Talk:Death 'n' Roll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Death 'n' Roll article.
Article policies
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Music
Portal
Death 'n' Roll is within the scope of WikiProject Music genres, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardise music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the project guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.


Sorry, I know that I never mentioned some source, but please, don't delete this article, I can't end it for time problems. I can give you some cites, that include an entombed interview. The are some pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22death+%27n%27+roll%22&sitesearch=metal-archives.com. http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=163

Please, if somebody can help with it, do it. I have to mention a thing: strictly speaking, this therm is not a genre, is only a term that the fans and some members of the critic.

Contents

[edit] Rock project?

Should the rock project be added here? or not? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "Black metal" topic in article

Since a style nearly like death 'n' roll sure is present among a black metal style, I think the genre can well be classified as the same thing like "black 'n' roll" or "blackened rock" or there may be something else that can be used to define it. Leaving it as "black metal" just seems kind of strange to me. Come to think of it, I think "deathened rock" may be more correct but we already have deathrock... so we can't really use that. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name of that section to "Parallel With Black Metal". I didn't put another name, because this movement hasn't got a real name. For example: Fenriz called it Evil Rock. Kommander L., unic member of an underground band (called "Fuck Off And Die"), said:``F.O.A.D. is a blasting black'n'roll metal band with some old school black metal, crust and thrash influences. The principle font of inspiration of the band is all kind of alcohol. Nothing else to say. Listen to the music.`` Another possibly name is Black Thrash, like the Aura Noir album "Black Thrash Attack". Other name was proposed by the wikipedia time ago (Blackened Thrash), but was erased because that name was never used before the creation of the article. Surprisly, the name have been very used on many websites after the existance of that article (search blackened thrash on google and you will see the [1] multiple results). All that is the reason of the title of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsalazar23491 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre project?

Should the genre project really be added to this article? It is a term but theres no term or style projects for something like this. What project would it classify as then? Add WikiProject Genre or not? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Bands

Death 'n' Roll could be described as Death Metal meeting NWOBHM and the "heavier" strands of Classic Rock. That considered, I think there are two bands that should be included in these article:

Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Links worth investigating

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note on sources

There appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes a reliable source on this page. A few examples of things that are not: Last.fm cannot be used as a source as it is user-edited; this is what has led to Paris Hilton being at the top of their 'brutal death metal' section. This means that any claims you make, including simply "Last.fm lists the following as death 'n' roll" are worthless and inappropriate encyclopedia material. Similarly, web forums, blogs and their talkback sections, Youtube and Myspace are not considered reliable sources. Neither are wikis, including this one. Citing Metal Archives is apparently contentious. I would argue that regardless of how 'reliable' a given editor believes them to be, they are not a commercially-published third party source and hence should be avoided wherever possible. Furthermore, using MA searches for genre may well constitute original research. Finally, web-based review articles (in much the same way as print-copy fanzines) should never be used as sources, particularly over contested genres such as this one. This effectively leaves you with sites like Allmusic Guide. Not wishing to ruffle any further feathers by editing out references using inappropriate sources, I thought I'd just leave this in the talkpage. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to labour this too much, but regarding the Last.fm reference, not only is it inappropriate in the first place, but their list includes The Meteors and The Murderdolls. They are admittedly a fair way down the list but, as has been mentioned Nile are below Paris Hilton in the 'brutal death metal' tag. Oh, and equally damning, under Paris Hilton I discovered they have a tag for 'sexy'. Clearly a new musical subgenre then. For the record, I do not doubt the notability of death 'n' roll as a subgenre, but justifications from such sites is actually damaging to your cause. Oh, and saying 'other notable artists include' and plucking a bunch of names from the list is POV anyway unless you can explain why they are notable, other than to you. For instance, neither Phazm nor ZX Spectrum (the band) have Wikipedia page. ZX Spectrum don't even appear to be signed. If nothing else this should demonstrate why this source is weakening your argument, not strengthening it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debate section

What do people think would be the best way to move this section forward? It seems to me that the existence of the genre has been sourced (both from the liner notes to the Entombed compilation, not written by the band, and from secondary sources, such as magazines like Terrorizer, Metal Hammer and Kerrang!). This should settle the matter, unless the concern is that an arbitrary number of bands needs to be labelled as such for the genre to exist. The section at present is I feel unhelpful... the sources used are unreliable, as I've stated previously (I don't think this is me being a 'self-righteous guardian of Wikipedia', I'm trying to help improve the article and know that policies regarding reliability will get brought up in any Article for Deletion debate - that I don't want to see happen). In fact, I think the best way for the time being might be to remove the section full stop. It will attract people that fancy sticking an AfD on the article. Any thoughts? In the meantime, if you would like me to dig out any print resources referring to death 'n' roll as a movement within death metal, let me know and I'll see what I can do. There are, I think, problems with the other sections, but let's deal with one thing at a time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I smell bullshit

I see some editors on here who I'm "friends" with (meaning we are on good terms and help each other and they are good editors), so I'd usually say nothing, but this article sounds like bs to me. I mean I've heard of black n' roll or w/e, which is equally retarded, but I do recognize that their are some bm bands who incorporate more rock into their bm. I suppose the same could be true of dm and rock. But most of the bands I see on here are just dm with groove metal elements. I admit the fact that there are dm and bm bands who are rock oriented but I have serious doubts that death n roll and black n roll are real genres. Actually I don't have a serious doubt, I know they aren't. Maybe one day... Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. Definitely.
  • "I see some editors on here who I'm 'friends' with... and they are good editors."
Considering your friends at Wikipedia "good editors" is the utmost statement of your POV. Whether they're actually good editors that's quite another matter.
  • "...but this article sounds like bs to me."
Which is telling, regarding your lack of knowledge of the subject. For all I know, you're just another metal newbie - 2 to 3 years down the line, trying to impress others with the typical "holier (or unholier?) than thou" attitude and the sheer idiocy that comes attached to it. The fact that you are a black metal fan only worsens this situation - BM fans are particularly prone to those infantile power-drives.
On the other hand, I have been a Metal fan since 1992 - and not only that, I've also been a musician (a guitar-player, to be precise) for those 16 years. That gives me an unique perspective on the Metal scene as a whole, because:
  • I probably know more about Metal than you. Not only that: I caught death metal on the rise and black metal in it's initial boom in the press.
  • 16 years is enough time to develop a taste for other Rock genres, such Punk, Psychadelic Rock 'n' Roll or Industrial. That means I can readily trace the influence of these rock styles on some Metal genres.
  • And being a musician, I have access to technical details which non-musicians are not privy to... Which means I can distinguish with greater accuracy the differences between Metal subgenres.
Of course, the bitch is that my arguments have to depend (largely) on internet sources, which are usually unreliable. I can't cite myself, ha ha.
And last: it's very ironic for you to mention Groove metal. There's a a huge controversy here at Wikipedia whether this is a Metal subgenre at all. Some believe it to be separate from Thrash; others believe it's the work of wikiwhores trying to re-write the history of Metal. For my part, it's a bit strange I've only heard the term "Groove metal" in the last year or so... and I've have access to the World Wide Web since 1997... Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's gratifying to know you fail to be civil to editors other than me ;-). You have written a fairly lengthy comment here, none of which is relevant to improving the article in question, but certainly raises some points that need to be rebutted. To try and deal with them in order: you question whether another editor is a metal newbie, whilst claiming that you yourself have been listening to metal for many years. You then make an intellectual leap unsupported by logic... that this in some way means that you are therefore right and they are wrong. In this day and age it's almost upsetting that it is necessary to point out this logical fallacy, but there you go. You then make the comment that black metal fans are prone to infantile power drives; an excellent example of a sweeping statement and sloppy reasoning. You then move into my favourite part of your comment, the list where you puff up your chest and tell us how metal you are. The statement, "I probably know more about Metal than you" is particularly special. Unfortunately, even if you provide a photocopy of your degree certificate in Heavy Metal Studies, you'd still be invoking an appeal to false authority; however you can't even do that, so your comment is no more than Internet posturing. Your ability to trace other rock influences on heavy metal may well be uncanny, but if you can't source it you may as well be an Internet troll. Finally, your most, um, 'contentious' point: "And being a musician, I have access to technical details which non-musicians are not privy to... Which means I can distinguish with greater accuracy the differences between Metal subgenres". Of course, there is an inner cabal of musicians that, similar to Scientology, only tell you their innermost secrets after a number initiation rituals and a hefty sum of cash. Oh, no, wait, that's actually just bollocks, isn't it? But please, feel free to redeem yourself... find me a source that explains how you being a guitarist allows you to distinguish between metal subgenres with greater accuracy. And try and do better than Last.fm, if possible. Ta. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Black 'n' roll is not a genre term I've seen used to any great deal in the press, but death 'n' roll I could fairly easily source, though I have concerns that it is effectively used to describe one band. The article is certainly a mess. A possible merger may be an alternative option. What do you reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Musicindustrial. How 'bout you don't be such a dick, eh? First off I think blackmetalbaz made most of my points for me. However, I feel the need to respond to some of comments you've made, however inane they may be. I'm not the typical black metal fan, alright? And I also know my shit.
  • No, I think I know more about metal, yo. Prove me wrong. I don't really care what you think you know. Yes, I haven't been a fan for quite as many years as you have. You may know more about metal than me, it's true, but I know more than the average metalhead. So you caught death metal and black metal when it was happening. Whoopie!? I caught viking metal when it was happening. Applause?
  • You claim to have a diverse taste in music. Firs off none of this affects metal knowledge much or makes you a better editor. But, since we're counting, I like plenty of genres, too. Jazz, blues, soul, funk, plenty of classic rock; even some electronica, etc. I, too, can trace much of the influence of metal. I'm pretty studied up on it and I know what's true and what's crap most of the time.
  • You say that being a musician makes you better able to distinguish metal genres. What makes you think I'm not a musician?
  • How bout you back up off the POV train, pal?
As far as groove metal goes, it's a genre. I can better source it than death n roll. I've also heard the term groove metal for at least the last 5 years, which is longer than i've heard about death n roll. Groove metal just measn they use the start and stop method, among other things. Pantera is a prime example of this. I hate groove metal, mostly. The way they play slows down the music and it can be repetitive, as well. I wanna hear an unrelenting assault. Yeah, groove metal definitely came out of thrash, but it's become its own thing. Thanks to blackmetalbaz for his hilarious and oh so true rebuttal. If you can source it go for it. I've only head black n roll applied to a few bands and the same goes for death n roll. I think both are equally inane, though. It's just band with more groove, rock-influenced metal. I don't think it's its own genre yet. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe this should be an article. Reading it makes me cringe. It's quite uncyclopedic sounding. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed much of the unsourced nonsence (the entire characteristics section for instance) and the references to non-reliable sources. I am not taking this to AfD as I believe the genre is notable, but it should possibly be taken to administration if things like Google searches, Wikipedia pages, Last.fm and Metal Archives continue to be used as sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've just had a great idea: why don't you all just erase the whole fucking thing off? It is just tiring to read this complaints, when any Wikipedian can erase weeks of someone's else's (unfinished!) efforts (writing, searching for references, etc) to try to improve any article. Most of the time, their only "improvement" is just wiping out content without concensus. Writing and searching for references? Nah... booooring. No wonder a lot of people give up on Wikipedia. It's the information stalinism on the internet.
If this "genre" bothers you guys so much, why don't you just erase the page? Save us some grief.
Oh, by the way, try reading some complaints about Wikipedia [14] [15] [16] [17]. Wikipedia is becoming a fucking religion - people following its dictates irrationally. Don't let it become yours... Aren't metalheads antireligious, by the way? Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You're being unneccesarily upset. Erasing the OR is just the way wikipedia works. And I am well aware of wikipedia's many problems and users who become irrationaly when it comes to the rules. As for the sweeping statement, "Aren't metalheads antireligious, by the way?" that is completely ridiculous. Among the other genres of the world, metal's fans may have a higher rate of nihlism, but such a sweeping sterotypical comment is hardly truthful. Many metalheads have a religion, whether it be Christianity or paganism. Alos, you really do need to stop with this whole fit over groove metal. It is not a wikipedian invention and it's been around longer than death 'n' roll and it does have sources that can be found. It is a much more real genre than this one. Pantera would have been one of the first of the groove metal genre. Idk how you can even deny its existence. Metallica would even play the style for a while when they noticed it was becoming more popular (due to Pantera). Shitty bands like Lamb of God still take influence from Pantera (another equally shitty band IMO) and are groove metal. I just don't get how you can deny the genre. It's extremely distinctive. The sound is just as distinctive as black metal (albeit completely different of course). Listening to Pantera you hear it right away in a song like Walk. The sludgy slower pace, but still agressive sounding like thrash, accentuated by the guitars "start and stop" method totally defines groove metal. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream popularity: Moderate in the early-mid 1990s to today

What the hell,if power metal ins't that popular you expect death metal sub-genre to be that popular lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References v.666

We don't seem to be making much, if any, progress here. I'd quite like to see this page get into a decent state but it looks like it'll have to be done a bit at a time. Not a bad place to start would be with the Carcass references. I dimly remember from way back when them being referred to as 'death 'n' roll in some ancient Kerrang! or similar but a Google search is turning up nothing we can use as a reliable source... mostly here, Last.fm or other mp3 sharing sites. Even Metal Archives, Allmusic and Metal Observer, for all their faults, do not use the term in relation to the band. As they're an extremely notable band, it's obviously very important we find a reference stating that this term is used in relation to them. Further to this, the section about Bill Steer's influences is irrelevant to the article, even if Carcass are included - people like Trey Azagthoth often talk about how Malmsteen et al and various classical composers are influences, but you'd never tag Morbid Angel with a neo-classical label. The entire section on Blackstar is even more irrelevant, as despite having Carcass members, they are importantly not Carcass and were playing an entirely separate kind of music (ditto for the throwaway Jeff Walker solo project comment). Obviously there are other problems that need addressing, but any thoughts on the Carcass stuff? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF at black 'n' roll names

They talk about other possible names like "blackened thrash" or "black thrash" which makes no sense. The latter is a REAL style. There are many black/thrash bands. Most of the early black metal bands were black/thrash. Bands like Desaster fit perfect into that category. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tarnishing the good name of Death Metal

This article ounds like a glorified... ok I have no words to describe about how badly I feel about this. Death metal is fast and heavy, and if it's not, then it ain't death metal (or "death'n' roll). It seems like every 5 minutes someone is either coming up with a genre to descibe themselves or a band. Just because a band has tuned down elements of a genre doesn't mean it get's a brand new one. Bodom is a whole bunch of metal genres. You don't see me making up some special name to define them. I guess what I'm saying is, death 'n' roll may be somewhat recognised, but we really need to decide, OURSELVES (or better yet someone with actual qualifications in music, and yes I acknowledge there are some on this site) whether it really exists or not.JackorKnave (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start adressing this: "Death metal is fast and heavy, and if it's not, then it ain't death metal (or "death'n' roll)."
I agree with "fast" and "heavy", but lets take a closer look at the fast part.
Is Morbid Angel's "God of Emptyness" or "Blessed Are the Sick" (the song) fast? No. Are they Death Metal? Yes.
Is Obituary's "The End Complete" (the song) fast? No. Is it Death Metal? Yes.
Is Autopsy's "In the Grip of Winter" fast? No. Is it Death Metal? Yes.
And the list goes on.
Maybe there's something more than "fast" to Death Metal... And let's put aside the rather subjective category of "heavy" for now. (By the way, Death 'n' Roll is "heavy" too.)
Yes, let's take this further. Let's talk about Paradise Lost's early ouvre - their Peaceville Records output, Lost Paradise and Gothic.
As you probably know, these two records were major trendesetters in the Death/Doom field. But wait - they're not "fast" at all. How can they included under the Death Metal category? Maybe it's the gruff vocals, the complex song structures, the heavy emphasis on cromaticism, the ever-present double bass drumming and the heavily detuned guitars. You can ask a musician who's well-versed in extreme metal and he'll probably agree with this accessment.
So, finally, what's my point? Maybe your acessment that Death 'n' Roll is not related to Death Metal is a bit hasty, and arguing that D'n'R isn't "fast" or "heavy" is probably not a strong defense in making your point.
And this: "It seems like every 5 minutes someone is either coming up with a genre to descibe themselves or a band. Just because a band has tuned down elements of a genre doesn't mean it get's a brand new one."
Actually, the "Death 'n' Roll" tag has been going since 1993, since Entombed released their "Wolverine Blues". That makes it fifteen years old, give it or take. (It is surely older than the "Groove metal" genre name, which some people accuse of being a Wikipedian invention.) Let me ask you something: is it really a "new" genre or is it just new to you? And this question is not an attempt to humiliate you, it is out of legimate curiosity.
Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, mate. Now let us see a list of all the known death'n'roll bands. Entombed and Gorefest seems to be focal point of your arguement (actually, they are the ONLY two bands listed), and the rest only have an album or so that you can label.JackorKnave (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate citations

My attention was brought to this article by a passing comment on an unrelated afd. I have never heard of this term before nor have I even heard the music of any of the bands mentioned. That is not going to stop me from noting that this article has some major problems. A few editors have already expressed skepticism about the validity or notability of this subject matter since it does come across strongly as a neologism. The use of the term at Encyclopaedia Metallum and Last.fm are completely irrelevent as they are unreliable sources. The staff at metal-observer.com use a lot of dubious terms such as skaldic metal and cyber metal so it's not particularly helpful here. Only the use of the term by Chad Bowar on About.com has any merit. I've removed a large amount of the article but note that I'm not the first to have done this. Blackmetalbaz had preceded me only to have his edits reverted by the one individual who seems vested in this article: Musicaindustrial. Blackmetalbaz was perfectly right and entitled to remove that sentence along with other blatant original research, including that entire section on a supposed parallel in black metal. I also removed text which use inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the point being made. For instance, the sentence "according to the All Music Guide, Death 'n' Roll albums favor verse-chorus-verse songwriting" is supported by four references but none of them even use the term death 'n' roll. There is also no reason why this article should even include a list of bands that are tagged as death 'n' roll on unreliable sources. There are still many problems with this article even after the wholesale removal of these passages. I note in particular the use of improper references to self-published sources. This includes the CD liner notes to the Entombed albums as well as the official online biography of Gorefest. Musicaindustrial, please do not revert my edit as you did Blackmetalbaz's. If you really want to improve this article, I strongly suggest you go online to search for better sources instead of adding any more original research. --Bardin (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I in general don't have a problem with CD liner notes. They're not really self-published in a way that is problematic to Wikipedia if they're published by the label not the band, and the notes are written by a reliable third party source. Things like liner notes can be invaluable for, say, album articles. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with CD liner notes ordinarily but when they are being used to support an assertion of which band the term was first associated with, I think there is a problem. After all, anyone can proclaim themselves as a pioneer or the first to do something but such self-claims would not generally be treated as a reliable source here on wikipedia. Similarly, CD liner notes tend to be written by someone who has been paid by a record label and while such notes can be used as reference for many things, it pretty much fall into the same sphere of a self-published claim if used to assert something like this. In other words, it's not exactly an unbiased source. --Bardin (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Tell me something, Bardin - do you believe that "unbiased" sources of information actually exist? Check out this interesting rant on Wikipedia [18]. "Neutrality" is a dangerous myth - go read Michel Foucault or Thomas Khun and see why. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is an extension of that fallacy. What we have here at Wikipedia is just a concensus between different points of view - that's all. No true "neutrality" to speak of - just the tyranny of majority. Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read Foucault but if you really agree with that rant, then why are you not boycotting wikipedia? This is hardly a relevant discussion anyway. Whatever faults wikipedia might have, this is not the place to discuss it. If you want to propose changes to the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, you can do that elsewhere. If Entombed were really the first band to be identified as death 'n' roll, then surely there would be some other sources out there besides the cd liner notes indicating as much. --Bardin (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carcass? I doubt it...

Carcass, to my knowledge, belongs to the following categories of genres:Grindcore (goregrind), Death metal, melodic death metal, and some people see elements of thrash in their latest stuff. On the wikipedia page for Carcass, NOT ONCE ARE THEY CALLED DEATH'N'ROLL. Please source this, RELIABLY. I have no doubt that this genre was "created" by music reviewers trying to sound edgy (or God forbid, they were misquoted or taken out of context.), if Carcass is included in the so-called genre.JackorKnave (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the wiki page for Carcass and their album Swansong, and guess what? Not a single mention of this death'n'roll, even the Swansong album is listed as melodic death metal... in fact, a quick check revealed fully half the bands listed here are NOT classed as "death'n'roll" on their respective wiki pages. In my humble opinion carcass should definitely be removed from the list. Death'n'roll is a dubious genre at best to my mind and any milestones by carcass in this genre would be best described as ambiguous. Any one agree?JackorKnave (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any unsourced information from the article. --Bardin (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, I made some radical changes, and by that I mean removing Carcass from this page. Perhaps a bit hasty (somone please check my edits, I'm far from infallable), but as we all know, anything I do can be just as easily reverted anyway, but at least I made my case. To repeat: Carcass is not listed as Death'n'roll and to this date never has been.JackorKnave (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you did. It was bold. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Coffins... are they notable enough?

Seems to be a litle difficult to find any information on them, even outside Wikipedia. I googled it and the best I could find was a myspace page. Also I think the page labelled them as death metal (dunno if that counts though). JackorKnave (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Japanese band so that probably explains why it's so hard to find stuff about them.JackorKnave (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)