Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Add in conflict? 2 Band's early history 3 Bad Info 4 Genre 5 Genre "Debated" 6 "Listeners" 7 who idiot? 8 Discography 9 Musical Experiment 10 Rewrite 11 Genre as POV 12 Slipknot fans 13 Josh or James? 14 update! 15 rap metal? 16 A Side-Project 17 Comment from Metalhead666 18 ....Likeness 19 Tuning... 20 why dont you guys learn?

Add in conflict?

I'm not sure if this would be totally appropriate or necessary, but would it be out of boundaries to create a part in the Slipknot pages that discusses the actual metal content of Slipknot? I live in a community where Death Metal and Black Metal is pretty common, and there's always a lot of dispute if the word "Slipknot" ever arises. Mister Deranged 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless you can cite reliable sources that detail the issues and debate, I'm pretty sure the section would be a violation of wikipedia policies by default. The problem is a section devoted to that would be original research and most likely POV almost by default. --Wildnox 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Band's early history

Didn't the band participate in some bandslam contest? They came second and Corey Taylor's band came first. That's where they first found Corey and recruited him. It's an interesting piece of information that I think should be included. I'll look for the exact source and post it up when I find it here. -- Zuracech lordum 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If(I'll assume it's more a question of when) you find a source, I'd suggest including it in the second paragraph of the band history. It was in the article in that paragraph before I made a few large rewrites to the first half of the article awhile back, but I removed it because I couldn't find a source. Hopefully, you'll have better luck with a source than I had. --Wildnox 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad Info

Someone has edited a lot of stuff on here. dont personlally have time to fix it, but if someone could...

i agree, and can someone fix craig jones page cause i saw him unmasked on a you tube video, and im sure 1000's of others have. the reason why im not typing it is cause i dont no wat to say

81.77.150.93 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with it right now? --Wildnox 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Genre

They're Nü Metal/Alternative Metal, I think that should be what's labeled for them but it doesnt really bother me what you put. I have to disagree with Cloudy about them pioneering Nü Metal as it had already been common ground for a few years before Slipknot came in. I would agree of adding a fact that they are much harder than many other Nü Metal artists. And the idea of the industrial influence isn't much because the way they use their keyboards and samples is much more in tune to the Nü Metal aspect of them.

I think we should change the genre to alternative metal/rap metal/heavy metal. That is what the all music guide puts for their genre. DavidJJJ 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would approve of adding alternative metal, but would oppose adding either rap metal or heavy metal, or removing nu metal. The only problem with all music in regard to nu-metal is that it does not list nu-metal as a genre in any respect. The mixture of elements from alternative metal, rap metal, and heavy metal is one of the defining elements of nu metal. Wildnox 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We all agree that the band is some sort of metal so why dont we just call there genre Unspacific Metal instead of dabated. Matthew Husdon 20:11, 19 August 2006

I think it should definetely be noted that the band's first couple albums are nu metal, and their latest is more alternative metal. Nu Metal should be there somewhere though, as Slipknot were one of the pioneers of Nu Metal, they also have a turntablist and make use of samples, lacked guitar solos for a long time, and were marketed towards the Nu Metal fans. They are no longer Nu Metal, but they were a few years ago. Cloudy 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

slipknot defionatly have industrial influences as well (keyboards and the rythmn guitar mostly) if this is not noted as a genre, there should atleast be a section explaining why the band has been so hard to catagorise and listing the genres that they have been known to play.

Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Whether they "definitely have industrial influences" doesn't matter unless an external source can be found to cite. That said, genre is inherently somewhat POV, and the infobox is not a place to play POV games. I'll discuss this more below. --Xtifr _tälk 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, they have much more in common with Slayer, Sepultura or even Cannibal Corpse that Linkin Park or Korn. Sure, sampling and even some rapping was present in their early stuff, but they've never been anything less that extreme. I'd grade them as Alt. Metal personally, as the presence of solos in Vol. 3 puts pay to the nu metal label.Kung Foo 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

they're really too sucky to be like Slayer and Cannibal Corpse. that's an insult. but seriously, who give a fuck about solos? they have a goddamn turntabilist, and their lyrical themes are full of the teen angst you see in other nu metal acts. i don't mind alt. metal, but somebody better get "Heavy Metal" the fuck off that list. and if i see a "Death Metal" i think i'll go fucking insane. oh, and however said slipknot is "industrial-influenced" is a moron. TightKid 3:17 pm, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Genre "Debated"

In the past I thought that listing the genre as Debated and referring people to the genre controversy section was unnecessary, but now I believe otherwise. So I'm going to set it as Debated and link "debated" to the genre controversy section. Under the section I would suggest anyone list any genre that has a reliable source, prefferably music profiles or reviews, and cite the source directly next to the genre. Wildnox 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Um i think some where on here we should mention their fans being called Maggots..--Hoah.. 09:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added it Blood8815 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Listeners"

Listeners

---

- Patrick Gargano (Queer) - Rhett Chesser - Gelati - Luke Casey - Oliver

wtf is this? Vandilism?--69.213.152.186 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's vandalism and I just removed it :).--Wildnox 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

—savetheheavymetal—222.154.153.190 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC) wats up im new to this convo huz doing the vandalism???

-Learn how to spell.

who idiot?

who idiot writed that Corey Taylor is former member? Hes still in the band. A notice for you who writed it, next time please do not make emberassing mistake like that anymore

It likely was vandalism, and was done on purpose. Someone has reverted it, and most vandalism edits on this page are removed in a matter of minutes.

Also, in future edits, pleas refrain from calling people "idiots". Thanks, --La Pizza11 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's "Which idiot wrote". If you're going to go on a mini-rant, you may want to check your grammar first. NaiveAmoeba 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discography

There is no Discography, despite haveing a link to jump to it...

Yes it's suppose to be like that.It has it's own page now. SOADLuver 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Musical Experiment

Slipknot combine many different consistencies of Hardcore Punk with Heavy Metal-- At their base they are Thrash Metal, but their style is Ranging from the Nu-Metal they did to Metalcore, and even Industrial Metal, Goregrind, Death/Grind, and Death Metal.

Taken from (www.black-goat.com) with permission:

» 1.1. What You Need To Know 1.1.1. What genre does Slipknot belong to? Hard to explain, but let's put it this way: they're a band that fuses elements taken from hardcore (ie. aggressive vocals, heavy chunks of distortion), goregrind (ie. blast beats, gore imagery), and modern rock. They're not metal, and they're certainly not plain hard rock either.<end of quote>

This should explain it...

198.189.164.206 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Christopher Cole

Do you have reliable source that states this? If not this is original research and therfore is not of much use on wikipedia. --Wildnox 21:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First let me request that you reply instead of editing your previous post, thats perfectly fine rule wise, but it can make for an unreadable discussion if it gets out of control. Second, the sourced provided is much less reliable than the sources used on the page for the genres listed under categorization. Third, the source is slightly ambiguous and if anything runs counter to your claim by stating that Slipknot are not metal. Fourth, the source provided never once mentions Thrash Metal, Nu-Metal, Metalcore, Death/Grind(sic), or Death Metal as you did in your original statement. --Wildnox 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore and Metalcore are pretty much the same thing anyway; one's just a bit "heavier".

I'd beg to differ, but my argument probably shouldn't go here. 205.247.164.49 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm going to try to rewrite the article. Mainly I'm going to focus on factual accuracy and clarity. The version I am working on can be found at, any help there would be welcome. [1] --19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is my first set of changes.

1. Moved genres to Infobox
2. Changed to the <ref> style of citation.
3. removed Categorization section, as it was mostly uncited and a POV hotbed.WP:V WP:OR
4. Moved much of the intro to a section called "Image and identities"
5. Cleaned up Members Section

--Wildnox 21:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The most difficult part of this obviously will be the history section. Does anyone have any reliable sources for some of the uncited and sometimes contradictory information? --Wildnox 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just replaced the old, obsolete infobox. Now some stylistic comments: The Musician's WikiProject standard is to put a very general genre in the infobox, and discuss more specific genres in the article itself. Usually in the intro. Also, I've never, ever seen anyone put refs in an infobox before. I'm not sure that's a good approach. But I left all the content the way I found it. Along those same lines: I understand why the bandmembers have numbers next to their names, but again, I'm not sure that needs to be in the infobox. (Though I could go either way on that.) I do think the point should be more clearly linked to the actual presence of the numbers. The reader shouldn't have to backtrack to figure that part out. It should be much more obvious that those numbers are there because those are the members' numbers. I'll think about ways that could be improved. One last thing: even though there's a separate discography article, it's still generally considered a good idea to have a brief summary at the main band article. A common approach is to just list albums, not singles, and include just the name, year and label. But there should be something there as a teaser. I may be back with more suggestions later. cheers. Xtifr _tälk 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think you're definitely right about the numbers. I think I'll remove them and relist in alphabetical order. The genre citation and listing is more of response to SPAs and one time editors who come on and switch the genres constantly. If I left the genre heavy metal, a detractor comes by and replaces it with something like mallcore. If I left the genre nu-metal, a fanboy comes by and replaces it with something like death metal. So I've decided a medium list with citations was a way to deflect most of the edit warring. I'll handle the discography the next time I have the time to do heavy duty editing, which might be a while from now. --Wildnox 00:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers are fine in the Members section, and with a little extra explanation, they'll be great there. I was only worried about the infobox, and it's not a big deal even there. As for the genre debate ... bottom line, it's a POV dispute. And I have enough comments about it to justify a separate section, so I'll make one. Xtifr _tälk 02:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Genre as POV

Genres are somewhat subjective, and sub-sub-genres especially so. For this reason, genre debates are generally a POV dispute. This is one of the reasons why the infobox guidelines say to use a broad genre in the infobox field. I've checked the citations, and first of all, neither one really qualifies as a reliable source. AllMusic is close, but is generally only considered reliable as a source of publication data. And second, the Allmusic link actually lists the genre as "Rock"! So citing it to back up something else just doesn't work.

When there is a POV dispute, "all significant published points of view are to be presented", but they should be presented as points of view, not as fact. A critic's point of view does not belong in the infobox as an implied fact, but in the body of the article as a critic's published point of view. Thus, I recommend putting Heavy Metal (or even Rock) in the infobox, and then adding a sentence to the introduction like:

According to Steve Huey on AllMusic Guide, Slipknot's mix of alternative metal, neo-shock rock, and rap-metal "helped make them one of the most popular bands in the so-called nu-metal explosion of the late '90s."¹

This will get the point across to the reader, and won't leave any room for debate. He did say that. But it doesn't claim that it's anything more than his opinion. And if someone wants to have another sub-genre listed, all they have to do is find another notable critic to quote. Xtifr _tälk 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why dont we just call them Heavy Metal, because they belong to one or more metal genres, and heavy metal would discribe all sub-genres of metal, so there shuld be just Heavy Metal in the info box.

The problem is even presenting them as heavy metal is a POV. --Wildnox 19:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Then go with rock in the infobox. Note that the current cites in the infobox don't actually support the claims made in the infobox! Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? The refs in the infobox all have listings of the band under the genres cited. --Wildnox 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a misunderstanding of what you mean by support? Do you want a page devoted soley to explaining a bands Genre?--Wildnox 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Really! Look at 'em again. All Music Guide lists the genre as rock! You're misreading what it says. As for Rockdetector, yes, it says "Genre: Nu-Metal, Metal, Alternative Metal". But it's not what would be considered a reliable source. At best, you can cite that as one critic's opinion. Anyway, there's a smallish discussion about genres and musician articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles, if you want to offer some feedback. Xtifr _tälk 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All music guide lists Heavy Metal, Alternative metal, and Rap Metal as "Styles" instead of "Genres", which are essentially the same thing, so the whole thing is moot? Look around allmusic awhile, the vast majority of bands are listed as "Rock", as the site broke up what is usually considered genre into "Genre", which is essentially the most general category they could place a band into, and "Style", which is the more specific of the two. Slayer, Black Sabbath, Metallica, all well known as Heavy Metal bands, all listed as "Rock" with their "Styles" listed as sub-genres of Heavy Metal. Should they all be listed as "Rock" alone on wikipedia since we have a source stating that "Heavy Metal" is their "Style" rather than their genre? The answer is simple, no. Or at leas that is how I view the "Styles" v "Genre" debate. I'll definitely concede about the Rockdetector source not being reliable though. I'm not sure in which ways it would be considered unreliable, but I understand burden of proving the source reliabe would fall to me, as I am the one attempting to include it, and I don't have the will to hunt around Rockdetector trying to prove satisfaction of the criteria. Maybe we remove the Genre listed from Rockdetector and leave the other three? At least until the "Styles" V "Genre" debate is solved in regard to the infoboxes. --Wildnox 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the one genre and the rockdetector source that went with it. --Wildnox 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Slipknot fans

Should I put what Slipknot fans are named/labelled as. I think it is maggots.

http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Slipknot:1927033098:page=biography;_ylt=Avj2Du1e8d0sfp0YLqMbADMJGbgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjE5YXBsBHNlYwNiaW8-?

Zenity 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Josh or James?

On the album cover, you see "James" (wearing the black mask) standing right next to Corey. On the other side is Mick. Every Slipknot fan knows that James is taller than Mick, but, on the cover, "James" is shorter than Mick. Is this a slip-up, or Josh? WereWolf 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the self-titled album. Under "Miscellanea" on the Slipknot (album) page, it is mentioned that Josh is on the cover; not James.--Έρεβος 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

update!

why are there no references to the albums? this needs to be changed.

rap metal?

um stop putting that as the genre. they used to have rapped vocals but they don't anymore. and the band doesn't consider themselves rap metal. really only the first album had a big rap presence. its inaccurate.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter all that much unless you have a reliable source to cite. --Wildnox(talk) 19:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we are supposed to cite sources for everything if possible, therefore we never remove cited information only to replace it with uncited information. --Wildnox(talk) 19:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to add Nu Metal, please provide a reliable source, I would like the include it but have no source at this time. --Wildnox(talk) 19:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

its up there now, and a source is cited.

A Side-Project

I think it should be known that Stone Sour was the original band, and Slipknot was made as a side-project. Slipknot then became famous, and Stone Sour was left in the dust until a few years ago, then was in the dust again, and is finally catching up again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.70.242 (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

No it wasn't. Corey started with Stone Sour before joining Slipknot, but Slipknot already had an album out when he joined. It's by no means a side project of Stone Sour, or vice versa. They just share the same vocalist and I think a guitarist as well. Nickoladze 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I dislike Slipknot, but love Stone Sour so I will see which of the bands was actually considered the "side-project."
Catherine Slaughter
XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Joey jordison's other side project is the murder dolls, i dont know if someone forgot to put this or didn't know but it needs to be included in the article

His own page says it, isn't that enough? Nickoladze 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Metalhead666

There may be a reliable source for the Nu-Metal classification, but not Rapcore. Rapcore isa genre with bands such as E. Town Concrete, (hed) pe, and Otep. None of which sound like Slipknot, clearly. Please change this. -Metalhead666

I changed it back to Rap Metal, which do have a source labeling the band as. --Wildnox(talk) 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

....Likeness

i love the this band slipknot.....yeah really!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.17.223 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Tuning...

I think that there really should be something mentioned on Slipknot's tuning and even an article on drop B tuning. The tuning is low to high (B, F#, B, E, G#, C#.) Only one other heavy metal band that I know of that has this tuning is Sepultura. Somebody please make one, it's kinda driving me crazy that there isn't one up and i might just have to make one after a while...

why dont you guys learn?

Why everybody keeps saying that they are Nu Metal??? the y aint and never goinna be nu metal! Band has itself sayd in interwiev that keep it very offensive or it hurts them or whaterver that word is if you call the Nu Metal. Slipknot is one of the bands that is very hard to put in some genre :( But if you are a real fan, a maggot like me, you SHOULD know that they arent a goddamn lame Nu Metal!!!!! If someone has some prufe that they are, says it here! Ps. Iliputti Then what are they? Nickoladze 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Who knows, maybe metalcore or something, i personaly think maybe just extreme metal would be it, because they use so many music genres in their music: heavy metal, alternative metal, grindcore, death metal, maybe little black metal or something else, i would say that extreme metal. But anyway it is so hard to put them into any genre. But, NU METAL AINT THE RIGHT ONE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT THEM SELVES TOO! The one who doenst believe anf sais that they are nu metal, should be hanged >:( And please if you really have prufe that they are nu metal, show it here! Ps. Iliputti

They're definately not black metal, grindcore, metalcore, extreme metal, heavy metal, or death metal. Alternative metal would be close, but not quite. I listen to Slipknot, and I think they are Nu-Metal. Nickoladze 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant that they have some lements of death metal and other metal types i sayd already. I dont meant that they are all those but that they have little elements of those metal types. You and many people think that they are Nu Metal but thats total crap. Iv said it here once and again: Slipknot, themselves, have said in AN Interwiev, that they are not Nu Metal band and keeps it offensive if they are rated or called a Nu Metal band. Metalcore or Alternative metal would be the right but not Nu Metal, please learn that. Ps. Iliputti

This debate has been done to death, unless you can cite Reliable Sources stating that Slipknot is whatever genre you wish to label the band, opinions of the music are inconsequential. 70.191.119.242 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Slipknot, themselves, have said in AN Interwiev, that they are not Nu Metal band and keeps it offensive if they are rated or called a Nu Metal band." - No metal band nowadays will ever admit that they are nu-metal, just like no metal bands from the '80s would admit that they are hair metal, since the "nu-metal" label is used in a derogatory way. So really, just because the band members themselves say that they are not Nu Metal doesn't mean that we can safely rule out the possibility. This is just going to go on in circles.

In that interview, did they happen to say what genre they are then? Nickoladze 03:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No they didnt and I think its a bad thing :( maybe if they even dont them selves what genre to be in? :O Ps. Iliputti