Talk:Industrial metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Portal

Industrial metal 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.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

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.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance 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.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

This page needs a lot of editing but I think that it's stupid that Industrial metal didn't have it's own article. If you want to delete something discuss it here first.

"Extensively followed by dedicated fans throughout the world." doesn't really mention anything about how mainstream it is, just that the fans are dedicated.

Yes, I agree, but this isn't the page to talk about it, try the "Heavy Metal" page.

I've added a bunch of bands that were not on here

[edit] Malhavoc?

Should these guys be in the innovators section? According to their webpage, they were making industrial-metal in the mid-80s, but since they didn’t have an official release until the 90s, it seems like they weren't particularly influential. Personally, I've never heard of them in reference to the genre's genesis. Any thoughts? -- Rynne 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

i almost removed them when reverting the vandalism in the edits directly after until i double checked. i haven't heard of them either, but then again i don't really know my industrial metal that well.--MilkMiruku 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Industrial Metal pages!!!

People keep chopping and changing the whole umbrella of 'industrial' articles - when I first went on, there was one for the lot, but now people keep adding more and more...

Which would be a good thing, except that it means we've ended up with some confusions. A particularly bad example is that as well as this page on 'industrial metal', there is another one of the same title, which 'coldwave' currently redirects to. The latter page is less detailed, and so could do with deleting, but it's format is superior (with the 'genre' box on the right) - so perhaps a merge would be better?

Either way, having 'coldwave' redirect to that page is pretty damn confusing.

Huh? Unless its history's been changed, it looks like Coldwave has only ever redirected to this page. in any case, wikipedia shouldn't allow duplicate Industrial metal namespaces. Are you maybe looking at an old cache? -- Rynne 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad... I don't know Wikipedia very well...

[edit] Genre Templates

Industrial Metal really shouldnt have its own template. It should either use the Industrial Template, the Metal Template, or the footers for both (best idea since the genre is a fusion of two styles). Leyasu 18:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

why not have it's own template because it's a fusion genre? basically put, the info on the metal and industrial templates relates to genres other than industrial metal. parent genre footers (and obviously the parent genre links in the subgenre genrebox) are best suited for each subgenre page as they allow users to explore with the needless extra information. --MilkMiruku 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial rock VS Industrial metal

Please see my entry on Talk:Industrial rock

EDIT: Rock is not Metal, the genres should not be merged. In my opinion they can link to each other. For example, Strapping Yound Lad is not Rock at all, but has strong Industrial influences.

[edit] Neue Deutsche Härte

Rammstein, Oomph!, Megaherz etc. they're not really Industrial metal. They're german bands and they're entitled with the german term NDH - Neue Deutsche Härte ("new german roughness"), which is influenced by industrial rock. Nothing more. --87.122.41.187 18:24, March 7 2006

yeah, the article could do with a mention of this term. eventually, if it's enthusiasts add enough information, it could even warrent it's own article --MilkMiruku 20:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

note i'm not arguing that's it's related more to industrial rock or industrial metal; i don't know enough about it's origins or general sound to make that desicion :) --MilkMiruku 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as Rammstein go, that term may well be applicable, but it does not prevent them being classed as Industrial metal. Rammstein are largely considered one of the very defining bands of the genre. Just because they are German does not put them in an entirely new genre, merely a part of the greater one. Prophaniti 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] artist section layout

i like the new artist section layout. it's a style i've seen a lot in the german wikipedia and on a couple of other genre articles on the english wikipedia, and is a sensible idea to keep things looking neat on the article. i'll mention it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres to see if there's enough concensus to use it on other genre artlcies that list a fair few artists --MilkMiruku 21:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trench Coat??

Huh? Can someone explain to me why there is a link to trench coat (yes, yes, the clothing item) under Other topics in the template?? Thanks --IronChris 20:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently because some anon wanted it there. It's been removed. - Rynne 21:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks :) --IronChris 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rammstein

Rammstein can belong to both Industrial rock and metal because their earlier work is more industrial metal while the two current albums(Reise, Reise and Rosenrot) are much more softer than the first 3 albums(with the occasional heavy).

NDW is the technical term for artists such as Rammstein, Megaherz, Oomph, Unheilig, etc however, for the purpose of increasing their popularity to non-Germans and to make it much more simpler, these artists should remain in Industrial Metal(or both)

And also, those 4 artists I just mentioned belong in both industrial rock/metal because of the often changing style of their music. Oomph in the earlier days was more industrial, constant use of drum machines, less guitar. Now they are much more mainstream metal. Unheilig/Eisbrecher should remain on both because of their heavier and softer songs(though mostly soft). However it's quite known now that the majority of hardcore Rammstein fans ALSO enjoy bands such as Unheilig, Oomph, etc so putting them in the same genre can help bring fans to those bands who wish to relate to Rammstein.

Rammstein use elements of industrial metal, nothing more... but their music is definitely no pure industrial metal or industrial rock.

Industrial Metal is not their primary genre, Neue Deutsche Härte is. Rammstein is far from Rock and just based on a single Album which is different from their other work does not justify reclassifying them. Also, Rosenrot is nothing like rock, case in point: Zerstören, Benzin, Mann Gegen Mann etc. --General Jazza (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Me

I'm getting angry with the constant vandalism now, taking off bands who "they" think do not suit this page. look, HALF of these bands are not industrial metal but use certain elements of it. example: unheilig, l'ame immortelle, eisbrecher, megaherz, ASP, all of them have industrial metal influences. why are people taking them off? keeping them here will help people with industrial tastes expand their library of music. i'm not saying we should add britney spears or jessica simpson here, but these bands are pretty damn close to industrial metal, and technically NO band is pure industrial metal, so why are people taking these bands off? LEAVE THEM ON. because taking them off is depriving people of quality artists that deserve more recognition

[edit] Young Gods

They're included in the later developments section, but they'd been incorporating metal elements into their sound since 1986. Any suggestions on how to properly reflect this without screwing up the flow? Donnacha 11:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I saw/heard them, they were Ambiant. Rsm99833 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

They're back to the classic sound, I saw them a couple of months ago in London. Anyway, the point is that their early stuff is as much industrial metal as their later stuff. Just listen to Envoyé! from '86. Donnacha 18:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

TYG aren't Industrial Metal. They didn't use guitars, but samplers and sequencers. --Menorrhea 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They used samples of heavy metal guitars, thus pioneering elements of the style. I never said they were Industrial Metal, just that their metal-influenced work preceded IM and is thus not a later development. Donnacha 10:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Punk

I recognize how important Killing Joke are both to industrial metal and to postpunk; I just don't see IM as a genre having much to do with postpunk, despite KJ's having been important in both. I feel like Pandemonium was a near total disconnect from something like Love Like Blood.

But I am neither educated enough nor invested enough in this topic to make a big deal out of it. Just my thoughts.

Amber388 01:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that "Pandemonium" would seem to be a total disconnect if you're jumping straight from "Nightime". However, if you listen to "Extremities, Dirt And Various Repressed Emotions", it makes a lot more sense and there's a clear progression. Donnacha 08:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Even further back, their first two albums contained a lot of the industrial metal-esque elements that later reemerged around Extremities. It's worth noting that Justin Broadrick's pre-Godflesh band, Fall of Because, took its name from a track on KJ's What's THIS For…! -- Rynne 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And they sounded very like Killing Joke (in fact, Fall of Because wasn't the band before, it was Godflesh (Justin Broadrick, GC Green & Paul Neville)) they just changed their name when Justin left Head of David and returned to the band full-time. Donnacha 14:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[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 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grindcore

On what account is grindcore a fusion genre of industrial metal? - Quirk 21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not, at least as far as I'm aware. I've removed it from the fusion genres part until someone can give some genuine reasoning. Grindcore is a more extreme branch of death metal (itself with strong thrash metal influences), with a mix of hard punk. The article on grindcore does not once mention industrial metal. Prophaniti 07:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So why not? At least, some part of the grindcore genre falls into Industrial classition. For example. Napalm Death used drum machnies and bass samplers sometimes, Nasum too has Industrial works such an EBM structured guitar-sampler parts and sometimes even drum machines, Godflesh tryed to make an grindcore and both Industrial, Aggrophobic Nosebleed are an Industrial grind band, Cephalic Carnage has sampled their drums, Terrorizer and Repulsion has mechanical rythms and samplers too and Pitchshifter is short of an percussive mechanical grindcore band.

[edit] Influential Artists

In my opinion, a list of influential artists (without epigones such as Static-X or Deathstars) is a better list. Most influential artists were Ministry, KMFDM, Pitchshifter etc. --Menorrhea 00:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pitchshifter? They didn't release the album "Industrial" (which isn't actually very industrial) until 1991, a year after "Extremities, Dirt And Various Repressed Emotions" by Killing Joke (who you removed from the list). Donnacha 22:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie, but I can't say I agree with your choice. First of all, this isn't an article about what bands you personally think are "influential" or bands you don't think fit the category. Your obviously have a more liberal definition of what is or is not industrial metal -- one that simply doesn't fit the description given by the article. Sure, the bands you mentioned are industrial metal, but by no means are they the most influential, or are they the only industrial metal bands.

Enfestid 02:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

They're the founders of industrial metal! The list is completely useless. --Menorrhea 02:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In YOUR mind they are. Please do not delete the list for no reason, as it's defined as vandalism.

Enfestid 03:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL, maybe you dislike facts, but this is YOUR problem. --Menorrhea 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts? That's absolutely absurd. Your opinion of influential artists is not factual in the least! Hell, the very title "influential artists" indicates it isn't a factual piece as it's subject to debate. Please stop changing to page to fit your personal vendetta. This is why we have talk pages on Wikipedia -- to discuss the issue before making drastic changes.

Enfestid 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ministry, Godflesh, KMFDM etc. are definitely the founders of Industrial Metal. This is not my POV. This is a fact! They're the most important artists. If you need a list of every kiddy pop combo, then create a List of industrial metal artists. The list in this article is ugly and unclear. --Menorrhea 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why most of them are listed in the article! And, yes, it is your opinion of who is influential and who is not. A band that you contest may have an influence over others I may disagree with, as may many critics of Industrial Metal. It's not fact.

Enfestid 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is a fact that Ministry, Godflesh and KMFDM are the founders of Industrial Metal, then you should be able to cite a reliable and verifiable sources. Personaly I think the article should not have a comprehensive list of Industrial Metal bands and List of industrial metal artists should be created for that.
—Asatruer 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that last part, I think there should be a separate article for the list. There are lists of other genres, some with fewer artists than this. Recently I merged the list of Viking Metal artists into the main article, and in that case I just pasted it in full-size font and all, and it was fine. The fact that you have to keep this list small illustrates the need for a separate one. Prophaniti 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a separate article for a list, but I do have a problem with an influential articles list. I say make a separate page for the list of industrial metal bands, not influential industrial metal bands (not sure which kind of list you two were stating).

Enfestid 00:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the hell is Nine Inch Nails doing on that list? They're not industrial metal, they're alt-rock with industrial bits thrown around here and there. Maybe you could make a case for The Fragile, but my description stands for every single one of their other albums. 98.200.63.58 23:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, what's Voivod doing on there? They're progressive thrash metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.63.58 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MDFMK?

Why arent they on here? MDFMK was KMFDM's more guitar driven side. They should definitely be added to this page.

[edit] Ulver

Ulver's not even close to industrial metal. Sure, their early stuff was metal enough and their later stuff has a decidedly industrial feel to it, but there's no middle ground to them.

Eh because, they are mostly not Industrial metal. They recently had played an Electro music and Experimental Trance, but nothing nearly Industrial. Industrial, do not meaning all Electronic type of music.

[edit] Want to just remove the artists section?

You know, I'd say over 95% of the edits to this page are adding or removing artists to the page. I'm personally getting tired of the complaints about it (yes, I'll admit it: I was one who added and removed a couple of times, however). Should we just get rid of the section all-together?

Enfestid 03:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill 'em all. Or create the List of industrial metal artists as a new trashcan. --~Menorrhea

05:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to remove the section right away. I'll give it a couple of days (probably until Friday or so) just to let everyone voice their opinion so we can come to a consensus.

Enfestid 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godflesh deletion

Who the fucking assfuck keeps deleting both Godflesh mention and reference!!??? I really understand to removing mention about too new and rather nu/alternative metal-driven bands like Static X or Slipknot (or even KoRn, who actually were even once mentioned on this article) who actually has anything to do with the whole of Industrial metal at all, but removing very crucial bands like Godflesh is one of the most retarded or moronised thought. E.T.O.S 12:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales & Awards

I've recently finished the Industrial Metal: Sales & Awards page. It contains Nielsen Soundscans, Grammy nominations & awards, platinum & gold certifications, ect anything pertaining Industrial Rock / Metal bands. I'm up for putting a section on the main page, with a template redirecting the Wikipedia reader in case he's interested in that sort of information.

Anyone against that?

Musicaindustrial 15:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)i AM.

I am, if completely unneeded. 69.249.253.77 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And why are you against it? Musicaindustrial 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Page Needs Further Editing

It is great that Chrome and Killing Joke are mentioned as post-punk predecessors to Industrial Metal, but what about early PIL? And The Swans? And Laibach?

And what is Joy Division doing here? They belong with the Goth Rock crowd - Siouxsie & the Banshees, Bauhaus, The Sisters of Mercy, The Cure, etc. I've only known two Industrial Metal musicians 'til this day who have mentioned Joy Division as an influence: Dino Cazares (Fear Factory) and Justin Broadrick (Godflesh). That's two out of thousands, folks.

And why is Godflesh missing from this page? They were the co-creators of Industrial Metal; their self-titled EP came out the same year as Ministry's The Land of Rape and Honey.

Furthermore, it's a little strange mentioning Pitchshifter but omitting Godflesh at the same time... Early Pitchshifter was practically a Godflesh clone.

And what about Nu Metal-tinged Industrial Metal bands like Celldweller and Spineshank?

Also missing from this page is the european Cyber-Metal (The Kovenant, Deathstars, Malmonde) subgenre.

Musicaindustrial 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brevity is Beautiful

Ah, this article is refreshing after hacking through the drivel that constitutes the industrial rock article. 58.107.202.215 04:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

There is no difference between the two terms. No can show a difference and satisfy WP:OR, WP:RS, or WP:V. To prevent a forked discussion the topic should be discussed at Talk:Industrial rock. Ridernyc (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove there is no difference or that there is a difference. So it stays seperate. I'm removing the tag anyway.Nineinchsin (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Testify - You Gotta Have Brains... (1993).ogg

Image:Testify - You Gotta Have Brains... (1993).ogg 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sielwolf - Verstärker zerstört (1993).ogg

Image:Sielwolf - Verstärker zerstört (1993).ogg 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fracture - Epicentre (1998).ogg

Image:Fracture - Epicentre (1998).ogg 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Old Lady Drivers - Marzuraan (1991).ogg

Image:Old Lady Drivers - Marzuraan (1991).ogg 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)