Talk:Neo-classical metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Music
Portal
Neo-classical 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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.


What about adding Luca Turilli (Rhapsody)? --D135-1r43 1 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Most neo-classical pickers aren't classically trained. This statement is a self-contradiction: the electric guitar has only existed as we know it today for a little more than 50 years; clearly no classical music was ever written for an electric guitar, so how could there be any such thing as a "classically trained" electric guitarist? In fact, the vast majority of well known shredders (Yngwie, Van Halen) are self taught, or Jazz-trained (Petrucci). Not classically trained! I'm changing this; if anyone disagrees let me know.

I think you´re forgeting Randy Rhoads. He was classically trained, in fact many shredders are classically trained (Luca Turilli is another example, although I would not classify him as a shredder). The electric guitar can subsitute for an accoustic guitar in (almost) any occasion (the opposite isn´t true), so an electric guitarrist may be classically trained in an electric guitar. Nikolo Kotzev is also classically trained (he was a violonist in the first place). The Great Kat too is classically trained. In fact how can you be sure about the formation of those artists? Petrucci graduated from the Berklee College of Music where he certainly was classically trained to some extent (or to the "full" extent :-). I think there´s no point denying that some (perhaps many) New-classical guitarrists have classical training. Loudenvier 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
And I also forgot that classical training is not tied to an instrument. Both of Angra´s guitarrists (Kiko Loureiro and Rafael Bittencour) have graduations on classical music composition. Loudenvier 18:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
As I have stated below, there is Classical Music specifically written for the electric guitar (if I'm not wrong, even Karlheinz Stockhausen has pieces of the genre). You are wrong when you say that the electric guitar can almost always replace the acoustic guitar. The classical guitar technique of playing has nothing to do with the electric guitar technique. For instance, in the electric guitar you use a pick, while in the acoustic classical guitar you are required to use your fingernails. This limits very much the capacity of the electrical guitar to play counterpunctual pieces written for or adapted to the classical acoustic guitar. In the acoustic guitar, you may use your five fingers at the same time- that is, you have 5 picks simultaneously- what allows you to play base and solo in the same instrument (what is only possible through tapping in the electric guitar), or counterpoint.

We have to decided what is classical training actually. My best regards, --200.158.156.160 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been "classical music" written for electric guitar. I don't remember the name of the (classical music) magazine I've been reading about this. Keep in mind that the music may not be classical in the sense that it resembles music by Mozart or Haydn.

Becker. - Mikinator

You are right. Modernist composer Steve Reich has composed, for example, a piece entitled Electric Counterpoint, which is for the electrical guitar. Anyway, I'm preparing some additions to this arcticle, including a part clarifying some of the controversies on the subject, particularly regarding the influences in the style and its theoretical basis in music. --200.158.156.160 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Symphony X and Michael Romeo?? Altough SX plays progressive metal there are enough neo-classical influences, especially because of Michael Romeo who even claims that the neo-classical style of Malmsteen made a big impact on him. 213.157.1.88 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Influence doesnt make them part of this genre of music. Ley Shade 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Still, a quick listen to almost any Symphony X song would reveal that Neoclassical metal is one of the most prevalent styles in their songs. -Achates 14:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason Becker of Cacophony fame could be also added.

What about Uli Jon Roth? --cheungie 05:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Visual Kei or Neo-classical Metal?

I noticed that many Visual Kei bands are featured in here, Neo-classical metal. So the question is: is there any difference between VK and NCM, or is VK a subgenre of NCM? I am saying this because many VK artist have all the requirement to denote themselves as NCM. 154.5.47.4 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

VK is not in the same league as NCM. --202.86.204.197 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering why Malice Mizer is in the list. --202.86.204.197 07:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better definiton

I rewrote the section on "Neoclassicism", as it was Copied and Pasted from Neoclassicism (music). In the meantime, someone should try to give a more concise definition of Neo-Classical Metal, as right now it is a bit vague. --Crabbyass 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It was copied because its a correlated movement. It could have been reworded to better fit the context of heavy metal. The current definition lacks too much IMHO. Regards Loudenvier 20:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was actually looking at an older version of this article (I've messed up with the page history...). The current Definition sounds good to me! Sorry for the misunderstanding! Loudenvier 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed the definition of neoclassicism in this article because it was C&P'd...but that section should only be there to differentiate between neo-classical metal and neoclaccism. If you ask me, the actual definition of neo-classical metal needs some serious work. (I'd work on it, but I only "stumbled" upon this page, and don't really know much about it, though I used to listen to Yngwie many moons ago...) --Crabbyass 01:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the term neoclassical is a huge misnomer especially with this branch of guitar stylized music, there is not anything neoclassical about it all.::

[edit] Weird

DragonForce is not a neo-classical metal band. I see the nothing neo-classical in their music. I think dragonforce is the Shred metal or extreme power metal. Shredding is not only reson to call metal band to neo-classical.

I agree, the same could be said of Steve Vai, Michael Angelo and many more. --203.112.80.138 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Classical passages and influence are a must to consider a player a neo-classical metal. Malmsteen is clearly neo-classical, but he is also a shredder. The Great Kat is also a shredder neo-classical player (as I also think Michael Angelo Batio is) because of the great classical influencies on their songs. Steve Vai, to me, is not neo-classical, but could be considered a shredder, although with greater musical scope. Well, that's my two cents. A list of neo-classical players should never be allowed on this article. All these lists are hopelessly POV and should be deleted. Loudenvier 20:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, any effort to trim down or even delete the list is futile, as the deleted artists/bands will always reapprear within months. --cheungie 09:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No, they won't. That was not the story on the Virtuoso article and will not be the story here. If needed administrator intervention will be demanded. If the list got deleted it will get deleted every single time it was brought back again. Did you give up doing the right thing so easily like that? :-) Wikipedia is a colaborative effort, every single cell (one) doing it's small share to create one of the biggest, dynamic piece of human knowledge to date! Regards Loudenvier 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If such measure is to be taken, you will have my full support! --cheungie 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing bands and artists that I know don't play neo-classical metal. I want to know though, why is shred on this page? I'll remove that as well, seeing this is the neo-classical metal page, not shred page... --Dayn 06:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed:
  • Joe Satriani (what the hell?)
  • Steve Vai
  • Herman Li (power metal...)
  • Stratovarius (power metal; true, Timo Tolkki shreds and has neo-classical elements, which is my reasoning for leaving him in there, while removing Stratovarius)
  • Nightwish (symphonic metal)
  • DragonForce (power metal...)
  • Dream Theater (progressive metal)
  • Edguy (power metal)
  • Rhapsody of Fire
And there's undoubtedly many more, I'll need help. Keeping in mind shred should be left off this article, seeing it's about neo-classical metal. One does not equal the other. --Dayn 06:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaanyway, I've cut down the list more, removing things that have little to do with neo-classical metal. I'm going to remove the links that do not have a page; seeing this is an encyclopaedia, people would want information; having a long list with obscure people who mightn't even have a wikipage is redundant. --Dayn 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some bands in the list in the back of days

What the hell is Euroforce. Before i saw they in the list i'v never seen the name Euroforce. Please bring only local neo-classical metal-bands into the list. And in the finally. Any reasons for the existence of Euroforce. Are they underground-neoclassical metal band? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.112.15.197 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Euroforce is a band founded by a Greek neo-classical guitarist called Theodore Ziras. Ziras's solo work is neo-classical (in my opinion), but I heard Euroforce belongs to Power Metal but I am not sure since I haven't heard any songs by Euroforce myself. --cheungie 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "neo-classical"

Isn't neoclassical supposed to be one word?--69.118.235.97 21:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

"Neo-classical music is nonsense as it is hard to be assimilated". Is this criticism even valid, as we are talking about art? If the article on Ulysses doesn't have anything along the same lines I think this article shouldn't give that credit to this kind of "criticism"

[edit] Editorials

I've removed a lot of POV statements from this article and added citation tags to a few others. Although its unreasonable to demand that every single claim in an article on pop culture should be backed up with a citation, claims which are more editorial than factual should be. It seems obvious that whoever wrote the sections I removed was just putting forward his own opinions using the standard "Some people argue" rhetoric (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words). All criticisms of the movement should be backed up by references to respectable people actually making them (Or by some evidence that these opinions are commonly held) so that we can be sure that you arent just putting forward your own original research.

GordonRoss 16:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job Gordon!
Yes, removing POV and original research is one of the prerogatives of Wikipedia.
So personnaly I don’t see any wrong with the fact you removed unsourced claims…
However one precision, I’m a musicologist, I can confirm that the guy’s claims in that part you removed are actually accurate. Even though I disagree with the obvious implicit condescending tone. But I concur:
  • Neo-classical metal is not aware of the very specific harmonic exigencies and specificities of every classical period. They just mix everything without being aware of the notion of stylistic balance and specificity which is crucial in classical. If you think otherwise how can you explain the indiscriminate fusion of typical elements of the baroque/classical (such as the harmonic minor scale) with typical elements modern classical music (modal scales such as the aeolian mode)?
  • They borrow only superficial traits of classical (motifs, melodies, scales) but they have no notion of the architecture and the complex compositional techniques such as the Fugue or the strict counterpoint. That’s not a POV that’s truth. You think otherwise? Just show me one example of a NCM’s composition that would use counterpoint, and observes every strict rules of it. At best a composition which can transcend their rules while preserving their nature and their balance, just like Bach did…
  • They use power chords implying countless parallel fifths. A use which is forbidden in strict classical musical. (I can source that without any problem if you want)
But good news for you, I also can confirm his claims are original research. Because as far as I know, there is no musicological or serious harmonic study about neo-classical music( I mean not the basic analysts made by instrument specialist guitar reviewer, I mean real musicological analytic stuff). Because few musicologists care about metal.
The only musicological serious study which investigated the harmonic side of metal., I know about metal is by Walser and it’s quite old (and so doesn’t deal with neo classical). Otherwise I also have an article by musicologist Nicholas Cook who deals briefly on the very big difference between metal (popular music) and real classical music (art music) . But it’s too superficial too second the claims of the guy here.
So there’s no written source to confirm his claims. Good news for you, your won’t have to face the real hard truth about these aspects.
Oh btw, I’ve tried several times to find the person who wrote this part in the history edits. I’ll be glad to know if he had sources. But man, the history list is way too long, it’s fastidious. If anyone knows I’ll be interested to know who he is.
Anyway the guy wasn’t neutral in his tone, I agree. Fortunately the true fans are so much more neutral, aren’t they ? they only erase things because they are not sourced of course...
Btw did you know that the wikipedia’s prerogatives just don’t apply only to annoying criticism?
They actually apply to EVERY claim in an article that might be questionable or might sound like an original research.
Now, even though I can confirm that NCM musicians indeed use such elements as the
  • Pedal point (repetition of a note or group, with a scalar, melodic line played alternately),
  • Ostinato (strict repetition of a single phrase or idea),
(…)
  • Harmonic minor scale (Aeolian mode with a raised 7th scale degree),
  • Melodic minor scale (Aeolian mode with a raised 6th and 7th scale degree),
all those nice stuffs might be regarded as original research and even as POV you know. No source. But of course as you are so concerned by neutrality and sourced claims you won’t mind if I tag them as well. Will you?
Actually I don’t think this will be difficult for you guys to find some sources for that, just read in one those guitar magazines that worship Malmsteen. Otherwise I’m afraid I’ll have to remove them even though I do aknowledge they are accurate. Because you know :
All CLAIMS concerning the movement should be also backed up by references to respectable people actually making them (Or by some evidence that these opinions are commonly held) so that we can be sure that you aren’t just putting forward your own original research.
Oh and Please find sources that deal with neoclassical metal in general, not just about Malmsteen, if you know what I mean...Plus an official statement confirming the existence of the neo- classical metal genre would be also welcome.
Greetings
Stay neutral! Frédérick Duhautpas 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


1) Due to the nature of the internet, theres no easy way to validate anyones credentials, hence why claims need to be backed up by sources rather than accepted on authority (even if this authority is justified). A physics professor editing an article on physics would be subject to the same rules about independent verification, simply because theres no easy way to check whether people are who they say they are. Even if it were possible to verify credentials, sources would still be necessary so that readers could find out who was making the claims, and to what extent they reflected consensus.

2) As I said, its unreasonable to expect every single claim in a pop culture article to be referenced. There is a big difference between an uncontroversial factual claim like 'Neo classical music features arpeggios', and a 2 paragraph piece of original research which is a soapbox for the authors own views. This is why I initially distinguished between facts and editorials. What made the section I removed even worse was the extreme use of weasel words ('many people claim'/'some argue'). This is a general wikipedia policy and applies to all articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

3) In general, I think it would be a good idea to (eg) cite a song when you say something like 'neo-classical pieces often feature X'. It surely wouldnt be that hard to find some neo-classical song which quotes Vivaldi or whatever. A source in this context doesnt have to be an academic paper, it can be a piece of music.

4) I dont listen to neo-classical metal and I have no interest in protecting it from criticism. I cant remember why I was originally reading the article but that particular section stood out to be as being really bad. Again, this is standard wikipedia policy and has nothing to do with my personal biases. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalist_music#Critical_reception_of_minimalism for example, and youll find the same marking of unsourced criticisms with 'citation needed' tags (it wasnt me who done it). Wikipedia is meant to be an encylopedia, and the casual reader needs some way of determining whether the views in the article are correct/widely held. Is it really true that 'many people' claim such-and-such? Does 'some argue' imply a significant number of people, or is it similar to 'some argue that the earth is flat'? And so on.

GordonRoss 00:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorials (part 2)

I had completely forgotten that issue. So let me reply to your comments.

1) Due to the nature of the internet, theres no easy way to validate anyones credentials, hence why claims need to be backed up by sources rather than accepted on authority (even if this authority is justified). (...)Even if it were possible to verify credentials, sources would still be necessary so that readers could find out who was making the claims, and to what extent they reflected consensus.

I totally agree but your argument is off-topic, as I’m not trying to insert any edits in the name of my authority. So you miss the point if you try to argue about this. I was just confirming the guy was correct even though I agree he was biased anyway and his wording was inappropriate and so needed to be deleted. On the other hand I care about fairness.

2)This is why I initially distinguished between facts and editorials. What made the section I removed even worse was the extreme use of weasel words ('many people claim'/'some argue'). This is a general wikipedia policy and applies to all articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words

I agree: the apparent use of a non neutral tone plus the use of weasel words totally justifies your removal. I don’t deny that. So there is no need to insist on that. If you need to insist on that, I guess that’s because you missed my point.

3) In general, I think it would be a good idea to (eg) cite a song when you say something like 'neo-classical pieces often feature X'. It surely wouldnt be that hard to find some neo-classical song which quotes Vivaldi or whatever. A source in this context doesnt have to be an academic paper, it can be a piece of music.

Yes I could claim that a song -say “Rise of Sodom and Gomorrah” from Therion - contains a harmonic progression (cycle of fifths) when it is completly wrong. I’m pretty sure no one here would notice it. Because most of the fans of metal generally ignore harmonic theory.
So your proposal has its limits. I’m ok with the idea of quoting a song as an example as long as people can check the relevance of it. Otherwise I do demand references.
Sure I could confirm by my own analysis whether it is correct or not, but as you said in your 1. , my authority is not sufficient for that. Only references are.
And I don’t care about that argument “ its unreasonable to expect every single claim in a pop culture article to be referenced.” Since you are so concerned about wikipedia’s policy you must know that the Wikipedia:Citing sources applies to any article including popular music. There is no exception about this even if it would suit some.

4)(...) Wikipedia is meant to be an encylopedia, and the casual reader needs some way of determining whether the views in the article are correct/widely held. Is it really true that 'many people' claim such-and-such? Does 'some argue' imply a significant number of people, or is it similar to 'some argue that the earth is flat'? And so on.

I agree with all the issues concerning Wikipedia policy. But once again if you need to insist on that, I guess that’s because you missed my point.Frédérick Duhautpas 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wintersun

How come Wintersun are classified as Neo-Classical metal??? Well their music is quite technical and there's a shredding here and there in their music, but still, fast shredding&sympho-keybords per se do not obviously make the band "Neo-Classical metal"!!!! Neo-Classical metal bands used the moods and techniques or in genrally saying structures of the classical music rather than melodies and atmosphere wich sympho metal bands do. Actually there are no sweepping shred and music of Wintersun generally lacks of the structures of Classical music, all is based Symphonic Progressive metal with melodeath (guitar melodies and some lower harsh vocal shrieks), folk, viking metal (the clean singin), blackened thrash metal (harsh vocals) and even some doom metal or gothic metal (Actually these spoken whispers in "Beyond The Darksun", "Battle Against Time", "Beautiful Death" and "Sadness and Hate" sounds like kinda doomy or gothic like the clean whisper vocals borrowed in Tiamat's Wildhoney or some of My Dying Bride's spoken dooming "preachvocals" however), but definitely Wintersun is not Neo-Classical metal. Finally who are called Wintersun Neo-Classical metal?? Any sources (no i do'nt trust the AMG because actually they speak the bullshit from the some bands such as exp. Children of Bodom)???

[edit] Symphony X

How come Symphony X was'nt listed on here? Last time i checked they were tagged as neo-classical metal band both prog metal band in their wikipedia page. Any comments?

They're Prog and Symphonic metal not Neoclassical metal. Symphonic metal is not the same thing as neoclassical metal even though there are necessarilly overlaps between both Frédérick Duhautpas 19:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
wow wow woah..I must say that, i've never seen someone claim that Symphony X is not Neoclassical metal at all. OK they're Symphonic too of course, but they are DEFINITELY Neoclassica metal, no one can never deny that! Listen to LONG SOLOS, "shred-intros", "SHREDDING-parts" and other elements from their music when Michael Romeo does his wonderful guitar-work, and you will see what i mean. And i must also pointing out, that this is NOT my editor-opinoin, POV etc. this is clearly FACT. Just LISTEN to Symphony X per yourself. And im NOT denying, it, that they are prog metal. They are one masters of that genre along with Fates Warning, Dream Theater and Opeth.
they are DEFINITELY Neoclassical metal, no one can never deny that!(...)Just LISTEN to Symphony X per yourself.
Man, I already listen to this band...So this is not an issue of ignorance concerning this band. This is an issue of serious classification to avoid this list to turn to shit once again.
To tell you the truth, even I was hesitant about dismissing them as not being neoclassical. Because there are indeed influences from Malmsteen and Rhoads in their music. But being influenced doesn't necessarilly mean you play the same kind of music. And I refuse to consider Symphony x aesthetic as similar to Malmsteen's one. Malmsteen mostly refers to classical harmonic language's orthodoxy whereas Symphony x while referring to it a little also use many modern and prog harmonic languages devices that are alien to (common practice period's) classical music and to neoclassical metal cannons.
So yes there are some occasional parts of their music which are reminiscent of neoclassical metal. But the issue is to determine whether it is sufficient to claim there are a full neoclassical band.
Listen to LONG SOLOS, "shred-intros", "SHREDDING-parts"
I listen to them and all these LONG SOLOS, "shred-intros", "SHREDDING-parts" could just be classified as prog.So you're not proving anything for the moment.
that this is NOT my editor-opinion, POV etc.
Sure, but still when you're saying "Michael Romeo does his wonderful guitar-work" you're not particularly sounding neutral...
No if you want to prove me your point, suggesting me to listen to their music won't be sufficient. If you provide serious sources , I'll gladly change my stance. Oh... when I'm talking of serious sources I mean not poorly referential sites like Last FM or Amazon.com. I mean serious sources.
Frankly speaking, in my encyclopedias they are classified as prog and symphonic, not as Neoclassical metal. And even Metal archive doesn't consider them as neoclassical: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=172Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article is pretty negative, spending a lot of time on the criticisms of the genre... isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral? -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.130.61 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well this article is full of original research anyway, even though I tried to removed or fix blatent POV. Actually the real problem about the chapters concerning criticism is the fact they are not sourced. Yes this article article is probably non neutral and full of original research. However here you seem to confuse neutral with untouchable. Actually you seem to complain about the criticism,not the neutrality. I mean criticism in an article CAN be mentioned in a article while staying perfectly neutral, as long as this criticism is sourced, (which is not the case here.) But being neutral doesn't necessarilly mean praising a genre either, if you know what I mean... I wonder if there would be as many complaints about the neutrality, were the entire article a collection non sourced praises to the genre...
The real problem here is not the neutrality but the lack of source...which can potentially imply non neutrality, I concur, but don't mistake criticism with lack of neutrality. This not necessarily the same thing. Because criticism can be mentioned in all perfect neutrality. But note that if criticism here were to be deleted because it lacks of sources then most of the rest of the material in this article could be removed as well (most notably the technical part).Actually most of the things in this article could be removed. If we follow the strict guidelines of Wikipedia this is what should be done. Frankly speaking, I didn't really decided to work this article because this is not my first priority, my english is poor and because of the lack of reliable sources abou the genre. So I just tried to fix a few things but I mostly let as it was basicaly...thinking this was better than nothing about the subject. But maybe I was wrong to think so, if you have sources to fix that you're very welcome to do so.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

At present, this article is almost exclusively OR. This needs to be fixed in the very near future or deleted. If it cannot be fixed in a short time frame, it should be deleted and potentially re-created when it has been written to exclude OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed some other blatant OR that you forgot to remove.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Or we can just re-stubify it after removing all the original research. --Bardin (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What should we even do? I like neo-classical metal and it is a real subgenre, but it seems as if there are no sources for it, or if there are, no one is finding them. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There's the genre entry on Allmusic here. That alone should make this article safe from being deleted. It's just the current condition of the article that's the problem. It's probably just best to wipe it off and start the article all over again as Blackmetalbaz suggests, only as a stub instead of delete and recreate. --Bardin (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No List

No artists list. JackorKnave (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be a list made! There's a good amount of artists in the genre. I think a list has been delayed thus far because this article itself needs so much work as it is. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought it was weird that there was none. JackorKnave (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finally, a source we can use for this page!!!!

http://neoclassicalmetal.net/ explains neo-classical metal and talks about its origins, etc. We feep talking about how the page doesn't have enough sources and now here's a good one. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a great find! For too long I've been trying to figure out what this genre was all about because I just know Malmsteen was a very important figure for it but I don't exactly know what makes it "neo-classical metal". I'll add cello rock to the See Also section. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Also is it just me or is it a fairly new site — the links aren't working... (at least for me) −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 03:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no author identified either so I'm extremely skeptical that it can be considered a reliable source. --Bardin (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)