talk) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that there are some "reliable sources" that label Soad as Progressive metal like RollingStone or MTV:
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1502898/20050525/system_of_a_down.jhtml http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/8957307/system_of_a_down
 * So I think we should add the Progressive metal term and keep the Nu metal term. mrdjulazat(Talk)
 * Nu metal doesn't have to be interpreted as anything, it's a musical genre including System of a Down and various other bands. The article concerning the genre describes it pretty well. I still believe that the progressive metal part should be included in the section and not the infobox. System of a Down does not sound at all like progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater or Symphony X, and does not share many musical characteristics with the movement nor has interacted much with members of the progressive metal scene (to my knowledge). A couple months ago, System of a Down's sound was found to have a great number of similarities with most nu metal bands, which is one of the reasons why nu metal is in the infobox. I hardly see any similarities with the progressive metal sound, apart from the occasional tempo changes.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "System of a Down does not sound at all like progressive metal bands such as Dream Theater or Symphony X". Sure. Soad sounds like Soad, their sound is special. Progressive metal is a wide category. I think there are two good links and those links are good reasons to include the term Progressive metal in the infobox but if you are completely against it than I will not add it. mrdjulazat(Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say I am against the addition of progressive metal in the infobox, since I think it is a minor facet of their sound that is better explored and explained in the section. And I agree with you, their sound is special, which makes it tricky to find the right equilibrium to describe their style. Regards,  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

System actually has been involved with a few progressive metal/rock bands. Serj sang the song "Sober" on stage last year with Tool (band), and John has drummed with Tool (band) on two occasions; once last year, and once in 2002. Tool (band) is clearly progressive metal. Also, SoaD's 2005 tour was with The Mars Volta, a progressive/art/rock/metal band, and Bad Acid Trip, an experimental metal/grindcore group. So SoaD have had plenty of interactions with members of the progressive metal scene. 99.234.164.101 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That does not have any implications on their sound and style. A polka band could tour with a rap band, it would not make them rap and polka, respectively. They definitely have been labeled progressive metal, but as I have said in the above paragraph, I believe it should be developped in the section, not in the infobox.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   15:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Zouave, the infobox should only have the few most prominent genres into which SoaD has been included; the rest should go in the section devoted to style in the text. Parsecboy (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I disagree, I'll accept it. mrdjulazat
 * Thank you for your cooperation, I appreciate it. Regards,  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   12:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds heavily influenced by the band Depressive Age
I recently heard this Technical/Progressive Thrash metal band called Depressive Age who's vocal and musical style greatly reminds me of SOAD, especially the bizarre vocal styling, albeit the music they mame is a lot more complicated, but it still reminds me greatly of it, have the band ever mentioned them as an influence? Their releases greatly predate them, and this reminds me a lot of that thing I heard that sounded like a ripped off Melody from an Emperor song used in one of there's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free2game365 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you find a source that explicitly claims that Depressive Age has had an influence on the band, sure, go ahead and add it with a ref. ;-)  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
How can you write Experimental rock in the infobox? Soad is a metal and hard rock group. We should delete experimental rock and add Hard rock in the infobox cause their music is described as it (many sources!). You can also call them Punk metal or Avantgarde metal but not experimental rock! That's totally wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.11.119 (talk • contribs)


 * They are experimental rock because they experiment with their sound, and use many unconventional lyrics. Why do you find it so hard to accept that. It seems you are more into the band for the image than the music.99.234.164.101 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

SoaD IS metal
The beginning of the article says System is a rock band. While there may be disputed about what type of metal SoaD is, they are clearly in the metal genre. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.36.149 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. This might be your point of view, but it is not shared by several significant groups, such as the underground metal community, who regard System of a Down more like an alternative rock act rather than a metal act. This can be seen in System of a Down's absence from Encyclopaedia Metallum, for example. In order to be neutral on the issue, the introduction says "rock band", rather than "metal band" for the following reason: metal excludes many of the other subgenres of rock, including alternative rock, while rock includes both metal and other rock subgenres, and System of a Down is clearly a rock band, which does not exclude metal from the picture. Putting metal would be non neutral for it only presents one opinion.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

style and influences - industrial?
I added industrial to the styles and influences list, pretty much just because of old school hollywood, but it got removed. I figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it.. but maybe one song isn't enough to justify adding a genre? Again, i figured it wouldn't hurt to mention it but i'll see if others agree so it won't keep getting deleted.. 70.106.116.118 (talk) 01:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, just a friendly reminder that new threads should go on the bottom of the talk page. I would have to agree that one song isn't really enough to mention influences on it, which is probably why it was removed. Of course, if you can find a reliable source that includes it, I wouldn't be opposed to it being in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

External link to System of a Down page on last.fm
Hello,

i would like to suggest an external link to System of a Down's last.fm page (http://www.last.fm/music/System+of+a+Down). Last.fm is a user generated music platform offering free legal contents such as music and videos. They have free streams of System of a Down albums, videos, stats, updated gigs listings about the band, etc.. As a member of last.fm staff i would like to point your attention to what we believe to be relevant and free contents for those wikipedia users interested in the band.

cheers,

Marco - Last.fm Staff - Mystical-bunny (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether or not the link is suitable under the external links policy, but if you are part of the staff there, then you need to ensure the SOAD bio is properly attributed as a mirror of Wikipedia, as it appears to be a word for word copy of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why..
..is the "Future and Possible Reunion" section written and structured like a horrible tabloid gossip column? Needs chopping up. 92.10.95.128 (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Liberal" Views
Why are their views named as liberal?! That's pathetic, they're not democrats for christ's sake! We all know they go further left than that! As much as RATMRevan ltrl (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They surely aren't conservative, are they? Their political songs clearly advocate Liberal positions, such as Prison Song, which denounces increasing the prison population, and is instead in favor or rehabilitation (this is a classic Liberal argument). And Liberal =/= Democrat. Also, new threads go on the bottom of the talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they aren't. I also know how the Democrats get blamed for being "liberal" by the more "conservative" people and just thought it'd clash with many's deranged views of the word (mainly caused by american media) and spoke out of heart, and I know Liberal =/= Democrat. Thanks for putting it on the bottom of the talk page, and good work in ridding all sense of sentience in your answer.Revan ltrl (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. Also, I'm not sure why you mean when you say that my reply has been ridden of the "ability to feel or perceive subjectively". The fact remains that SoaD holds many positions that can only be described as liberal, regardless of how the American media treats the word. Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what it means, that's why I used the word. Very appropriately, it seems like, since you fail in understanding why (?) I mean when I say it. Fair enough about the word 'liberal', but I don't understand how you can call a compliment uncivil? After all, isn't that what 'you' are striving for?Revan ltrl (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't use the word "sentience" correctly, hence my "failure" to understand it. Sentience is the ability of an object to "feel or perceive subjectively". My reply is a bunch of electronic 0s and 1s, so of course it can't be sentient. I, of course, am a sentient human being; perhaps you should re-consult your dictionary. As for my comment on your incivility, this whole thing about the so-called lack of "sentience" in my original reply is uncivil. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you are a sentient human being? Are you maybe a kindergarten teacher? Personally I find you sounding like a program with the ability to take offense. And btw, you wrote didn't in italic! Did it hurt? Now who's uncivil?Revan ltrl (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is over; if I see you make another uncivil comment, to me, or anyone else, I will not hesitate to block you. You have been warned repeatedly, both here and in the past. Cease and desist. Parsecboy (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Go aheadRevan ltrl (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Woah, where did this conversation go? One minute we're talking about System being liberal, the next an admin is being "insulted" for their lack of... sentience... apparently... ≈  The Haunted Angel  14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? Wikipedia is a totalitarian activity, which the "discussion" area constantly shows, with "admins" stressing and "correcting" every letter in what you've written for their own enjoyment, it seems like. Please block me, if you find this uncivil enough, can't seem to stop acting like a spoiled brat. Revan ltrl (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to offend anyone, but you both sound stupid arguing over a word. Can't you get over it? Koonboi (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which I hope the smart-ass also does. SOAD ftw! Revan ltrl (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's all kill each other over political views 216.8.133.237 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop Changing The Genre To Nu Metal
There is one only one definition of Nu Metal and It is Rap/Hip Hop Metal with Turntables. The only not very nu metal like band that can stay Nu Metal is Disturbed which Barely puts rap in their metal actually they is a little bit of hip hop in each album and they still are nu metal even though they don't have a Turntable.

These Bands are Nu Metal: Rage Against The Machine, Korn, Linkin Park, Kittie, Limp Bizkit, Crazy Town, P.O.D., Kid Rock, Papa Roach ,Adema, Slipknot, Insane Clown Posse and many many more. Plus all these bands are Awesome. Stop putting These Bands under Nu Metal: Fear Factory, System of a Down, Godsmack, Static X, SOil, Drowning Pool, Trapt, Breaking Benjamin and many many more. Plus all those bands are awesome too.

Cheers
 * Greetings. Of course, you have total authority over what is and what is not nu metal. I'm sure all of us should've thought of calling you to confirm that first. First of all, you are wrong (saying that the only definition of nu metal is using rap or hip hop elements with turntables is just plainly inaccurate); and second, you fail to get the point. Nu metal is there because numerous quality sources have described the band's work as such. End of story.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nu Metal is espouse to be Rap/Hip Hop Metal, Korn was the first metal band to use those features {other than Anthrax}. Korn than confirmed the name of their genre Nu Metal. Bands like Limp Bizkit went and made the only definition of nu metal which is rap/hip hop metal then the definition of the Genre was confirmed the genre that was espouse to recover metal from the Grunge scene. System of a Down has very little elements from the nu metal godfathers. A band is Nu metal if it take most of the elements from the godfathers of nu metal meaning System of a Down and many more ain't Nu Metal.
 * Again, you fail to get the point. What you think really doesn't matter at all. The nu metal genre has been used to describe System of a Down's style by several reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV for more info.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not defy all mighty wikipedia, and try to understand that the first time around someone like the loyal user Zouavman Le Zouave tries to explain that. And please, Zouavman Le Zouave, such brutal sarcasm is not seen fit in these halls of the wikipedia cathedral. Anything to further light. Revan ltrl (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys who cares about the sources they are just genres being disputed under arguement. Only System of a down can tell what genre they are and who cares if Serj Talkian works with Limp Bizkit's Fred Durst. So guys you want to know what genre System of a down considers themselves they consider themselves Alternative Metal and also Daron Malakian hates Nu Metal so guys stop changing the genre when Soad says that there genre is Alternative Metal and if they find out people consider them nu metal they won't be happy so guys the genre of this band comes from what they consider themselves, Period just stop people.


 * WP:V is non-negotiable; a number of reliable sources label SOAD as nu-metal, so it should be featured in the infobox. End of discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more sources that state Soad as alternative metal than nu metal and I have to say that many people don't consider Soad as Nu Metal look on amazon reviews of Soad albums because most of them don't call Soad nu metal. So here it is I win the talk period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While that may be the case that there are a significant number of sources that label the band as alt metal, they are not simply alt metal. Take a look at the sources provided earlier on this page. As I said above, there's no point to continue this debate; WP:V is quite clear in this situation. I've warned you once about continuing to revert the infobox, if you do it again, I will not hesitate to block you again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we put disputed next to Nu metal as no one knows what genre they are and Nu metal is argued by fans plus all the sources you are talking about are opinions from different websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because if we did it for nu metal, we'd have to put disputed tags next to each genre, because I'm sure there are those who disagree with each of them. Leave it to the text of the article to elaborate upon. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph
The intro paragraphs sound like they have been written by a 4 year old. Horrible choice of words, bad grammar. I can't even describe it. It needs changing. 99.234.164.101 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're 5 or older, you can go ahead and do it yourself. Good day.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Serj Tankian fuck Daron Malakian's girlfriend?
"Yeah. It'll feel good and happy. I can respect this situation [System's hiatus] more than I can respect the situation where two people are like, 'The lead singer fucked my girlfriend!' and that kind of bullshit. Nah, man. The lead singer is a special person to me and I am to him. And that's how we ended off. Same with Shavo, same with John. And it will always be. It was a big part of my life. We were onstage together for a long time, man. We went through shit as a band and friends -- we slept in RV's together!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.117.101 (talk • contribs)


 * No, Daron was just saying that the band going on hiatus is not for a stupid reason like "The lead singer fucked my girlfriend!". Parsecboy (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They are still very good friends outside of the band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casket56 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a Management Category to the template
Since the templates are protected, for music artists, is it possible to add another category for management companies similiar to the one for Labels? Ivygirl16 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

REFERENCE
The start of the list mentions that one of their songs takes on the Armenian Genocide, but fails to cite which song. If there is such a song, please put it in. Otherwise, take it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestCoastBlues (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To what exactly are you referring? The paragraph in the intro that mentions the Armenian Genocide? I'm not sure why the statement needs to have the song named specifically for it to remain in the article. It's perfectly fine as is. Parsecboy (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's almost perfect and fine. Revan ltrl (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it would make sense to have all the songs mentioned in that paragraph, I'd rather not single out just that one subject. As an example, "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989(Hypnotize)," seems appropriate. Rion2032 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Award section(Unaswered Section; Check This Part out!)
WHy don't they have an award section. They've won and been nomianted for grammy awards, in addition to other awards.

BTW I think a fair genre for them would be: Alternative Metal, Metal, Hardo Rock, Experimental, Experimental Metal..!!!!!NOT NU-METAL!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.27.9 (talk • contribs)

Nu metal
They may not be nu metal, but they're certainly pop metal. They're enjoyable to listen to but they are a band that any idiot can listen to.--Boshinoi (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Color commentary aside, have you any sources to back up your claim? Parsecboy (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Malakian Taking Over?
Even though I'm a big fan of music, I generally don't involve myself in the personal lives of the musicians I listen to. That being said certain things do spark my curiosity. I know that Tankian and Malakian, basically started the band. Looking at the credits, Tankian generally wrote the lyrics and Malakian wrote the music, save a couple songs where each of them is listed as a second respectively. In Toxicity Malakian is listed as secondary song writer in half the songs, with Tankian only contributing music writing to two. In Steal This Album! Malakian is listed as secondary song writer in over half the songs and as lead song writer in three of them. Serj once again is listed as secondary in the music writing of a only a few, and has primary listing on a couple, with Malakian having wrote most of the music as usual. With Mezmerize you suddenly see Malakian as the primary song writer for all the songs save one and Serj as the secondary writer in less than half, and Malakian still listed as the primary music writer as well. Hypnotize takes on a similar listing as Mezmerize with Malakian dominating the listing and Serj only having main credit with one song. Since I don't follow the band's dealings I am wondering if this has been explored and if it could possibly be a reason for System's hiatus? Looking at the fact that Serj went on to release a solo album of which he wrote all the songs and music for, I can't imagine his lack of input in System's later releases were out of a lack of want or inspiration. The article doesn't mention anything about the change in tactics, so I'm just wondering if it is something noteworthy that could be added to the article, regardless if it was the reason for the hiatus or not. Livingston 21:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aerials
"Aerials" was nominated in Grammy Awards of 2003 for Best hard rock performance.

Drug use?
I know for a fact that some of the members of system use marijuana and cocaine (seeing as i have partied with them) there are parts of their website that says that they use marijana and there songs hint at them using drugs such as cocaine and herione King gemini 92 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claims of personal observation aside, have ye any reliable sources? Parsecboy (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Serj claims on his website that he used maruijuana to increase his creativity and song writing skill, there are also several interviews where at least one of them is obviously high (see the uranium interview) and there are pictures of serj using a bongKing gemini 92 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that their drug use would probably be more appropriate on their individual biography articles. Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense, ill check that out, thanks King gemini 92 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Parsecboy (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

not nu-metal
i know im opening an old wound but system of a down is definetly not nu-metal. they are more progressive/alternative rock then they are nu-metal. Daron has even said in an interveiw that they do not consider themselves nu-metal. and i know the press has called them nu-metal a lot but the press was also calling every other band during that time nu-metal.Rothlain (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree with you Rothlain and i hope that the genre is changedAkuvn (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing you have to remember is that nu metal is more than just Limp Bizkit and Korn; bands like Staind, Godsmack, and yes, SOAD are all at least part of the nu metal genre. Odajdian said "I don't think we sound like anybody else. I consider us System of a Down"; if we go by what the bandmembers say, we end up with "System of a Down" in the field.
 * Tell you what, if you can find reliable sources that state explicitely that SOAD has been miscategorized into the nu metal genre and explain the differences, this discussion might go somewhere. But if all we have is more "I don't think they're nu metal" and "Daron doesn't like the label", that's not good enough; we're trying to buil an encyclopedia, afterall. Parsecboy (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SOAD not on the Eurovision Songcontest
SOAD is not going to participate on the Eurovision Song Contest, watch this video: http://www.faceculture.tv/index.php?cnti_key=11749658 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.224.123 (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Link
In the introduction, the link to metal is incorrect. It should be to metal music not the type of element. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.181.123 (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Lords of Acid and pre-Soil bands?
Does anyone have a reference to Serj playing keys for the Lords of Acid before Soil? Or that at this time he was going by "The Infamous Rab"? I'd also like to know if anyone knows anything about any of the members pre-Soil bands? I know Daron's first band at age 15 was one calle Snowblind (see Talk:System of a Down), but that's all. FallenWings47 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Armenian-American" really necessary ?
Couldn't we simply put it as "American rock band", since they are based in the USA, sing songs in English, and appeal to an American market. The only Armenian thing about them is their ancestry, and it is already dealt with later in the article. Can we keep the intro simple and simply put "American rock band" ?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
 * Appreciated. :-)  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I recently changed edits of them being an Armenian rock band as well. Skaterchild3 (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Genre
Just a quick explanation: I'm changing the genre section to properly reflect the sources currently given. If you look at the styles section, you'll see hard rock has 6 sources, nu metal has 3 and so does alternative metal. All others appear to have just one. The source consensus is thus fairly clear. It doesn't really matter what the editor consensus of the past may be: that's what the sources very clearly state, so that's what we report. If you wish to change this, all you have to do is find more reliable sources and add those. Prophaniti (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's funny how people are trying to put musicians and bands in boxes. When we can't label one as rock we have to put 2 or 4 or even more genres to identify just what the heck it is. It's all very confusing, and part demeaning. I bet the bands get a good laugh when we're trying So hard to put them in a specific box with 'the same' artists...

Oh and by the way I'm deleting the link to the guy stating that SoAD is progressive. What he is writing about is PROG, not progressive. Those are two different genres. Prog is mostly about politics, it's a quite old genre from the 60's or so when people began to engage themselves into politics thus creating a genre for that. Alas prog has not much to do with progressive music. Find a better link that states that 1. SoAD is progressive(metal) 2. SoAD uses a lot of odd time signatures (they don't have to it's just part of the progressive 'box') 3. Changes in tempo/time-signatures(during a song..) (also part of progressive music) 4. SoAD has concept albums (i.e. the songs in an album link to each other and not just randomly put together)5. Long songs (most progressive songs are over 3-4 minutes). For me, one of the most prominent features of progressive music is the full use of a keyboard player, not just atmospheric sounds but that the keyboardist can actually play the solo instead of the guitar player. DukeTwicep (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found two sources claiming "art metal". http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/16797401/review/16928118/elect_the_dead http://www.avclub.com/articles/serj-tankian,7464/--J.shellenbarger (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend checking about the second one on the reliable sourced noticeboard. I can't really tell from looking at it whether it's a reliable source. It might be, it might not be, I can't tell. The first is, so I'd suggest adding it into the "styles" section. Prophaniti (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See The A.V. Club. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Cheers. Looks like two fine sources for "art metal" then. Prophaniti (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources: Google News results for system+of+a+down+experimental include The New York Post, while system+of+a+down+prog includes The Miami Herald. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
 * As a sidenote, I feel that there's too much discussion of how to categorize the band rather than trying to improve the article's quality. I'd personally generalize things a little more than they currently are rather than trying to list specific genres. For example, a featured music biography, Frank Zappa, lists "Rock, jazz, classical, experimental". Couldn't the genres for System of a Down and its band members be summarized in a similarly simple fashion? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC))


 * With regards to sources turned up as the ones above, they look fine, so best include them in the styles section, then all we have to do is keep the "genre" field reflecting that appropriately. I'd like to stress that my current editing to the genre field here isn't actually what I'd put them as: I don't think hard rock is appropriate, but I think experimental/progressive rock is. It's just that's the way the sources are right now. But add in what you've turned up through the google news search, and we'll see how that changes the balance.
 * I can well see where you're coming from with the "genre" issue. There was a move a little while ago to remove the "genre" field from the template altogether. But I think the reason it didn't go ahead is because people felt that genre was still too important a part of what a band is, even if it does cause trouble. I feel that's much what applies here: putting something more general is good at times, but at the same time we should strive to be specific where possible. Really, it's easiest if people just stick to the sources: if a genre is well-sourced, we include it. If it isn't (but does have at least one reliable source), we can include it in the "styles" section, where we elaborate on it all. Prophaniti (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibaranoff24: could you add in the sources you've got for experimental rock, into the styles section? It may well be cited more often than hard rock or nu metal, but we need those visible to all in the article itself if we're going to include it in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there some kind of glitch with the page? When I actually look at it, it still says in the genre field "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal, progressive metal", but it says the last edit was to remove hard rock, and that's what appears when I say edit the page too. Prophaniti (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, the consensus has been long lasting and respected every recommendation on the English Wikipedia, particularly WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you have reliable sources qualifying the band as a progressive metal act, put it in the styles and influences section, not in the infobox. The infobox is balanced and concise, and the consensus has lasted for more than a year. Now we can look for a new consensus, but until a strong consensus is found, no edits should be made in the infobox genres. I hope I've made my positions clear.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   07:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have, but unfortunately it's still not a good enough position to warrant your changes. The fact of the matter is that consensus is only meaningful where it is in keeping with the core policies. One of those core policies is use of sources. As things are now, the sources are firmly saying "Alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal, progressive metal". I've no doubt the old consensus abided by the guidelines fine. But since then more sources have been added. Your argument is an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. It says "This is how things have been, that's how they should stay". But the page on consensus clearly states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because there's a consensus doesn't mean no one's allowed to change things. Fresh evidence has been brought to light, and you can't defend an old consensus that is now going against the basic policy of source use and representation (e.g. hard rock has the most sources, yet you're not including it in the infobox). Prophaniti (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently I haven't been clear enough. My argument was not an appeal to tradition, which is indeed a very overused fault in logic, but the following: more than a year ago, when several users worked hard to find a consensus despite their differences, the infobox genres were changing several times a day, with violent edit summaries, and the article's development was hindered by those edit wars; after a balanced consensus was put in place, it was found that the edit wars were less frequent and much briefer than before; a consensus involving constructive discussion and compromises will be more likely to bring stability to the article. I believe we should keep the article on the status quo until a new consensus is found, which I think we should do. In other words, let's discuss this, but let's leave the article as it is for now, for no consensus has been found to support eventual edits. Do you agree with this?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   11:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't, I'm sorry. I don't agree with the view that if something causes users to disrupt a page, it should be brushed aside and swept under the carpet. This argument has appeared on a number of pages where the genre causes certain users to change things, but I don't agree with it. Wikipedia isn't censored, and the basic premise there is that wikipedia doesn't dumb-down or change things just to make pages more stable. It reports what the sources say, and if certain users (mostly ones who don't fully understand how wikipedia works anyway) don't like that, then it is their problem, and it is up to other editors to maintain the page. Consensus, as useful as it can be, it ultimately still just editor opinion. It's the opinion of editors that, for example, hard rock shouldn't be included. But looking at the sources, it's very clearly the opinion of sources that it should be, and sources always outweigh editors.
 * I can understand what you mean, in that it would make for more stability. But it would make for much more stability still if we just removed the genre field altogether. Indeed, this very thing was suggested not so long ago, but it wasn't carried. If we still have a genre field, then it's up to us to make it accurate, even if some editors' personal POV doesn't match up with that. Prophaniti (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with the notion of consensus. In my mind, such a sensible edit would require strong consensus on the talk page. Without a consensus to back it up, the edit is illegitimate. I will enforce this on the article per WP:CON. Meanwhile, we should focus our attention on getting a strong consensus in the talk page. I'm not opposed to changes, I'm opposed to changes without consensus. I'd like to note the irony in your statements: you claim that Wikipedia is not censored, yet you suggest we should remove the genre content in the infobox because some people reject it. Now let's get working on that consensus. What do you think the genres mentioned in the infobox should be? You've mentioned hard rock before, and I am not opposed to its inclusion, but I'm guessing you have other opinions to share as well.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Irony? Removal? I'm not suggesting removing anything: the difference between my edit and yours is I'm adding hard rock and progressive metal. That's it.
 * And the reasoning is something that outweighs consensus, sorry: the sources. The sources very clearly indiciate hard rock and progressive metal as just as well sourced (if not better sourced) than the other genres. So we have to include them. There could be 1000 editors against this, and it still wouldn't matter, because the wikipedia core policies on verifiability and original research overule it. The point is, anyone who forms a consensus against the inclusion of those genres is directly violating these core policies. So any consensus in favour of keeping those genres out is breaking core guidelines.
 * The only real room for debate or discussion here is at what point do we draw the line: how many sources does it need to be included in the infobox? Since hard rock has the most, there's no question of whether that is included. Progressive metal has 4: more than alt. metal and nu metal, and as many as experimental rock. So if we exclude that, we must exclude those too. In a nutshell: the sources say hard rock and progressive metal. So we have to include these. There is no need for consensus on this particular matter, because the basic question would be "Do we abide by wikipedia's core policies or do we go against them?". And that's simply not a question worth asking here. Prophaniti (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that instead of helping to find a consensus, which is the best solution either way, you ramble about your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies. I'll simply end the vicious circle here and focus on the genre discussion, and to start off, I'll simply repeat my simple question : What do you think the genres mentioned in the infobox should be? Thanks in advance for answering this question and participating cooperatively in the search for consensus.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   11:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume by "rambling on" you mean "responding to my points and explaining your position fully". There isn't any room for interpretation here, it's absolutely crystal clear. Likewise, how did I not answer your question? I said that the only difference between our edits is I am adding in progressive metal and hard rock, you are removing them. So that is fairly obviously what I am proposing, and as I have explained, removing them is directly violating core policies. I'm happy to sit down and discuss and find consensus where it is necessary. But where things are this clear, there's simply no need.
 * For added clarity: my proposal is to have the genres as alternative metal, experimental rock, hard rock, nu metal and progressive metal. Reasoning: each of these genres has at least 3 sources, and so should be represented in the infobox field as a significantly sourced genre.Prophaniti (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making your points clear and constructive, this is just the discussion that we need. On my side, I think there is absolutely no need for 5 genres in the infobox. If we want to elaborate on the subject of style and influences, there is a section for that in the article, where we can list the sources and add references for verification. The infobox should give an overview. I would recommend about three genres in the infobox (not counting an eventual link to the style/influences section). What do you think about that?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm in fine agreement with that. While I feel that there's not much room for discussion on the issue of excluding better sourced genres in favour of others, I do feel it's perfectly fine to discuss the issue of having fewer genres in the infobox field. I agree, the infobox does not need to contain every genre the band is termed, especially with a band as varied as SoaD. Taking a look at those genres, in terms of simple numbers it would seem most logical to put it as experimental rock, hard rock and progressive metal. Prophaniti (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think nu metal be included in that trio. System of a Down has been an important act in the nu metal movement, and countless sources classify System of a Down as a nu metal band. I however have not heard many sources classify them as a progressive metal band. Maybe we need to establish which genres really do have more sources.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have recently noticed that you have been blocked for violating the policies on edit warring. I will naturally wait for you to be unblocked to continue the discussion, but no changes will be made to the article without a proper consensus in place. However, if you make edits violating the strong existing consensus, without having established a strong new one on this talk page, like you have done here, I will revert you and contact a user with administrative rights on this wiki for appropriate measure.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nu metal isn't actually a genre, though. Critics use that term for groups of bands that toured together. Thus, when SOAD winds up on tours with Korn, Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park and Slipknot, critics automatically assume that they are all part of the same genre. It's ridiculously insane. The term means nothing at all. It's really vague, and no one even uses the term anymore, except for metalheads who need a catchy phrase to bash bands that they dislike. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
 * And since The Metal Observer has been found to be unreliable, we can rule out its reviewers as an authority on the subject matter. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
 * You are one to talk about "authorities on the subject matter". Who are you to say that "Nu metal isn't actually a genre"? Musicologists agree on the fact that nu metal is a musical genre. It has its own musical characteristics, and it has been mentioned and featured on genuine and reliable "authorities on the subject matter". I'm talking about MTV, I'm talking about musicologists, I'm talking about scholars, etc. You have provided no basis on claiming that nu metal isn't a genre. You have provided no valid argument.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this really isn't the place to get into it, being that it doesn't relate to System of a Down, but my basis is that all of the bands attributed with the genre are dissimilar. Nu metal is literally defined as "some bands play this way although others don't and not all of the bands share these characteristics but they all played on Ozzfest". Every article on bands associated with the term has the discussion where some suggest that the band is not a part of a genre because the genre is defined a certain way, and that particular band doesn't perform that way, with others arguing that these musical aspects are not integral to the genre, and that there are other aspects defining the musicians as "nu metal". Musical genres are based in the specific arrangements of notes and performance styles in at least a connected method (though not every band in any given genre or style sounds alike). If every band within a supposed genre has completely different characteristics defining their sound, it is not a genre. Although many musical groups are hard to define, the musical components of an act have to be similar enough for a connected establishment of a musical genre. And MTV is not an authority on musical styles. MTV exists purely to sell product. They have long been a tool of youth marketing. They sell its younger viewers things that major labels want them to believe is 'hip' and 'edgy' and 'nu'. Thus, nu-metal. It's MTV-created marketing, not a legitimate genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

I've been reverting several changes to the Genre of SOAD. I find it rather humorous how anyone can consider them to be Folk. As for them being Nu metal, I've heard many times of them being nu-metal, althuogh I have no proof I would have no problem with that being added to the infobox. --Skater (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * System of a Down has a diverse range of influences. It's possibly fanboyism at work. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * In response to Ibaranoff24 long discourse, I will simply say that the nature and/or existence of the nu metal genre is totally irrelevant to the discussion on System of a Down and its genre displayed on the infobox. Believing in the non existence of a musical genre does not make it non existent. And considering many, many, many sources classify the band as nu metal, the genre should stay in the infobox. There was considerable amount of discussion on the subject, and the consensus was strong, backed up by active discussions, and your argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: "Nu metal" is the worst sourced out of all of the genres, and there was never any consensus between editors. And I'm fully aware of the fact that the argument has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But you were the one who asked for a valid argument against "nu metal" as a legitimate genre. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * You claim that it is the worst sourced genre, and yet you fail to provide evidence. You also claim claim that there never was any consensus between editors. However, in this very page, section, you will find the very discussion that led to the coming to the latest consensus. Do not edit the section without a new consensus; rather, spend your time on discussion to find a new consensus. If you refuse to discuss and would rather edit the article in a way that does not respect consensus, I will contact a user with administrative rights on this wiki for appropriate response. Regards,  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Nu metal" has two citations. Previously, it had three, but one of those was removed, because the source had been found to be unreliable. "Hard rock" has six citations. "Experimental rock" and "progressive metal" each have four citations. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Just because it is the less sourced of their Genre doesn't necesarrily mean it's not true. I will attempt to find more sources --Skater (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since Ibaranoff24 is unable to respect consensus by reverting edits that support an existing consensus, I'll be the smarter one and not revert him, keeping a version not supported by any user decision what so ever. First off, I'll just disprove Ibaranoff24 on the point that there are not sufficient reliable sources that classify SoaD as nu metal.
 * I'd just like to say in response to this: what? "Unable to respect consensus"? "I'll be the smarter one"? The first statement is nonsense, the second statement is an all-out attack (that "you're wrong if you don't agree with me" argument). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Enough sources state SoaD is nu metal:
 * Comment — Link is broken. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Comment — Link is broken. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Those are sufficient numbers of renowed and reliable sources that see the band as a nu metal band for the genre to appear in the infobox. Can we please accept the fact that nu metal deserves it place on the infobox, and stop this capricious struggle to get it off the list?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   12:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you seem to believe that there is a consensus where none exists. It's ridiculous to insist otherwise when it's clear that the opposite is true. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Completely agree with Zouavman on this one, Nu metal is not only an actual genre but also one of System. --Skater (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated previously, many bands were classified as "nu metal" in the late-1990s/early 2000s. That doesn't mean that it's accurate or more valid than other classifications. Look at Incubus - they started out as being tagged as "nu metal", but are no longer described as such. It's very clear that many bands were classified as nu metal for no other reason than the fact that they toured together. It's pretty obvious when you read the rantings of metalheads who believe that Ozzfest is "nothing but that nu-metal crap". More recent, neutral coverage of the band does not refer to System of a Down as "nu metal", but alternative metal, experimental rock, and progressive metal. As far as "nu metal" being an actual genre, I've given a very valid explanation as to why it is not a legitimate genre. MTV, PR firms (information provided by record labels who want to label its acts with any trendy term to sell their product) and some guy on the Internet (the random websites like Metal Observer) are not authorities on the genres of musical acts. Where has PopMatters, for example, been cited as a definitive source of musical knowledge? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * First off, the consensus has been on this very page, and the page has been stable for more than a year, which illustrates the strength of the consensus. You are unilaterally deciding that the consensus is not good enough, and you switch the version without coming up with consensus on this talk page. Fine. I'll let you edit the article as you wish until consensus is found. Second, you bring up the quality of the sources in the musical field. Those four sources I have just cited are much more reliable in the musical world than those used to source progressive metal as the band's genre. Those four sources used for progressive metal are : The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, and Rolling Stone. The latter is a perfectly valid source in the topic of music, I'll grant you that. But The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the Miami Herald are not sources renowed for their accuracy when it comes to music. They are great news sources, but they have much less authority than other sources when it comes to music. Third, we as Wikipedia editors are no one to judge on whether or not a source is neutral or not, at least not on musical genres. So far, I don't see any valid reason to include progressive metal instead of nu metal. When are you going to accept that you are alone to argue this point?  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so the PR Newswire is more reliable than content not written by individuals affiliated with the content's distribution? Critics and writers for the Post, Tribune and Herald approach the music with an unbiased opinion, whereas public relations content promotes opinions that a corporation wants people to think. When "nu metal" was widely used, Columbia used that term a lot in connection with System of a Down in promotional material. When the term dropped off and System remained popular, the use of the term in connection to the band dropped off. Daron even commented in an interview that when the band started out, they were compared to Korn and Limp Bizkit and called 'nu metal', but when the popularity of those acts declined, the usage of 'progressive' to describe the band's music increased. I don't know where you get the idea that there is a consensus. The "nu metal" term has long been disputed. Every archive page refutes the idea that System of a Down were nu metal. The 'consensus' you claim is not real. And it's ridiculous to end your response to me by using terms like "when are you going to accept that you are alone", as if to talk down to me as if I am inferior for not sharing your view. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm a bit late to this argument discussion and am having trouble figuring out where the concensus lies from this string. May I suggest that someone more familiar with the history of this discussion list the genres in question. Then the different sides put a brief argument for and against each and then allow all interested editors to vote one way or the other. J04n(talk page) 12:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to J04n : I agree with you that arguments need to be more brief. According to the statistics of this talk page, I have been part of the discussions on this band's genre for about two years, my first edit being on April 25th, 2007. Considering the current argument discussion is mainly composed of exchanges between Ibaranoff24 and myself, perhaps another user experienced in this discussion should point out which sections represent the community consensus. But considering I am already here, I will point out the sections, , and . I would like to point out that following the coming to consensus on the genres to be displayed in the infobox, this aspect of the article was stable, much rarely edited, and much less argued on the talk page, and so for more than a year. In contrast, before consensus, the arguments were frequent, the reverts were unending, and the discussions heated. As I have said before, I am open to discussion, but consensus must be reached before editing the article. In response to Ibaranoff24 : it seems to me that you are advocating a conspiracy theory about how the musical press conspires against System of a Down to label them as a nu metal band. This is not backed up by any evidence, and I find this claim ridiculous. In a discussion on musical genres, the musical press is a better qualified authority than the general news press. I do not see why you persist on arguing that. In addition, you accuse me on my talk page of personal attacks and "treat [you] as being of lower intelligence". I do not see where I have made personal attacks on you or your intelligence in those discussions. As I aim to respect the Wikipedia policies and recommendations, I comment on content, not on the contributor. In response to the direction the discussion is headed : let's summarize our arguments and sources, for the sake of time and energy. I am sick and tired of going through those debates over and over again with editors who seem to refuse the fact that a band is labeled a specific musical genre. Let's get it over with and let's reach a consensus, and let's cooperate instead of accusing one another.  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never made any statement regarding a "conspiracy theory". The only statements I made was that major recording labels love "hip" buzzwords, and "nu-metal" was a product of that, and some critics used to classify bands based on who they would tour with rather than their actual musical style. I have looked through the past discussions, and the advocates for "nu metal" being placed within System of a Down's genres offer no rationalization for the genre being placed as such. In fact, the first referral of the group as "nu metal" is from an anonymous editor who claims that System of a Down is nu metal "because that's what they are, end of story". I'm seeing a lot of this attitude in every argument made in favor of the genre, though not in those exact words. As far as sources go, I've seen no evidence that PopMatters is an authority on musical genres, and the Press Relation News Firm reports what the record labels want them to report. Thus, System of a Down performs in a hot new buzzword from 2001 rather than a legitimate musical genre. And didn't you try to have an article that was not related directly to the band cited? The insistance of System of a Down as nu metal reminds me of when they used to call Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention psychedelic rock just because the band was performing in the same period as Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead, yet had no stylistic connection to such bands. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Semi-Important fact
The bands song "War" was featured in the Playstation game Apocalypse.

How may this be incorporated into the article without using a Trivia section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rion2032 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for it at all it's basic trivia and I see no point and starting one-Skater (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe my statement/question was misread. I already know Trivia sections in Wiki are taboo. There are other small tidbits that can be added, the example I gave was one of them. Now if someone of intelligence would contribute, I'd appreciate it.Rion2032 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)