Talk:Traditional heavy metal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traditional heavy metal article.
Article policies

Merger Discussion Archives


Why does every link from a classic metal band lead to "heavy metal music"? i think it should lead to this page.Zelda 19:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WTF??!

Is someone just going round and trying to fucking merge every Metal genra together? WTF? Someone should stop who evers messing with the articles. Its just not funny.

It's because Proto-Metal, Traditional Metal, and Classic Metal are all the same damn thing. Read the pages. They all say the same thing: they have the same time period, all are pointed out to have influenced heavy metal, same sounds and qualities, and list the same bands as being major contributors. I think the page for Classic Metal should say, "Classic Metal, also known as Traditional Metal and Proto-Metal..." Helltopay27 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I've archived the page containing the comments on the proposed merger.

[edit] Intro paragraph

I'm going to rewrite the intro paragraph for a number of reasons, primarily because 1. Most people won't know what a "cross-genre term" is, and 2. These bands did not give birth to heavy metal (the genre was born about ten years prior); rather they represent the "golden age" of heavy metal and are seen by some as the representatives of a classic metal sound. Any thoughts or concerns before I change it, let me know. WesleyDodds 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a huge problem. There is no distinct sound for classic metal. I don't even like the term much since I would never call half of these bands metal, but I don't get to decide that. However, I can fight to the death the fact that these bands can vary greatly. O, and that many people have different definitions. Seems some people like to lump in metal from the 70's as well. marnues 06:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesleydodds has written the intro para quite better than the obsolete term "cross genre reference".

User:Marneus, don't revert without giving valid reasons. It is called "vandalism". Also, what do you mean by "approved version" ? Stop being hypocritical. -- Metal Thunder मेटल थणडर|(Talk) 07:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I also approve Wesley's version, which ironically says quite different to yours. First, it is in line with this article. Second, it explicitly says it doesnt have a distinct style, because it doesnt. So trying to force a POV over a Fact often doesnt work on Wikipedia. Stop the edit war now, both of you. Go edit some other articles, good starting places are here and here. Ley Shade 09:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I screwed up the names. Considering the edits Metal Thunder made and the wording of WesleyDodd's paragraph above, I thought they were the same. Now that I go back and see the history, I was actually talking to Metal Thunder with the above statement. Also, can we talk a bit less about what people are/should be doing and a bit more about the article? marnues 01:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think alot of good stuff has been omitted here. Since I grew up in the 80's this was all I listened to. The so called Metal of Today is just mediocre (at best), 3 chord drop D angry BULLSHIT(ever heard of a guitar solo boys, or is it ya can't fucking play one?). Alas Real Metal is dead to the record execs, but not in my heart or my CD player. So when you compile a list, please, please look around at what your missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.137.196 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 December 2006

[edit] Genres

If you're going to state that Iron Maiden is "Classic Metal," then you should probably include the other early bands from the New Wave of British Metal, which I think Maiden was a big part of. TheLedBalloon 16:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, one can't claim Iron Maiden and Mötley Crüe are both playing the same genre ("classic metal"). Classic metal is more of a term for metal bands active in 1975-1985 than a genre itself, so I've completely overhauled the article and made that more apparent. And removed almost all the traces of filthy glam metal.

[edit] AC/DC

This must be the fiftyeleventh time that someone mistakes AC/DC's hard rock for metal music. They don't exactly embrace the idea of being shoved into the metal department themselves, so why put them on the list? Broadbandmink 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Mark7532222

  • def leppard,rainbow,maiden,savatage,yngwie the same genre :S
Got these from an edit that was reverted Zazaban 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

this page should just be deleted. 5 different genres (hard rock,hair metal,heavy metal,power metal,neoclassical/shred metal) considered the same genre? no pantera.. lmfao.. armored saint,danzig,and fastway were pretty popular too, but i dont think anybody cares about the classic metal page, since its just random bull shit combined.. this will probally get erased -.-

Think of it like the term 'Classic Rock.' The Beatles and Dire Straits don't really sound the same, but they're both called 'Classic Rock.' Zazaban 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok. Why no pantera? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7532222 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, im more confused. Classic rock is 60s and 70s rock bands, judas priest,rollin stones, the beatles sound nothing alike but theyre all rock and they come from 60/70s,thus classic rock. Classic metal just has all these random metal bands put together.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7532222 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They're all Metal and from the 70s/80s. Zazaban 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. Diamond head a key artist? Metallica not? -Scratches Head- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7532222 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

 ::Metallica is systically closer to later bands./ Zazaban 05:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Though I disagree with the idea of deleting this page, I side with Mark on this, this page is a complete nonsense. A mixture of everything based on a debatable notion of "classic metal". While I originally expected to find a article dedicated to original heavy metal, I realize this is actually not the case here: there's indeed a complete confusion between several genres most particularly between hard rock, original heavy metal and glam metal. This article is not serious.
I suggest this article to be completely redone focusing exclusively on original heavy metal bands just like the german and french versions of this article did.
I have serious sources for doing so if needed.
"Think of it like the term 'Classic Rock.' The Beatles and Dire Straits don't really sound the same, but they're both called 'Classic Rock.'"
Zazaban, I'm sorry but this argument sounds like a personnal theory of yours (= Original research and POV). First does anyone have any reliable sources about the existence of the very term "classic metal"(I mean authoritative source that testifies the use of the term as A REAL GENRE, not just as an informal word used by a few people). Second, any sources that testify that mixture? Frankely speaking I never heard the term "classic metal" used as an official term. As far as I know when we refer to original 70s/80s bands we just employ the terms "hard-rock" or "heavy metal"(in a restricted sense as opposed to broader meaning heavy metal =Metal). I have searched in my music encyclopedia and in the metal encyclopedia and there is no mention of a style called "classic metal".Frédérick Duhautpas 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really big on the metal scene and have never heard this term either, so I'm just going to assume the best thing right now is to stop commenting. Zazaban 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"the best thing right now is to stop commenting?" discussion page is to debate whether the page is stupid or something is wrong or not and you're telling us to just not reply? nice logic (sarcasm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7532222 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, first off Should I remind you the wikipedia policy concerning civility? No, I don't think I have to Because you already know, don't you?
Second, I don't think Zazaban meant to prevent us to post comments...I think Zazaban just meant HE (not we) should stop commenting because he doesn't know enough about the genre. That's all. No need to overreact. Frédérick Duhautpas 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
^^^^ What he said. Zazaban 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
you meant you would stop commenting yet you comment again after his comment? nice logic again -rolls eyes-
Well, you posted a personal attack. What was I supposed to do? I highly suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Zazaban 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You didnt bash me back, you just said ^^ what he said which wasnt a needed reply. and why were you talking to your self? back on topic. you - Think of it like the term 'Classic Rock.' The Beatles and Dire Straits don't really sound the same, but they're both called 'Classic Rock. you - :They're all Metal and from the 70s/80s. you - Metallica is systically closer to later bands. HUH!? you said classic metal is just metal from the 70/80s doesnt matter what it sounds like.

I didn't bash you back, people aren't supposed to bash at all here. Zazaban 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Come on, Mark, you seem to be a sensible guy, so why falling into such a childish sterile bad faith? It happens to everybody to misintepret words... You did misinterpret his words, didn't you? So why persisting in your aggression when basically you are mistaken?

"you meant you would stop commenting yet you comment again after his comment? nice logic again -rolls eyes-"

When he said he meant he would stop commenting it was obviously about the ISSUE per se. But obviously this doesn’t necessarilly mean he’s supposed to shut up especially when he is personnally attacked. So please stop twisting his words and intentions. All in all please remember one of the Wikipedia’s prerogatives: Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
On the other hand some of your points concerning the classic metal issue are relevant, I strongly support them. But you don’t need to attack people personnaly and make sarcasms especially when you just misinterpreted their words. Because someone is mistaken about the issue doesn’t mean you have to be disrespectful with him.

"back on topic. you - (...)

Come on, Zazaban had the guts to admit he doesn’t know enough about the issue. He doesn’t want to argue about it anymore. So what more do you want?
Your basic point proves you’re a sensible guy,so don’t let petty personnal issues blind your judgement. I would hate to engage a wikipedia's procedure to stop this sterile conflict. Frédérick Duhautpas 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry but there's no way this is a genre fixed the page user:mark7532222 —Preceding comment was added at 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

......... MARK GOT BANNED LOL!
Yeah he acted like a real child vandalising the whole article...That's a shame. Apparently the guy really had serious comportemental troubles Frédérick Duhautpas 22:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

He had some good points though, too bad he had to bash the page.. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.207.126 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. Zazaban said he doesnt know much about the genre. Yet he came into a discussion about the genre and has a box thing in his profile that says that this user enjoys metal music. Comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.198.99 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Let me guess, you're Mark and you're commenting from another IP...Frankely speaking, we really don't care about these childish and steril personal attacks against Zazaban.You aren't making any point when you're making ad hominem comments against him...This discussion page is a place for discussion concerning the article not a pretex to attack people.Oh and by the way one can appreciate a genre without knowing it extensively.I don't see where the contradiction is...Frédérick Duhautpas 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Let me guess, you're Zazaban and you're commenting from another IP...Frankely speaking, we really don't care about these childish and steril personal attacks Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.206.41 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah now the conspiration theory...it's getting more and more pathetic...Ok Mr paranoid, did you note that basically I argued against Zazaban thesis in this discussion and defended Mark's point/yours? So your paranoid belief that I'm him is ridiculous.
Anyway it's useless to discuss with a troll.Frédérick Duhautpas 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

the pantera question still hasn't been answered LOL--142.162.204.104 23:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ,,,,,,,,,.........

None of that was me.. --Mark75322222 01:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure man. If you wanna play the smart alec, be my guest...I couldn't care less...At any rate no matter you are one or two persons, you are troll(s) and vandal(s) anyway. So we don't care about you now. Your original point was certainly relevant but your vandalism and your attacks are sterile. Anyway when I'll have time I'm gonna fix this article to make it more serious and relevant, and with sources. From now on, I won't even try to discuss any further with you or your IP alterego. Frédérick Duhautpas 13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Despite being a troll, he has some good points. This genre should be the most popular metal bands of the seventies/eighties, not a bunch of random metal bands that people just like feel like calling classic. That's my two cents.FinalFantasyTen (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah you're another socketpuppet of his?. Whatever... yes sure Mark/you definitely had good points. I already said it. But he is a vandal and so are you. (i.e. Wade Keller article vandalized).Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I don't even know what I did to upset him so much. Zazaban (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queen

I will add them to the list because I believe they are an appropriate band to list. Thundermaster367 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not that Queen thing again...

You can add any band, as proved in "comments by mark7532222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.206.41 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recents edits by Mr troll

Sorry, Mr troll while your edits seemed to be serious this time at last, I'm afraid I have to disagree anyway. While I agree that definition of notion of classic metal including 5 different genres is a nonesense, I also disagree with your views stating that classic metal (which means traditionnal metal) refers to early 70s hard rock only. According to my encyclopedias notion of traditional heavy metal(or heavy metal in the restricted sense) includes early 70s heavy metal bands as well as 80s HM including NWOBHM. Beside one should be cautious of the lattent confusion concerning the different definitions of the term Heavy metal. As a matter of fact the term heavy metal can be used in a wider sense refering to metal including every subgenre. 2. it can be used as a synonymous of Hardrock 3. It can be considered as a different tendency as opposed to hard rock lying mostly in the fact HM tendency droped Blues influences. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

it still made more sense than the abomination that the article is now.142.162.194.241 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If your intention is to deal with the article as if classic metal = Hard rock then your version just doesn't make any sense at all, because there's already an article dedicated to hard rock. There's no point making a double/parralel article.On a side note, I find it quite ironic you've been bitching everybody about the irrelevant approch concerning this article when your approch turns out to be as inconsistent.
There are still confusions in this article to clarify and stuffs to fix but the article doesn't state anything like classic "being a mix of several different genres" anymore now. I have made minor edits to delete parts suggesting amalgam/assimilation between classic metal and thrash or glam. So as imperfect as this version still is, I prefer this version to your irrelevant approch. This article sure needs improvement but at least it doesn't state major nonsense anymore.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its SUPPOSED to be metal from the 70/80s. So, thrash metal bands should be on there along with fastway, armored saint etc. I did this but it just got rv. So then I thought maybe I should change it like I did just then (the edit we're discussing now.) Classic Metal is a term142.162.207.230 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep on doing your trolling, man. Thing is classic metal is just synonymous to traditional heavy metal. the term just doesn't refer to a period but to a music with specific aesthetic characteristics. Come on, the article IS supposed to refer to a specific genre that had its hay-days in the 80s/70s. I never said that it should include any metal existing during this period. A genre is by no mean defined by a period but by a general stylistic aesthetic characteristic. So even if thrash's haydays also came in the 80s, it doesn't mean thrash has to be included in the notion of traditional heavy metal. Thrash is not traditional heavy metal. Period.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classic

It seems sort of POV to me.Inhumer (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is supposed to be POV to you? If you're refering to the term "classic", then yes, I kind of agree with you...More exactly it's an unformal use. The "Classic metal" is not an official term, but it can be tolerated imo...Even though I'm not fan of it. Actually the correct term is simply "heavy metal"(in a restricted sense that is to say "traditional heavy metal") as opposed to the wider sense of heavy metal (that is to say "metal" including every subgenre) But as the term heavy metal is already used for the article dealing with the term with the wider sense, calling this article heavy metal too could mislead readers that are not familiar with the differences of nuances in the use of the term. In my opinion, Classic metal can be tolerated, but personnaly I'd rather call this article simply "Traditional heavy metal". Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the term. I should have made that clearer in the initial post. 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

and I think it should be called Traditional heavy metal.Inhumer (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Traditional metal is a re-direct by previous, long ago consensus. I just had an admin put a protection lock on the re-directs for the "fairy-tale" "Proto metal" pages. As they are now both locked re-directs to. Way back during the same process for those re-directs.... Traditional metal was chosen to re-direct here to this article. And that was a year and a half ago that the re-direct happened.(and I think it was Wesley Dodds who did it?) 156.34.219.91 (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep so if this page is redirected to here, then the term of "classical metal" is actually just another term for traditional heavy metal. Now we agree "traditional heavy metal" is a term which describes a REAL genre, that is to say the heavy metal of 70s/80s bands like Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Manowar, and so on, Don't we?
Now we agree traditional heavy metal doesn't include thrash. I need to specify this because you have this little troll getting all nervous about the fact the classic metal is a "term not a genre" :lol:. He has been whining for months that the article was a nonesense because the article included several genres. Which was indeed a nonesense. And now that the scope of this article has been reduced to one genre, the troll wants to add more genres like thrash. Ain't it parodoxical? He really doesn't know what he wants...(Well contradiction is by nature the very essence of trolls... )
A he keeps on yelling "It's at term not a genre, bla, bla" lol, Yeah, sure it's a TERM, but I wonder if he knows that terms can be used to refer to genres ? Apparently the guy seems to believe that words like "term" and "genre" are opposite notions...So if you use term, then you can't refer to a genre, :lol:. He doesn't seems to realize that any genre needs a term to be named. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fuck's the point of talking about of me if you're just gonna rv my reply. I said this is stupid, it's 5 genres. Zazaban said think of it like Classic Rock, a term for 70s/80s metal bands. So, where the hell are the thrash bands?

142.162.193.68 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

what about "Armored Saint?" and "Danzig?" and "Fastway?"

142.162.193.68 (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

?? Classic rock is neither a genre nor a term... it's a radio format. 156.34.217.154 (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
@ Mr Troll: Zazaban can say whatever he wants, it doesn't mean I support his views.Btw He himself recognized he didn't know the subject enough. Thing is Classic metal term is just synonymous to "Traditionnal heavy metal" .And traditionnal Heavy metal is a specific and defined genre with specific aesthetic characteristic. Period. btw sorry your point concerning your "it's-a-TERM-not-A-GENRE-blah-bla..." thing has really something hilarious to it: Man, do you know at least what the word "term" is supposed to mean? A term is just "a word or phrase, especially one from a specialised area of knowledge". YES, a term is just a word/phrase, nothing else but a damn word/phrase. Now what lingusitic units do you think you use to name a genre? Words...precisely. Now, as these names are not common words, but words bound to a specific domain, (music domain that is) we call them "term." So any genre's name(thrash, goth, Rock, rap, whatever...) by definition IS a music term. So words like "Thrash metal" or "classic metal" are simply terms which belong to the music terminology. And these terms refer to a specific GENRE. Linguistically speaking this means that a word like "thrash metal" is a term... and this terms refers to a specific genre. So your obsession to insist this is a term not a genre is absurd. Because of course "classic metal" IS a term, but this term refers to A GENRE.
Now, from what I gather from your periodic hysterical crisis about this distinction, I think, by "term" you actually seem to refer to the notion of "umbrella (term)". As matter of fact, an "umbrella term" by definition refers not to a specific thing (like a term) but covers an ensemble of things. So in your views (like Zazaban) you seem to believe the word "classic metal" is an umbralla term (that is to say a global term) which refers to several genres which occur in the 70s/80s period. This is where you and Zazaban are wrong. Traditionnal heavy metal doesn't refer to an ensemble of different genres existing in the 80s, no Traditionnal heavy metal is a term which refers to a specific genre not an ensemble of genres. Iron maiden, Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Accept,Ozzy, Manowar, Saxon, ect... play in the same common genre called "Heavy metal"(in the restricted sense) also known as "traditionnal heavy metal". this genre is what this article calls classic metal. The term doesn't refer to a period but to a specific GENRE. So your obsession to add thrash metal bands in this article is irrelevant. It is clear really don't know what you are talking about.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh and by the way yes sure "Armored Saint" and "Danzig" and "Fastway are ok in this article cause they definitely are Traditionnal heavy metal. But I deleted and will delete any of your edits in this article by principle, because you're a troll/Vandal/ banned user. Noone of your edits are welcome no matter they could be acurate. Because noone here can trust you.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start us off with some notes:

~ No essays in the future. I can't believe I read the whole thing.

~ Yngwie is power metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.193.68 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

~ Manowar is power metal.

I'm starting to understand your point that's it's just Normal Metal (no sub genres). I didn't earlier because of the article earlier with all the glam and shit. Going by the logic of glam being there, all other sub genres of metal in 70/80s should also be there, thus why I put thrash. I noticed you fixed it to just normal metal (no sub genres.) But if it's just normal metal then why is there just normal metal from 70/80s?

Why did you erase everything else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.193.68 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you erase everything else?

Anything which is considered as trolling/idiotic comments from you will be deleted.

But if it's just normal metal then why is there just normal metal from 70/80s? it is the main focus of this article. But I agree it would be correct to add further bands from later periods, but they are generally consdered as revival bands not original bands of the genre. I don't think it is the main focus of this article I have nothing against the fact to add 90s/2000s trad heavy metal bands. But it will be best to ask opinion to users.

~ Manowar is power metal. Actually jsut like heavy metal term, the "power metal" term is source of a general confusion. And like many people who aren't familiar with the polysemy of this term, you directly felt in the trap of this confusion. Yes, Manowar is indeed generally classified as Power metal. No doubt about that. Because they were ones of the first bands to be called power metal in the 80s. But back to the 80s the notion of power metal didn't have the same meaning as it has today. In the 80s power metal was a informal term, it wasn't clearly defined. and with Manowar it was used simply to refer to traditional heavy metal bands which put emphasis on power. But this "power metal/true metal" was actually just basic heavy metal. But the sense of the term power metal has evolved in the 90s and has shifted of meaning.

Nowadays, in Europe Power metal mostly refers to melodic speed metal bands, while a more US terminology of the Power metal terminology refers to post-thrash bands. Now Manowar doesn't play either melodic speed or Post thrash, but just a powerful form of traditional heavy metal. On a side note Manowar wrote anthem to heavy metal like "the gods made Heavy metal" which proves their reference to this original style. So don't be fooled by the tags, the power metal of Manowar in the contex of 80s is simply a personal form of traditional heavy metal, but it is still a traditional heavy metal.

~ Yngwie is power metal.

No he's not. Power metal is melodic speed metal or americian post-thrash. Yngwie doesn't play either of these genres. Actually the most correct label to his music is Neo-classical metal. Now neoclassical is a special form of traditional heavy metal whose specificity is to include referencees to classical music and virtuoso parts. But the aesthetic structure of the music is still basic Traditionnal heavy metal (same kind of riff, same average midtempo rhythms, same sense of melody, etc...). Moreover in the 80s neoclassical metal notion wasn't inexistant and his music was just classified as heavy metal. Oh, Yngwie doesn't play prog either as you suggested before. Because he plays technical metal, doesn't mean he plays prog music. Prog is not just a matter of technic. Bottom line is both Manowar and Yngwie have their place here (even though specifications need to be made in the article to avoid confusions like you did) Now I have sufficiently wasted my time discussing with you troll. Now I'm sorry But I will delete and ignore anything you'll say. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant to say Yngwie is Prog/Neo Classical metal. Saying Manowar was power metal confused me.

Anything which is considered as trolling/idiotic comments from you will be deleted.

Those comments aren't as bad as alot of your comments, but oh well.

If 90/00 bands can't be added, then it needs to be changed to "Traditional Heavy Metal."

142.162.193.68 (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

add danzig, armored saint and fastway and i wont edit dis anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.197.114 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you do it? if i troll it you can just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.194.128 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


I'll add them in time as well as some others, when I'll see no troll activity around here anymore. Here's my deal...I don't care about your blackmail(yep for the comprehension of other readers, I explain: I recently deleted several attempts of "negotiation" by Mr troll which can be assimilated to some implicit blackmail). Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering ...

Why is this article called classic metal and not traditional heavy metal? Is there a consensus I missed about which term is more appropriate? I personally feel the term classic indicate something from the past and only the past while traditional metal seems more broad. There are still many bands that play traditional metal today. Describing new bands or new albums as classic metal just seemed rather odd to me. Blaze Bayley, for instance, was only formed in 2000 while Halford was formed only one year earlier. These bands obviously perform "classic metal" or better put, traditional heavy metal. Other bands like Scorpions, Maiden and Priest are still active and release new albums in our contemporary time period. As it stands right now, this article is used only to refer to "heavy metal bands from the 1970s and 1980s who peaked later than the late 1960s and early 1970s pioneers of the genre." Why is there no room to mention new bands that formed and emerged later than the 1980s? I think that restriction is just blatant original research. With that in mind, if we were to remove that restriction, I feel this article would be better off with a name change to traditional heavy metal. Most websites like Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com just use the term heavy metal without any prefix, of course. About.com does use traditional metal. I do not know what, if anything, use the term classic metal other than this wikipedia article and its many mirrors. Just wondering what others think. --Bardin (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, I wholeheartedly support this view!!! This "Classic metal" thing has always bothered me, and I have noted some others persons also complained about that! IMO the term “Traditional Heavy metal” is a much more sensible and more frequent term. Btw this the way I named the french wiki article (after sources) And I completely subscribe to the fact modern bands still play this music (not only 70s or 80s bands). On a side note I've already tried to add bands last september and some user called that POV...And back to the time, I really didn't have the time to fight for that alone. But I still think modern bands should integrated.
Nevertheless I also found publications where the term "classic metal" is indeed used (i.e: sound of the beast) but frankly speaking "Traditional heavy metal" or "Heavy metal" (short) are more frequently used. The term is much more relevant. And I strongly support the option.("traditional heavy metal" is preferred for my part because it prevents making potential confusions with the wider sense of heavy metal)
Consensus? Yeah some have claimed so-called consensus upon the use classic metal'.. Come on! I have the impression some users use the consensual thing as an fallacious argument to justify POV. Yeah, I noted some actually call "consensus" what no other users didn't care to revert, criticize or change. But is there any poll testifying such a "consensus"! No. I propose to make a real legitimate consensus!
Oh btw Bardin, if you intend to rewrite the article, can you let us know, so we can work collectively! Plus I have several sources about this genre...It could be good to put them together....Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, to be perfectly honest, I did not really had any intention of rewriting this article at all when I made my comments above. They are just observations. I was thinking the next article I'd work on would be either Viking metal or Symphonic metal. Be that as it may, if you do want to collaborate on this article, I'd be more than willing to help.
As an aside, I noticed you're still marking your edits as minor even though they're not. The only stuff that should be marked as a minor edit are typo corrections and other stylistic changes that do not effect the content of the article. In other words, no real addition or subtraction in the contents. See Help:Minor_edit. It's pretty important actually not to mark non-minor edits as minor because when some people watch the list of recent changes, they skip over minor edits. I'm not one of those people but as a matter of courtesy and policy, you might want to stop marking your edits as minor unless they really are so. --Bardin (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
Good to know you'll work on such articles like viking metal or symphonic metal. Considering what you have already done in terms of sources, it will be nice to see some provided for such articles because such topic are indeed often exposed to subjectivity and original research. I'm not sure I can help you on them though. (Even though I'm a great lover of Bathory). I don't have much time these days, and I don't want to "scatter"(I don't know if this is a correct term)my attention on too much articles. I already didn't have time enough to deal with many things concerning recent changes on some articles I watch so...whatever...
Oh, btw sorry, for the minor edits thing,I know you already asked me...I kind of forget...I know about them. It was just some unconscious bad habit I apparently took, god knows when. Anyway I'll try to be more cautious about that.Thanks for the tip. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Hard rock bands be included?

Should Hard rock bands be included? Personaly I don't Think so.But let me explain why I'm asking this question: I've just added bands Armored Saint and Danzig that Mr Troll wanted to add.because they are relevant to this article as far as I know.Any objection? As for Fastway, originally I was quite disposed to include them, but well when thinking of it now, i think Fastways is much more hard rock than heavy metal. They're quite close to Led zep sound...

Should we inlcude it or not? Actually it depends what we call "traditional heavy metal" here!

But well, here's the problem: There often two meaning to heavy metal as some encyclopedias explain. Heavy metal was originally a synonym to hard-rock and ithis meaning is still often used in USA.(if you need the sources I can provide them) In this sense, then hard rock bands like Led zep can be called Heavy metal.

However the term heavy metal also has shifted with time. And in Europe it may be used as opposed to hard-rock: As a matter of fact traditional heavy metal is also used to refer to bands who droped blues roots and got a more radical sound than Hard rock. In this sense only bands following Black Sabbath or Judas Priest can be called Heavy metal. That's the way Sharpe young (in his definitive metal guide ) uses the term for example. (I'm writting quikely here, if you need the sources just ask).

This difference of use of the term is frequently a source of confusion in debate over here in wikipedia.

So I think we should take in account this potential source of confusion and decide which one of the sense we use. Personnaly I sure propose to mention both definitions, I woulmd favour Sharpe Young's approch over traditional use(Lester Bangs). Because using the term Heavy metal as a synonymous to Hard-rock here would lead to useless doubloon with the Hard-rock article.

If we use this second meaning as a main focus then,Fastways or bands like Led zep or AC/DC should not be included in the article.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Fastway-l-en.html
I have no idea if that's reliable. 142.162.198.81 (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I might be wrong but I get the impression that spirit-of-metal.com is another fan submitted site like the metal archives. It certainly doesn't look reliable. Allmusic.com tags Fastway as both a hard rock and heavy metal act so I'd imagine that would be a better source. Not sure why this is an issue though. There are hundreds of bands that can listed as a classic metal act but I don't think that's appropriate or necessary. If this article were to change its name to traditional metal and have its scope broaden, then a separate article for a list of traditional heavy metal bands might be more appropriate than the short and subjective one contain within this article. --Bardin (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
And for the record, I do not think hard rock bands should be included in an article or list of traditional heavy metal acts although I am aware that many bands overlap between the two. If a reliable source tags a band as heavy metal, we'll just have to include them. I might not be the biggest fan of allmusic.com but they are generally considered a reliable source (although why Nightwish is tagged as symphonic black metal there is quite beyond me). --Bardin (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The goal of this list wasn't meant to be exhaustive, rather was it meant (I think) to give an general overview of the most important acts of the genre. This list is not subjective, I can provide published sources justifying the notability of most of the bands listed here (excluding unfortunately Fastways). You know my stance concerning allmusic.com, franklely speaking I'd rather refer to publications than to this site (because it says a lot of crap). Sources like Walser's Running with the Devil, Sound of the Beast or Sharpe Young's Definitve Metal Guide are much more reliable than anything allmusic.com could say.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fastway is included in some book called "The Metal Encyclopedia." I have no idea if it's reliable, or if books are considered not reliable, but yeah..

142.162.206.221 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's included in a book, it is generally considered as reliable even though some book can say crap. However publications are generally considered as the most reliable sources over most of the online sources. Give the references and I'll try to check this. I can use a system of inter-university book lending or I even can buy the book.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I found Daniel Bukszpan's Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal which indeed lists Fastways. This fact already secures the place of the band in a list of notable bands. But not necessarilly as a traditional HM band for the moment. gotta check. As a matter of fact the term "heavy metal" in this encyclopedia is meant in the wider sense(= metal including every subgenre). This encyclopedia lists bands like AC/DC, Metallica or Carnivore as heavy metal which are not particularly traditional heavy metal. I can't verify for the moment whether the encyclopedia considers Fastways as traditional heavy metal in the style of Judas Priest. Just like they do for Armored Saint for example.
Yes, this encyclopedia also secures the notability of Armored Saint. I was already convinced of that, because anyone familiar to the genre knows this band, but the encyclopeadias I dispose couldn't prove it. Now it's done. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Racer X?

Should they be included?

142.162.207.163 (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

?

142.162.199.159 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect proposal

As per the suggestion at the WikiProject Metal, should this article be redirected to heavy metal music? There's nothing here that do not fall under original research. The scope of the article - "heavy metal bands from the 1970s and 1980s who peaked later than the late 1960s and early 1970s pioneers of the genre" - is covered in detail and with sources at heavy metal music. If you have any objections to this redirect proposal, please voice your concerns now before it gets redirected. -Bardin (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this objective.This article doesn't refer to a period but to a STYLE, the original style of heavy metal. Whereas the heavy metal article deals with the wider sens of heavy metal (= metal). Merging these two topic is a nonesense. This is not an orginal research. You want sources? I'll give you sources now.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)( sorry for the minor edit thing once again, I try to be carefull, but I sometimes use it unconsciously)
I've added some sources and changed the content. I have yet to add so much more, but I have don't have much time for now. I'll be back soon to add more. Btw Feel free to correct my terrible english.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am questioning the purpose of these newly added sources. I am a librarian and we have access to just about all the books that have been quoted as references for this, and other, heavy metal related article. Can you clarify how those added sources tie or secure the list entries to the article subject title. Those publications are pretty thin in the references given... in fact... the Garry Sharpe-Young-Definitive Guide reference does not use the term "classic metal" anywhere in its text at all. 156.34.220.124 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I get it right, you're questioning the sources because you don't to see the word "classic metal" explicitely in the sources? oh, God,...Well, of course you don't. Sahrpe Young doesn't employ this term at all. But I never thought the equivalence classical metal= (original/traditional) heavy metal would be subject to contest here. Because it was self-evident to me. But apparently it is not for everybody...
Oh,God,once again, the polysemy of the word "Heavy metal" leads to confusion and to absurd disagreement, just like the present one (by "absurd" please don't see any offence meant I don't know how to express otherwise).
Come on! Of course Sharpe Young never used the term "classic metal". I never tried to fool anyone about this here! He actually uses the term "heavy metal" to refer to the original genre. But come on, if you read the book, you just can't help but notice Sharpe Young uses the term "heavy metal" in the restricted sense to refer to the original (sub-)genre (not to refer to the global genre including every subgenres (for the global genre he uses the term metal for short as see in the title of his book). Now this original genre is precisely what this article is all about, :Please focus on the content of the article instead of focusing extensively on the debatable name of this article only.
btw, note that I've already contested the use of the word "classic metal" for this article because the term is quite rare and misguiding, (even though I've use of it in a publication). I'd rather use the term "heavy metal" for short or to avoid confusion "traditional heavy metal". Plus I clearly said in the article "Basically the original and proper term for this genre is "heavy metal" for short, but as the term heavy metal can also be used as a large umbrella term for any subgenres derivating from it(Heavy metal= metal)(see Heavy metal music article), the term classic metal".
So when I refer to the bands in the list, Sharpe Young classifies them as heavy metal= Traditional heavy metal which is what this present article deals with.
So my honesty using these references can't be questioned, as you seem to insinuate.
Anyway since the name of this article is apparently subject to confusion and you apparently fail to see the connection between what is called "Classic metal" here in this article and what Sharpe Young and Paul Dunoyer call "heavy metal" in their book, I propose to rename (as already suggested by some here) this article to "heavy metal (Traditional)" or "Heavy metal (original style)". Another option would be to merge it with the Traditional heavy metal page redirect. If there's no objection or coment, I'll change it soonly. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No offence or anything, but if those paragraphs are staying, then grammer needs to be fixed.RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, my english sucks. I'd be extremely grateful if anyone could fix it. Thanks in advanceFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Everything that this article covers is within the scope of heavy metal music. Whatever contributions you want to make to this classic metal article can fit in there. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to keep this article. --Bardin (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, please take note that Heavy metal (music article) deals with the ensemble of the metal subgenres including death metal. If you think this article should be deleted then Death metal or Gothic metal as well, because everything that gothic metal covers is within the scope of heavy metal music as well.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The heavy metal music article deals with the subgenres but it obviously deals with traditional or classic metal too and fairly extensively at that. The subgenres each get their own article page because the main heavy metal music articles does not go into detail for each of them. There's nothing here however that does not fall under the scope of heavy metal music. Everything here can be added to or is already at the heavy metal music article. The only way that this article can survive the proposed redirect is if it covers something that the heavy metal music article does not cover and is unlikely to cover. --Bardin (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, let the time to this article to add more substance instead of deleting it arbitrary. others articles dealing with subgenres before didn't have much more than what is already dealt in the heavy metal article, yet nobody suggested to merge them. Oh and note your proposition is only a proposition. Please don't take you propositions for decisions. Please avoid arbitrary decisions. I'd like to see a real consensus about your proposition. Not just two opinions standing for it. If you merge it without any real consensus and without using a democratic process, I would consider this merge as not legitimate and arbitrary and would take dispositions against it.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this a language barrier thing or are you just assuming the worst of me? You seem to think that I'm pushing for this article to be deleted when I'm not. I'm hearing opinions. I issued a notice for any objections to be raised before this article gets redirected. If nobody had objected within a period of time, then the article would have been redirected without any fuss. Since you're making an awful lot of noise, that won't be occuring. You are effectively making an accusation that I'll merge this article without any consensus when I have given no indication that I will do such a thing. I said that this article is unlikely to survive any proposed redirect and that is pretty much the case. It is also unlikely to survive any nomination for deletion or merge. Right now, your case is very weak. You might think otherwise but I'm just being honest with you. Your threats of taking dispositions is neither necessary nor effective. If I choose to nominate this article for deletion, redirect or merge, then that is what I'll do. If you or anyone else can convince me that this article should remain, then I obviously will not bother to make any such nomination. That's all there is to it. --Bardin (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably a language barrier, don't know.... Yes I was wondering if it was a potentialy arbitrary decision, but I didn't have the impression I was trying to threat or intimidate you of anything. I was just mentioning the fact I would take dispositions if arbitrary decisions were taken without observing the normal process. I was just making sure things would be done properly. If you assure me you will take normal dispositions to propose merge then I'm ok. As long as you use the normal process you mentioned (nomination for merging, deletion, ec...) which include a democratic vote and you warn people about it then I'm ok. If there's a consensus about the merge, I would humbly accept it without any discussion. Please don't assume the worst of me either.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KISS

I am adding KISS because i think they really fit in to this subgenre. 71.17.159.25 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)71.17.159.25 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Do they? I'm not so sure KISS is traditional heavy metal. I'd like to see what other people have to say on this, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
" Ask AC/DC, Aerosmith, Kiss, Bon Jovi, Rush, or Def Leppard if they are metal- You'll get a resounding "No!". Believe me , I've asked them all." Garry Sharpe Young, Metal : the Definitive Guide p.9Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI to the post above. The introduction in the book "Visions-The Official Biography of RUSH" By Bill Banasiewicz published in 1988 has this written on its cover "Over the course of 16 albums and thousands of concerts throughout the globe Rush have established themselves as the most popular heavy metal and progressive rock trio in the world. Their unique blend of power rock and intelligent lyrics has won them a following as devoted as any in rock." That's from their official biography. Regular editors of this article should avoid personal opinion when they try to own the page. A single publication by Garry Sharpe Young is not the holy grail to base an article around. Especially when it is flawed. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah Garry Sharpe Young's book is not holy grail? But your source of course IS, isn't it? How convenient is your logic!Frankely speaking I really don't care what you think of this source. GSY's book is a referential and reliable source. It responds to Wikipedia criterias as a reliable source and you just can't dismiss it, just because you decided so. Your opinion on a source is not God's view. Because a published source doesn't suit your personal views doesn't mean it is flawed. Unless you think you personal opinion per se is superior and sufficient to state facts.
At any rate, this is not to reject your source, but I don't see here any claims from the members of Rush themselves claiming GSY "is a liar" or that "they do play metal no matter what he says". Plus the source I provided is more recent than yours(2007 vs 1988).
Anyway because you have an "official" source which claims otherwise doesn't dismiss anything of what GSY claims here. No matter what your official biography says, the fact is GSY asked to all these bands if they considered themselves as metal, they all said "no". Period. I don't see any reason why the reliability and the respectability of this journalist should be quetioned just because you decided so.In wikipedia when we have two opposite claims supported by two reliable sources, then we only got to include both sources. that's it. But as the case of Rush isn't concerned in this article, so the solution is not necessary.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Two hours to compose a talk page post? I didn't say the source shouldn't be used. I think it complies with WP:RS. And I didn't say the the Rush official biography is any better of a source. It didn't completely discredit the GSY book. It merely pointed out a flaw and that there was more than one argument. Nothing was ever set in stone like the previous post seemed to imply. Rush isn't a traditional heavy metal band. They were a heavy metal band for the first 6 or 7 years of their history. But they certainly don't focus on that sub-genre anymore and haven't for almost 30 years. That was never the debate. Just don't rely on a single source in your article ownership. Post finished - 2 minutes 45 second to compose. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the person you're replying to does not speak or write English as a primary language. --Bardin (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
2 minutes 45! What a man! I mean it! Really you're the man! I presume your speed certainly must prove how right you are, isn't it? But unfortunately in my world people care the arguments themselves, not the speed to write them. So sorry, I don't give a damn how fast you can write a post. Because I'm not in a race, but in an encyclopeadia. So if you need to make speed contest,then I suggest you to go to your local sport club. Such a consideration is so petty and insignificant, I won't even care to justify myself against your slabby comments which are nothing else but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the present discussion except making ad hominem arguments when you can't attack the strengh of my arguments themselves. the only conclusion I can make of such an arrogant attitude is you're mad at me because you know you can't dismiss GSY as not reliable, so instead you attack me personnaly on my speed. How about attacking me on my english next time since I'm not english speaking native?
oh, by the way I have to correct you, I took more than 2 hours to compose the previous message.
Anyway, as I said your source absolutely doesn't prove any flaw in GSY. The situation just highlights the fact the biographer thinks different from Rush members, given the fact I hardly can doubt GSY's honesty when reporting these members deny to be metal. It absolutely doesn't prove GSY is flawed. This source doesn't claim "GSY is flawed" or "is a liar" or whateseoever... No it just proves people have different opinions concerning the sound of Rush. Period.(I think we can concur on that). So as ALREADY SAID in my previou post, objectivity and neutral point of view would require to take in account both sources. So you just can't accuse me of trying to refer only to one source.
Anyway the argument concerning Rush is besides the point since the topic of this post concerns KISS not RUSH. So this dispute is riduclous.
As for your accusation of ownership,how do you think you can be credible in such an accusation when the entire content of this article has been deleted and completely rewritten by someone else but me? Bardin that is. And I let him do so without contesting anything because Bardin provides sources.
Seriously, I don't own this Article, anyone is welcome to edit whatever they want, as long as they can provide sources (especially for controversial material).But I will remove Kiss from the list, on the basis on my sources. If You think it should stay then just provide sources just like you did with Rush and we'll then consider to keep it using the same type of table as Bardin did in the list of Gothic metal bands when some sources disagree with each other. That's as simple as that. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Man! It seems to me you're all instituting your own POV/being incivil. First off, it doesn't matter what a band calls themselves. Just because a metal band says they are "jazz funk" doesn't mean they are. Motorhead calls themselves "rock 'n' roll" and refuses to call themselves anything else, but that doesn't change the fact that they are speed metal. All I wanted to know is whether or not KISS is traditional heavy metal. I don't give a shit what they call themselves. They can call themselves "gangster rap" for all I care. I just want to know whether or not they are traditional heavy metal. They certainly are heavy metal, whether they like the label or not (yes, I'm aware they like to call themselves "rock" or some other inane crap) but I just wasn't sure if they were traditional heavy metal. They are certainly one of the early heavy metal bands. I mean, they did form in 1973. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Led Zeppelin

Why isn't Led Zeppelin in the list? They are one of the "three big founders" of heavy metal (with Black Sabbath and Deep Purple). I think we should add them. mrdjulazat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdjulazat (talk • contribs) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Nomination

Page has been nominated at AfD. Please comment via link on main page. Master of Metal (Have a chat!) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)