Talk:List of nu metal musical groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Headline text

[edit] Proposal #2

Why don't we improve the nu-metal list and distinguish between "instigators", "progenitors" and just "nu-metal bands" just like the nu-metal article does? I believe by just listing the bands undifferentiated we are passing out on some useful information that could be included here.. --Johnnyw 20:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm up for that. --Danteferno 18:07, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Great! Since I am not a pro concering nu-metal, please take at the current revision and correct me if I am wrong. What I did now is, I simply followed the main nu-metal article and afterwhards removed any double entries from the list. Hope that helps.. --Johnnyw 12:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I think this was a very helpful, positive addition (like a lot of Johnny's contributions).--Cassius987 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion

After careful consideration of the points below (as well as those mentioned in the nu-metal article) facts reasonably point to Tool being a nu-metal band based on the musical structures, their influencing of other nu-metal bands, and that these nu-metal bands have notable musicianship that originated from Tool's sound.

At this time, Metal-Observer.com, AllMusic.Com, "Nu-Metal" (a nu-metal guitar tablature book at the reputable Guitar Center stores) as well as "Nu-Metal: The Next Generation of Rock & Punk, by Joel McIver" refer to Tool as a nu-metal band. In addition, Canada's Radio Station 102.1 "The EDGE", and Tool fans have labeled the group with the category as well.

This being said, I would like to hear arguments from those who don't think Tool is a nu-metal band and why. If Tool are progressive rock or progressive metal, I would like to know how they are similar to other progressive rock or metal bands. While Dream Theater fans may also listen to Tool, Eminem fans may also listen to Sublime, etc.

I also plan on putting a neutrality dispute on the Tool definition page itself, as it is obviously more of a fansite made by those who really like the band, rather than a non-biased informative. It also seems whenever someone mention's Tool's strong connection to nu-metal on the page it is quickly reverted. I feel this is more based on the controversy and reputation of nu-metal, rather than the truth. Do voice opinions. Danteferno 18:45, Jun 22, 2005 (GMT)

I don't think neutrality on the Tool page is going to be an issue. Most of its watchdogs are very reasonable and logical guys. If you have something about Tool that is being neglected there, you should definitely mention it. This whole nu-metal issue was started as vandalism by a non-registered editor, at least if memory serves, and I was the one who came along and replaced nu-metal with metal (I admit doing so was in poor taste, and I had to look up nu-metal recently to figure out how wrong of me it was). I'll say for now that Tool can be classified as many things, and nu-metal is not unreasonable. The reason that Tool fans fear that label is because they think it limits the way people will see the band, when in fact they believe Tool to be much more broad than most nu-metal... but that does not make them not nu-metal. Anyways, Dante, I'm with you on this one. Don't slam too hard on the Tool page just because of this little incident.--Cassius987 04:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
The page has been overhauled since I posted this 2 months ago (and put a NPOV dispute on the page) but the Tool article still smacks of a fanpage-styled biography. I could go on with many examples of this. I digress, many band articles on Wikipedia are plagued with this problem, but the Tool page is definitely "up there". This is basically a case of individuals being so absorbed with a particular subject that there is no respect given to moderation. Let's be honest: Tool (along with Korn, Deftones, Rage Against The Machine)were influences and progenitors of the nu-metal genre. This is not intended to put the band in a negative light. There is no mention of them being a "bad" band. It's just a fact. That said, why do you feel they have nothing to do with nu-metal? --Danteferno 20:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who did the overhaul of the Tool pages, along with a lot of help from Cassius and others, so of course I would like make some comments regarding your statement. If you have followed the developement of the Tool page over a period of time, I hope you agree with me that the pages have been made a lot more informative and NPOV in comparison to earlier versions. Although I am a Tool fan, and because of that not only spend some of my already sparse time going through Board-archvies, FAQs and such to research for a fact-based biography and article ;) but am of course biased. Still I am committed to neutrality, as are my co-editors of that page. There have been insightful and fruitful revisions of the Tool article regarding NPOV before and _after_ the overhaul. While rearranging/-writing the article, I considered other related articles I've read (allmusic's bio, bill hicks' bio, interviews) and tried to let events and the band speak for themselves using citations and so forth. The nu-metal controversy was unnoticed by me until recently. I am strongly in favor in pointing out the fact that Tool obviously has had some impact on nu-metal bands. And I oppose revising the article by changing the leading description of "American rock band" into something a lot more misleading, since the following citations surely are more descriptive than any narrow category could be. But since you asked very specific questions above, you deserve an answer after reading my quite extensive statement here..
  • Is Tool nu-metal?
I believe it depends on the definition of nu-metal. After reading the nu-metal article it becomes quite clear that the definition is not only fuzzy at best, but can be quite contradictive. It also points out quite clearly, that a lot of nu-metal bands used some of the stylstic means Tool uses, especially Keenan's way of singing. Like with many other musical styles, this is always a case when a new form of music is invented or developes. When Ray Charles took gospel songs and turned them into rhythm and blues or Led Zeppelin mixed Blues with heavy distortion and heavy percussion, they defined something new. So when nu-metal artists use means that Tool used, they do not necessarily make the same style of music. They are of course related but not the same.
  • Is Tool progressive metal?
Well, the are playing heavy metal, which I hope is undisputed. Why are they progressive? Well first of all, their roots are heavily founded in progressive rock: there are numerous interviews pointing out Rush as influenve among others. Secondly, progressive rock just defines artists, who "sought to move away from the limitations of popular rock and pop music format" (stop motion animation music videos, DVDs and websites and a lot of visual art, long time online community), progressive metal describes music with "complex compositional structures, odd time signatures" (the entire Lateralus album is filled with examples, as the allmusic-review agrees), while progressive music in general can be defined as "(1) moving forward; advancing. (2) proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change." which fits of course quite well since the definition is pretty unrestricting.
I have to disagree with this. I don't doubt who they cited as influences (Pink Floyd, Rush, etc). However, I don't think their sound neccessarily meets the critera of "progressive metal". While allmusic.com categorizes them as such, they are also categorized as "Alternative Metal", which has been applied to bands more widely termed as nu-metal (Linkin Park, Korn, Limp Bizkit, Deftones, etc.). Most of the compositions in Tool's songs don't rely (or rely much) on the guitar/bass technicality or solos that bands undisputedly a part of the genre have (i.e. Opeth, Fates Warning, etc.) and overall seems pretty simplistic (not to imply bad, though). Percussionwise, perhaps, but I think "experimental" is more fitting than "progressive." --Danteferno 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Please take a look at the definition of experimental music, which really doesn't fit as well as progressive metal does... And let's read some other opinions, since I obviously couldn't convince you.
Aenima review, allmusic.com: "For their third release, Tool explore the progressive rock territory previously forged by such bands as King Crimson"
Lateralus review, allmusic.com: "Make no mistake, this is a prog rock record [...]. Complex rhythm changes, haunting vocals, and an onslaught of changes in dynamics"
Lateralus review, rollingstone.com: "In another era, Lateralus [...] would have been considered progressive rock [...]. The only things separating Pink Floyd's spacewalk "Echoes" [...] and the twenty-two-minute sequence of "Disposition," "Reflection" and "Triad" on Lateralus are thirty years [...]."
AP article, 1997, about Aenima: "it's a harrowing collection of atmospheres and musical tributaries that doesn't fit into tidy little slots like "metal" or "alternative," or the grandfather of all musical categories used when your songs run over five minutes, "progressive.""
All summed up, I'd stick to plain old "rock", like the article does. The categories at the end are for orientation purposes and to see close ties between the music of Tool, Dream Theater, Opeth and such is not very far fetched. --Johnnyw 14:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Johnny, I have to say you're handling all of this with a very articulate nature that I appreciate. And Dante, to respond to your comment that Tool doesn't rely heavily on guitar/bass and that their lines are simplistic, I just want to recommend that you listen to Tool some more. That is a mistake that I used to make as well. While Tool's guitar and bass are not in the same vein as Rush (i.e. solos), just as you have said, their technique is certainly anything BUT simple. As a bassist, a guitarist, and a violinist for 8 years, I feel I am at least semi-qualified to cite Tool as a very accomplished musical act on all fronts (speaking in terms of technique), very much including guitar and bass. If you play either instrument, try playing any of their recent work faithfully. Not just the main chords, not just the impression of the song. Try to play the entirety of one entire part--if it helps, gauge it off of a live video (that usually helps me where my ear fails). The truth is, each instrumental member of Tool, perhaps Justin Chancellor most of all, is almost constantly doing much more than automatically "meets the ear", not because we don't hear it but because it just isn't typical and we don't assume that it's all from 1 player on 1 track. Or as I have done before with their early material, some people simply dismiss background noise for the sake of the metal/arguably nu-metal aspect of the music. Again, there is a lot more going on than the vast majority of people have realized, as I have noted countless times in myself and fellow musicians. Don't believe me? Just do me a favor, and try listening to a Tool song about 5 times in a row through a good sound quality player and a good sound source. You will be even further enlightened (exponentially so) if you attempt to play a full track on the guitar or bass. I don't mean to just keep talking, but a good example is Forty-six & 2. I have taught the song to several friends who, despite their best efforts, just didn't realize all of the awesome changes in tone and rhythm that occur very subtely throughout the song. Things like that define Tool.
Thanks for listening to me blather on some more. I hope we can both come to terms with each other's way of thinking because I feel we both have things to grow in ourselves on this subject (and surely many others).--Cassius987 00:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My conclusion: what should we label Tool as?
Why not stick to what we've got? Tool is listed as Tool | American musical groups | Rock music groups | 1990s music groups | American heavy metal musical groups | Alternative musical groups | Progressive rock groups. The article just reads "American rock band" and goes on to quote several independent sources. This is not only neutral but quite informative as well and at the same time discards of the need of a maybe misleading yet narrow label. And regarding this list, please refer to my proposal above. --Johnnyw 19:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm totally with Johnny here. I've worked with him since the beginning of my stay with Tool article and he's always sought information and neutrality over the making of a fan page, just as I have. If Tool's page "smacks of fandom" or whatever, is it because there's a reading list? A trivia section? Frankly I don't see what the problem is with either of those sections, unless you are upset that they are more novel sections, in which case I will agree with you that yes, they are novel. They certainly AREN'T biased sections... everything in those sections is ridiculously straightforward. If there is bias in the history or biography, you ought to point out to us some specific examples, so that we can work together to correct it.
Like Johnny said, the nu-metal issue was NOT an issue of my notice until very recently. Frankly I think Tool's role in the nu-metal genre is EXTREMELY debatable, but what the article says is that they have influenced nu-metal. That's an inarguable truth. We don't need to mess with this anymore.
It may just be the terse language of the internet, but, Dante, you seem a bit too agressive about this subject to me. At least, it doesn't seem justified to me yet, your perceived agression, because I'm still not sure exactly what it is "smacking around" in the article that makes it so biased. Unless you actually do take the time to explain your ideas to me, I fear we will remain a little at odds in determining the neutrality of the Tool page. I want very much to neutralize the page if there is bias there, but I can't make it out yet. It seems to me like you're just taking into account the intense amount of information the page provides and deciding that the article is therefore run by a bunch of sycophant fans who have no regard for the truth... but the way I see it, the page is very truthful.
Am I just way off base here? You're going to have to explain how you feel to me or I won't have a good place to argue from. And for the last time, the nu-metal issue is not an issue anymore. --Cassius987 00:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to recommend to restrict the discussion here to the List of nu-metal only and discuss any details regarding the Tool article at the tool page, otherwise some contributors and/or reads might miss out on some relevant disussions. --Johnnyw 14:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely Biased List

This has to be one of the most biased lists I've ever seen. MrHate merely made a list of bands he considers nu metal, yet when someone else considers one of the bands he likes nu metal (a genre he obviously dislikes), he gets mad.

I fail to see how bands like Static-X (who even Blabbermouth doesn't consider nu-metal, and Blabbermouth isn't exactly ignorant to metal information), Coal Chamber (who I don't even like, but I hardly consider them nu-metal), Spineshank and Slipknot (another band that I don't like) are nu-metal. I'm sorry, but this is just an unprofessional slam-list created by an opinionated person. You have to look no further than MrHate's userpage (under "Bands of exceptional interest") to see this.

enfestid 04:21, Jun 21, 2005 (CST)

Definitely in agreement with you on MrHate. If there was ever a jury call in his town it would be an embarrassment if his phone number was the one picked. Whether one likes Tool or not, almost all agree that they are either nu-metal or have influenced nu-metal in some way. Others use the ridiculous straw man arguments (like MrHate) by insisting that those who don't have the same opinion either don't understand the music or have no intelligence. (In other words, denial.) A 10-year-old could come up with more grown-up tactics.

Then again, what could be expected from someone who thinks a brain-damaging controlled substance is God?

Danteferno 18:06, Jun 21, 2005 (CST)

I agree that Tool have influenced nu metal. I'm not debating that. My point is lots of bands have influenced nu metal (Black Sabbath for one). It just doesn't make them nu metal. Also, please check Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. MrHate 02:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're referring to Dante on the "personal attacks", because all I did was call you opinionated, which I don't exactly think you'd argue, considering you created this list.
And, you're right... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. So, why aren't you keeping your biased, fan-based opinions to yourself? This list is only your opinion, through and through. I stand by my original sentiments that at least 5 to 10 of the bands on this list are not nu-metal, and are no more so nu-metal than Tool are.
enfestid 02:52, Jun 21, 2005 (CST)
"I agree that Tool have influenced nu metal. I'm not debating that." Actually, you have debated that. Any Wikipedia article that mentions Tool as influencing or being associated with nu-metal you revert back and then post something to the effect of "Tool have nothing to do with nu-metal." As for personal attacks, you should really look back at some of the stuff you have written to other people on the site before you enforce the site's disclaimer as if it was your own. (Which also requires something called neutrality.)

Danteferno 19:45, Jun 21, 2005 (CST)

Sorry if I've offended at all but I think perhaps you may be targetting me because of the current Tool arguement? I made a fairly small list of nu metal bands to start with and others have elaborated on that. Most of the bands on there at the moment I've never heard of. I also don't remember "getting mad". Spineshank I've never heard, and would of course never add or remove from the list. Slipknot are obviously nu metal, and saying they're not is as absurd as saying Tool are nu metal. I don't remember ever adding Static-X although it's possible I did. What I've heard of their music sounded pretty nu metal to me. To make this clear, I very rarely add bands to this list (if ever) but I DO remove ones that I don't think are nu metal. Usually only System of a Down as the topic of their genre vs. nu metal is well documented on their own article and, at least in the scope of Wikipedia, it's generally accepted that they are Alternative metal.
I'm kind of confused as to why you think it's a biased list? If anyone has any problems with edits, they should talk about it on the talk page, not just wait a while and then attack someone on the talk page. MrHate 23:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am not a Slipknot fan at all (I hate them, in fact), but they are absolutely not nu-metal. To say that they "are obviously nu metal" is quite possibly the most asinine statement I've heard in quite a while. It's generally accepted that Slipknot is either metal (or "grindcore" or whatever you want to call it, but it's still a sub-genre of metal) or hard rock.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that Slipknot "are obviously nu metal" in the eyes of those who dislike their music and consider them inferior music. If Slipknot is obviously nu metal, SOAD obviously is too, and I like SOAD.
And, lastly, it is a biased list. How so? You edit out all the bands you like (Tool and SOAD) that someone else adds! You guard the list extremely furiously, and then say no more edits will be allowed unless they're discussed in the talk page. A bit of a control freak, are we not? This obviously shows that you want to have total control of the list, and only the bands you consider nu metal (or just dislike) are going to be there. No offense, but this list is an insult to an encyclopedia site. Opinion lists don't belong here.
please, never use the words grindcore and slipknopt even in the same paragraph. slipknot is in no way grindcore. grindcore has no mainstream popularity while slipknot, on the other hand, is preety mainstream, which is on of the reasons theyre considered nu metal. grindcore is bands like anal cunt, napalm death etc, definately not slipknot. one of the main reasons i think slipknot is nu metal is their fanbase and how they refer to themselves as "maggots" and the fact that they where masks and stuff. Burger king 02:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
enfestid 03:01, Jun 21, 2005 (CST)
I've taken them out because I (and a lot of other people) do not agree that Tool are nu metal. I'll admit that System of a Down border on the nu metal lines (especially with Mezmerize) but are generally not considered nu metal. I've been through this arguement before on the SOAD article. These are the only two bands I've removed, and if I didn't, someone else would have. Speaking of asinine statements, grindcore is unrelated to Slipknot (and most people will tell you it has little to do with metal). Slipknot has rap style vocals and a DJ/turntable scratching combined with simple back and forth riffs. They are a text book example of nu metal.
I added the "do not edit this page without consulting the talk page" because I was stopping a revert war. It's Wikipedia policy.
Finally, I just want to add that I don't think "nu metal" equates to "bad metal". There are a lot of innovative nu metal bands that I like (Deftones, Mudvayne and even the first Slipknot album) but unfortunately, the term is now considered a slur, and this is where our problems are coming from. MrHate 23:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree regarding it being a slur, and in my opinion, it is not a true genre, just a label (I think originally used to discribe a new wave of bands in the 90s). And from what I can see, mainly used by people who dislike the band they're calling nu-metal, some bands on this list I love, some I get headaches from, but I don't call/considering them nu-metal, most can fit into a genuine genre other than heavy metal (nb. rock). I would really question your judgement if you consider the first Slipknot album nu-metal, it may contain an element or two, but it's nothing compared to anything else considered nu-metal. 21:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Slipknot sound more like Korn than Deftones, Linkin Park or Limp Bizkit. I don't know anyone who doesn't consider them nu metal, including ther fans. They might have some mildly more interesting musical structures and wear masks, but that doesn't make them a different genre (for the record, calling Slipknot "grindcore" is about as accurate as calling Korn black metal, and calling grindcore metal is about as accurate as calling post-punk "R'n'B"). Same goes for Static-X, no real cause for argument there other than that they have some atypical death metal influences. --Switch 12:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Look the genres listed in the slipknot albums. They are Nu Metal. Slipknot should be here. It doesn´t matter that they say that they are "metal metal", they are nu metal

[edit] Dispute

An anonymous user is insistant that Tool should be considered a nu metal band and included on this list. We need to reach a consensus about the issue as this is turning into a revert war. I'll be the first to say that Tool are not nu metal. One can determine that fact simply by reading the Tool (band) article and the nu metal article. I've noticed the user has also edited other articles and added the same Tool/Nu metal comments (however he/she has stayed away from the Tool article itself). Please post so we can resolve this without taking it further. MrHate 05:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Tool is not nu metal. I think Tool (band) puts it quite nicely:
Their music includes elements of heavy metal, progressive rock, psychedelia, and art rock. Indicative of their various influences (King Crimson, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and Rush among them), Tool's music features a firm grasp of musical structure and unconventional time signatures
Of course I would be happy to hear 67.150.235.40's musical arguments to the contrary. —BenFrantzDale 07:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there seems to be many instances that point Tool out as a "fringe" nu-metal band. If you take a look at the nu-metal article someone noted quite elaborately how Tool influenced many bands in the genre. www.Metal-Observer.com (whose reviews I trust) consider Tool as a nu-metal band, and there is even a tablature book called "Nu-Metal" at the Guitar Center franchises where Tool is mentioned. If anything, the only thing that should be reverted/edited is the Tool page itself, as the content is obviously more opinionated than it is neutral or informative, coming off as a sort of "Tool" press release. (And when I say edit, I don't mean to change the genres that are mentioned to nu-metal.) Danteferno 07:10, June 21, 2005 (GMT)
What you are failing to elaborate on is your reasons for thinking that Tool is nu metal. Listening to what other people think does not count as a reason. MrHate 23:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
"My reason?" More like other peoples. You seem to think that only one person disagrees with you on this matter. A truly selfish (and dense) mindset. Perhaps you should do a little research on your band and the genre which it is being connected to and stop basing the argument on personal essay. Danteferno 17:36, June 21, 2005 (GMT)
My arguement is based on the fact that Tool's song structure and instrumentation share nothing in common with nu metal. At the moment, only one person does disagree with me. MrHate 01:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Per the first paragraph of the nu-metal page, nu-metal is defined as having "rhythmic innovation and syncopation, aggressive vocals (...shouted or sung), drop tuned guitars, a funk-based rhythm section, and sampling". In what way does Tool not fit this criteria? Danteferno 19:36, June 21, 2005 (GMT)
I'd say the "rhythmic innovation and syncopation, aggressive vocals (...shouted or sung), drop tuned guitars" is applicable to most kinds of metal, wouldn't you agree? Tool don't have a funk-based rhythm section or sampling. MrHate 23:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
If that is the case, then why does the nu-metal article even exist? Danteferno 17:14, June 22, 2005 (GMT)
I'm in disagreement with the presence of some bands like System Of A Down, American Head Charge and Static-X being on that list. Perhaps we could differenciate and list bands which contain [i]some[/i] elements of nu-metal, but as a whole aren't nu-metal, to avoid future disputes and inaccurate labelling of certain bands? Faith No More influences don't make a band nu-metal, contrary to popular belief. A-Thousand-Lies 13:46, August 14, 2005

[edit] Proposal

Nu metal is a very controversial term, I think. I recommend only adding bands to this list with a citation. For example, if allmusic and metalobserver disagree on whether or not to classify Tool as nu metal, we note that metalobserver calls them nu metal and allmusic does not (or whatever the case may be). We can each argue about what the "proper" definition of nu metal is, but in the end, in order to follow the WP:NPOV policy, we need to attribute opinions to those who hold them. Tuf-Kat 23:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, AllMusic.com labels Tool as Alternative Metal, which has been applied to nu-metal bands that either have limited or no rap influences. (Which I think Tool would fit, because nu-metal does not always equal rap-metal.) In addition, KoЯn, Deftones, Godsmack and Rage Against the Machine are listed as "similar" artists to Tool on AllMusic.com, and there are no bands that are listed (or would fit categorically) as "progressive rock" or "progressive metal" (Which is the genre cited by Tool fans.) As the nu-metal article stated, Tool do sound "different" compared to other nu-metal bands, but their musicianship is clearly of a nu-metal structure.Danteferno 17:46, Jun 22, 2005 (GMT)

[edit] System of a Down

To the anonymous editor (69.111.53.212) who continues adding System of a Down to this list: please stop adding it! It is not a nu metal band. I know they have influenced it, but they likely never played it, as according to the talk page. You are making good contributions, yes, but for System of a Down, no. You just visit the talk page and then we'll stop removing it. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What they play then if not nu metal? They sound totally like Korn wannabees and Korn is a very definition of nu metal!  Grue  05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Korn's vocals are angst-ridden, and Jonathan Davis sounds like he's about to break out crying at any moment. They're also influenced by hip hop and their songs follow the same general, very simple, format. System of a Down, while not displaying an astounding level of technical proficiency, nevertheless showcases of a disparate variety of influences that do not include hip hop. System of a Down songs are often political in nature, and do not turns to issues of the self and angst. Furthermore, while most nu-metal follows a predictable pattern, System of a Down is often unpredictable, with random time signature changes and other eccentricities. --Dalkaen 07:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Stop being idiots! SOAD are Nu-Metal! Read the first paragraph of the Nu-Metal stub, and STFU. And yes there are hip-hop influences, e.g Chop Suey. The only reason people won't have them as Nu-Metal, is because they are too cool to listen to Nu-Metal. Everyone in the Nu-Metal scene says they are, everyone else minus half of their fans who are "too cool" to listen to Nu-Metal say they are. So SOAD = Nu-Metal. GET OVER IT! - mat35
I personally don't see SOAD as nu-metal. They have toured with nu-metal bands and are influenced by the same bands as most nu-metal bands, but their sound is not nu-metal. There is no hip-hop influnce, DJs, etc. La Pizza11 23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not a fan of System Of A Down, but I believe that SOAD are not nu metal in their fans eyes because Serj Tankian is much less hateful than Mike Shinoda of Linkin Park.
I say SOAD are not nu metal. Like everyone else is saying, they have no hip-hip influence, their lyrics arn't about childhood etc. In my opinion if SOAD was anything its Heavy Humour, listen to Vicinity of Obscenity, She's Like Heroin, Cigaro, Radio/Video, Old School Hollywood, Chic 'n' Stu, Pictures, Fuck The System, Sugar, Ddevil, Bounce and Arto (hidden track after Aerials on their Toxicity album) and you'll get what I mean. What I'm trying to say is there's no real hate in their music generally. The band's songs might be political alot of the time but they're fun (I used to think the high-pitched voice of Daron was a female) - Catch Phrase
I don't think SOAD is nu metal - I simply refer to them as alternative metal. However, I re-did the list so a band such as SOAD would be left on their. Not everyone is going to agree with the list, and half of those bands listed I wouldn't consider as being nu metal. But there are those who do consider SOAD nu metal, and hence, they should be on the list that says "Bands arguably considered as nu metal". Fact is, people can argue SOAD are nu metal, and personal opinion shouldn't have influence over the list. Just my point of view! -- Dmiles21 17:42, July 28, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer

I added a 'disclaimer'... trying to make a hard and fast list of a loosely subjective thing (like a musical genre) is pointless.

I just think it's probably better to not say 'hey all these bands ARE nu-metal as they're on this list'. I don't consider SOAD and Static-X nu-metal, but a load of people do so I reckon it's better to just leave them on the list and let people make up their own minds.

Maybe you could put a * or (disputed) or something like that by bands that are commonly disputed? That's what they do on maps that are disputed and I think this is similarish to a territorial dispute in some ways :P

Anyway, it's a good list either way :)

~Mal

Eh, the main reason I'm removing System of a Down is because the SoaD article has been the victim of frequent vandalism, and whoever the anon vandal is (or anon vandals are) offers no explanation as justification. Furthermore, he/she/they frequently resort to personal attacks, so I'm afraid I can't take the edits seriously. --DalkaenT/C 16:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that, that was stupid. I think their guitar sound and song structure are all nu-metalesque, but alternative metal describes them best. Besides, nu-metal is part of alt-metal anyway. ~Mal
Mal, I agree that these bands should be added with the (disputed) against their name. Especially in the case of System of a Down, there is clearly a dispute. The SOAD discussion section above is by no means sufficiently conclusive to warrant the removal of their entry from the nu-metal list. While I admit that thay are not purely a nu-metal band, there have been several nu-metal elements in their songs and it is fair to both sides of the argument to add the band as a disputed entry. ---Serj

[edit] Organization

I suggest we organize this list like the List of post-punk bands, listing the influences/progenators first, and then the bands considered nu-metal. Thoughts? WesleyDodds 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early metal bands

I have removed AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest and KISS from progenitors section (probably added by some anon user) and thought to might wonder how early metal bands could manage to bear an ancestry for the nu metal genre. To me I don't think they bear an ancestry for this genre. Mike Garcia 23:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

They're heavy influences (which is what the section should be calle din the first place). WesleyDodds 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice in Chains

Why is Alice in Chains not on this list? True, they are a bit early for a nu-metal band, but...

They are not on the list because they have almost nothing in common with nu-metal. There is no rapping, no DJ, little teenage angst, and they predate nu-metal by about 10 years. There is no justification for calling this band (or Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc) nu-metal. Rhobite 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOOL are a nu-metal progenitor - stop removing them

Read the nu-metal article (and more importantly) the Tool page itself, and there are sections that clearly mention the band's influence on the genre. Danteferno 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, then why is Tool on the Instigator list? --DalkaenT/C 00:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
They could probably be seen as both, but you're right, instigator would probably be a more appropriate term (due to the fact they were first around in the 1990s vs. the progenitors (mainly 1980s). Danteferno 14:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Tool's music never fell into the nu-metal genre, same as System of a Down as far as I know. Tool could be an influence of nu-metal, but it's not most common that nu-metal is their main genre and I don't know the difference. -- Mike Garcia 15:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the actual genre of the band has been under dispute (the Tool page itself reflects that well) but there is no denying that they have been a huge influence on the nu-metal genre, enough to warrant mention as an instigator or progenitor. System of a Down I really can't make an opinion on - I noticed a lot of warring with their inclusion on this page - I think simply calling them a "Modern Rock/Hard Rock" band would do justice, but they haven't been around long enough to be a large nu-metal influence, if there is one (their first album was from 98, I believe?). Danteferno 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana influenced nu metal?

I removed Nirvana from the "Influenced nu metal" section, apparently I don't know anything about them being influenced with nu-metal. Question: How could Nirvana influence the nu-metal genre? Have they ever done anything with this genre? I don't think nu-metal was quite popular when their singer Kurt Cobain was around. I'll keep Nirvana removed from the list until I find out anything about this. -- Mike Garcia 16:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It's rather simple: people in nu metal bands listened to and were influenced by Nirvana. Nirvana songwriting techiniques like the heavy riffs, stop-start dynamics, angst, and soft verse/loud chours format all were used and integrated by nu metal bands. Hell, in the 90's, it was hard not to be influenced by Nirvana. WesleyDodds 01:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the Influenced nu metal section?

Most of those bands have little to nothing in common with nu-metal. Sure, the nu-metal bands may have listened to Metallica and Nirvana growing up, but they hardly influenced them to make a nu-metal band, as thrash and grunge are completely different.

[edit] P.O.D.

I'm going to make a bold claim here, but I don't consider P.O.D. "Nu-metal". Their earlier stuff was more of a rap-hardcore sound and their newer stuff is more reggae-driven. In my opinion, that does not qualify as nu-metal. However, I do think that they should be on the instigator list because they started around the same time as bands such as Korn and Deftones. Just a thought. Also, the band Earthsuit is nowhere near nu-metal. - AugustWinterman 11:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korn

Someone deleted Korn from the list, which i think is kind of stupid, so i'm adding it back. Gordonjay 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the anonymous user who has erroneously removed Korn from the list. I'm sorry, but I'll not try anymore. The problem is that they are within the genre's instigators, too.

[edit] Page overhauled

I saw that the page was messy, inaccurate and decided to give it a complete overhaul. There has always been a problem with people adding/removing particular bands (System Of A Down obviously), so now hopefully it can stay on the list and no one can complain. I also didn't like the number of bands that were previously listed that had nothing to do with nu metal. There were a heap of general rock/christian rock and metalcore bands that shouldn't have been associated on here. Finally, try not to add anything biased in the "notes" column, try to keep it as neutral as possible. Cheers. – dmiles21 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Tool (band) back on "influenced list" ... AGAIN

Reliable sources show that they HAVE influenced Nu-metal artists like Fred Durst (Limp Bizkit), Taproot, Disturbed, Staind, Breaking Benjamin, etc. Again, not liking nu-metal (or associating the band with nu-metal) gives no reason to take them off the list. --Danteferno 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, they are an influence..

[edit] Godsmack

I removed Godsmack, they are in no way a nu-metal band.

  • Well, other than the fact that nu-metal is listed as one of their genres on the Godsmack page... (Matt d84 17:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Katatonia???

Some friends of mine say that last Katatonia album, The Great Cold Distance, (and a little Viva Emptiness) is very influenced by bands like Korn, Papa Roach and Tool, however still with a personal style and dark moods, and even a lot of nu metal fans liked these two albums, so I thought, should they be in the list? I don't know if it is right, first because in the other ten years of discography they are soooooooooooooooo far from nu metal, then because they are not 100% nu metal but only have a side of it. What do you think about? (sorry for the English if I did mistakes)

[edit] Classification of metal bands in general

I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band if wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another. If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation between Post-Grunge and Nu-Metal

Some of the bands on the page do not seem to me to fit the genre of nu-metal. If post-grunge bands are appearing on this list, whats to say that Tool or SOAD or Sevendust couldn't be put on this list? I know to many "Nu Metal" is a dirty word, but there has to be a line drawn on this particular topic.Outlaw-Viper 06:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tool-Progressive Metal, System of a Down-Borderline Crossover Thrash and Thrash Metal as well as Progressive Metal and Avant-Garde, but is often considered Alternative Metal, and Sevendust-Groove Metal and Industrial Metal. These bands, in my mind, are neither Post-Grunge or Nu Metal. But there has been a line drawn as Lifehouse, Third Eye Blind, Tonic, and Seven Mary Three aren't considered Nu Metal. However, Tool, SOAD, and Sevendust are not Nu Metal in my eyes.

Well I see Staind and Saliva on the list and to me these two aren't nu metal, more like post-grunge with nu metal ties through either tours or record deals.Outlaw-Viper 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evanescence only nu metal band with female singer?

This is just a lie. Evanescence is not the only Nu Metal band with a female lead singer. What about Lacuna Coil and Flyleaf? Last time I checked, they they had female lead singers.

Lacuna Coil "Nu Metal"? What planet are you from?

[edit] 40 Below Summer

What's going on with you guys?I keep adding 40 Below summer in the list but some guys keep moving them off.They have stated themselves that they're not nu metal....but they have nu metal elements in their music.So please if the guy that keeps removing them from the list come here and talk about it! ClassicDude 19:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_nu_metal_musical_groups_cc21.html"