Talk:Heavy metal genres/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Regarding Nu-Metal and Metalcore

It is very well known nu-metal and metalcore are not forms of heavy metal. Nu metal derived from alternative metal (which is a form of rock music) and metalcore is hardcore punk with metal influences. Whoever keeps moving this into the heavy metal section STOP IT. They both belong in the 'related genres' section. Saying they are not true heavy metal is not degrading them; they are both vastly popular forms of music. However people need to realise the difference. 11/6/2006

I apologize for reverting that, I didn't scroll down all the way, I'll change it back. Heavy Metal is a form of rock music too, BTW maxcap 19:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxcap, to let you know you made a mistake. Nu Metal and Metalcore are Metal Genres, and the project at WP:HMM already went through the Templates and this Article to list only the most prominent forms. Just to let you know. 20:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

• I'm sure Nu-metal and Metalcore are forms of rock. Heavy metal is one form of rock, and nu-metal and metalcore are another. In Flames 23:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Heavy Metal is a form of Metal, hence it being called Metal not Rock. 86.132.133.251 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. Metal is a genre of rock music. End of story. maxcap 14:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• The articl even says the 'metal' part in 'nu-metal' is considered a misnomer.

It says it's considered by some people to be a misnomer. bit of a difference. WesleyDodds 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If yew wish to debate wether its a Fusion Genre or a direct Subgenre, feel free. But the reason its got Metal in its name is because its Metal; Your distaste for it, nor my distaste for it, does not discount what it is. 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade

whoa, correction there, my friend. It musically is much closer to alt. rock grunge and post-grunge (albeit drop-tuned) than any form of heavy metal, notwithstanding the hip-hop and funk elements. The only reason it was ever associated with metal was because it was used as a 'catch all' lazy journalistic term for any form of rock music that incorporated rap and hip hop influences, coined by a journalist with no knowledge of metal. Granted, there was the odd band with metal elements, for example, soulfly and slipknot; but the vast majority of bands have nothing to do with metal of any kind. There are no metal elements (or more importantly, riffs) at all as regards papa roach, linkin park, snot, hed p.e., limp bizkit, cold, adema, etc. ad infinitum. To give a hypothetical parallel, an emo band added dance music elements to their sound and some idiot described it as 'dance metal', and the term stuck, would 'dance metal' be a valid heavy metal subgenre? Of course not. Go figure with nu metal. Being 'heavy' (musically) and being 'heavy metal' are not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.152.105 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Where's Funk Metal?

Whoever did this forgot the subgenre of Funk metal. May I add it? Rockgenre (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. At least, they shouldn't. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

-Well, they should, seeing as it doesn't exist.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It exists, though I grant the article could use more sources.--3family6 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

most so-called 'funk metal' bands are really alternative rock bands with little to no metal elements whatsoever: e.g.; Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, later Mordred, etc.

Granted there are some actual metal bands that incorporate funk elements, but there are too few elements the bands have in common with each other musically for it to be considered a real subgenreJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Metalcore, crust punk and grindcore need to go

Very simply, these subgenres are not metal, but PUNK. For this very same reason, thrashCORE is considered a subgenre of punk, while thrash METAL is considered a subgenre of metal. Same with deathcore and death metal. Grindcore is basically a very sped-up version of hardcore punk and metalcore is punk with SOME metal elements. Feel free to add them under Punk rock subgenres

Now excuse me while I remove this nonsense.

There's also an issue with nu "metal", but that's a whole another story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusME (talk • contribs) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

They're all just stupid labels that don't mean anything anyway. My opinion is that they should all go. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

People, add sources to back up, that crust punk, metalcore and grindcore are METAL genres, otherwise, STOP reverting my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusME (talk • contribs) 13:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

METALCORE is not exclusively a PUNK subgenre. That is an absolutely ignorant statement. So Shadows Fall and All That Remains are hardcore punk bands with some METAL influence? Come on that is utter stupidity. Keep METALCORE and GRINDCORE here. Crust punk on the other hand is a HARDCORE subgenre with some METAL influences so it is a bit iffy to include that here. Bertrumredneck (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Metalcore is, by definition, hardcore (punk) that takes influences from metal; usually (but not always) melodic death metal. That it doesn't sound much like hardcore, or the level of hardcore to metal influence, is immaterial. It is a hardcore subgenre, hence thename; metalCORE.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Metalcore is a mixture of punk and metal, especially extreme metal, to varying degrees. As such, it is also a metal genre, hence the name METALcore. (Come on people, it's just music and a bunch of vague, made-up terms to imperfectly categorize music by sonic and lyrical themes, it's not the end of the world.)--3family6 (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

well; they're not 'made up terms' - there's very clear MUSICAL differences that make one genre different from another, regardless of what you wish to call it. In essence, what I'm saying is: it isn't because metalcore, deathcore, grindcore, etc don't have the word 'metal' at the end of their genre desriptor that they're not 'metal'; it's because they're not playing a form of heavy metal full stop; they're playing a type of hardocore

"Metalcore is a mixture of punk and metal, especially extreme metal, to varying degrees" -correction. It's hardcore that takes influences from metal; particularly melodic death metal. So, still clearly hardcore then, and hence the name metalCORE.Indeed, the very term 'metalcore' is a corruption of 'metallic hardcore'

Also, thrash metal is also a 'mixture of punk and metal' -so, by your logic, that must mean thrash metal is hardcore then? Obviously not. Being influenced by a type of music doesn't make you magically become it.

"Come on people, it's just music" -and this is 'just' an encyclopedia that should be giving people accurate, musically-informed information about a particular subject.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"vague, made-up terms" -really? vague? I think you'll find the differences between subgenres are pretty crystal clear even if they do belong to the same genre. Are you seriously suggesting there aren't obvious differences between say, black metal and thrash metal, or power metal and sludge metal?

-as for 'made-up terms', let's dissect that one:

'Black Metal'-taken from the Venom song and album. 'Death Metal' -after the song by Possessed, and/or after the band Death. 'Doom Metal' -after the Candlemass album 'Epicus Doomicus Metallicus' 'Thrash Metal' -'Thrash' was the New York term for Hardcore Punk. So, 'thrash metal' means 'hardcore-metal.'

So, i.they're not names made up by journalists on a whim to describe something vague, they're terms invented by the bands which catch on with the fans, and there is nothing 'vague' about the differences between the subgenres.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment appeared harsh, it was meant as a light, somewhat exaggerated side-comment. My point is that genres and sub-genres emerge as terms to describe certain musical themes, but both the terms and the music will inevitably evolve beyond the original limits. And it's all relative anyway. All of the miniscule differences between heavy metal styles and even heavy metal itself could easily be lumped in with hard rock and maybe just rock when compared to the vast internal differences of style within genres such as jazz and the various periods of Western art music. (Actually, I can use this as an illustration. Originally classical music referred to the period. Than it gradually morphed into a truly vague, nebulous, and undefinable term that includes all Western art music and similar styles.) I'm not discrediting the existence of genres and sub-genres, I'm merely stressing the point that labels are always arbitrary, and will evolve as culture, language, and journalism evolve, no matter how exact and specific the original meaning. (Personally, I wouldn't want to be put in a narrow little box, but that's irrelevant.)

Now, as to the styles involved. Crust punk is a mixture of British punk, roots culture, and black metal, and combines classic punk riffs, death metal, grindcore, and powerviolence. ([1]) According to Popmatters, "By the time the 1990s rolled around, grindcore, power violence, and crust had blurred the lines between metal and hardcore even more..." [2], and another journalist has stated that in his personal opinion, "true Crust is very metallic." ([3])

With metalcore, a quick preliminary check has found the following: "Mainly a musical category, it indicates a blend of hardcore and metal elements" [4], "associated with the thrash metal and the fusion of punk and metal styles". ([5]) Further, in the heavy metal music Wikipedia article, the following statement "Metalcore, an originally American hybrid of thrash metal and hardcore punk..." is sourced offline. I can't prove that is what the source says, but I am accepting it in good faith.--3family6 (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

-Yeess; but my point is I'm making is there is a distinction between heavy metal that has influences from hardcore punk (which is what thrash metal, groove metal and sludge metal are) on the one hand and hardcore punk which has influences from metal, which is what some grindcore, deathcore, metalcore (which-whilst I'm not denying that crust punk is 'metallic' i.e. it shows audible traits and influence from metal , crust punk is still musically rooted very much in the anarcho-punk and oi! punk it came from.)

None of your above sources state unequivocably "metalcore is a type/subgenre of heavy metal"- they all say it is a 'fusion', a 'blend' or a 'mixture' between metal and punk, which isn't the same thing.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"the miniscule differences between heavy metal styles" -I wouldn't call them 'miniscule' - I mean, apart from the black sabbath derived riffs (which all subgenrs of metal have) both subgenres have very, very little in common.

"heavy metal itself could easily be lumped in with hard rock and maybe just rock" -which is illustrative of the oft-held fallacies that 'heavy metal and hard rock are synonymous' and 'heavy metal is just any rock that's a bit heavier than regular rock' and 'heavy metal is a type of rock music'; as i.heavy metal and hard rock certainly share similar origins as regards the blues, and some subgenres of metal such as power metal, doom metal and stoner metal sound somewhat simlar to hard rock, but the two genres are quite different: hard rock is basically a development of blues rock and the original rock 'n' roll, whereas heavy metal is a separate enitity altogether that came directly from the blues -black sabbath were a blues band that more or less accidentally invented a genre in the process and, as all forms of heavy metal in some way (always riffwise, but in other ways too with some styles) derive from black sabbath, metal as a whole cannot be considered to be a subgenre of 'rock' or even 'rock 'n' roll': it is a derivitive of the blues, (albeit separate from it.) regardless of how much it may 'rock'. as for the 'heavy metal is anything that is a bit heavier than regular rock' fallacy, some subgenres of metal are not 'heavy' musically at all; power metal and black metal are good examples. Indeed, black metal is intentionally and deliberately trebly guitar wise, largely devoid of audible bass and bass frequencies, and has high-pitched, rasped vocals. The only heavy thing about black metal is the drum. So, by that logic, black metal doesn't count as a type of heavy metal. But quite obviously, it does, so that leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "heavy metal does not = all heavy music"JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Crust punk is a mixture of British punk, roots culture, and black metal, and combines classic punk riffs, death metal, grindcore, and powerviolence"

-Grindcore is a derivitive of crust punk, so for it to be an influence on crust punk would be rather difficult somewhat. Crust punk also predates death metal, so ditto for that. As for 'black metal', the metal bands that influenced crust punk are bands like hellhammer/celtic frost and venom, both often referred to as part of the 'first wave of black metal' but which were really just extreme, satanic, harsher thrash metal, musically speaking: black metal didn't really exist until the 90s and the so-called 'second wave of black metal'

"both the terms and the music will inevitably evolve beyond the original limits" has the definition of say, jazz changed? Why is metal any different? and just because a type of music has a definition (as they all do), that certainly does not mean it can't evolve, whilst still being part of said genre. I mean, not all forms of heavy metal sound like black sabbath, but they all nonetheless derive from them.

"labels are always arbitrary, and will evolve as culture, language, and journalism evolve, no matter how exact and specific the original meaning." -I would counter that labels aren't particularly 'arbitrary': if you tick all the boxes of what defines death metal for example, i.e. blast beat drums, atonal solos, death grunted vocals, you're a death metal band. What does change is the view of both the press and the mainstream: that is relative and that changes, but the actual definition of what constitutes a form of music doesn't change, and neither is it subjective, and that's regardless of what you call the music too. Which is why a completely press-invented term like 'nu metal' has no validity because the music it describes is neither a genre-it was basically a term applied then to any band that had guitars and rapping regardless of whether they had anything in common-Slipknot and Crazy Town, for example, have absolutely nothing in common, whereas say, two thrash metal bands would-and nor did the bands in question play any form of metal-nu metal musically is just basically drop-tuned post-grunge with hip hop/funk elements. To quote Jonathan Davis from KoRn: "we always fought being called a metal band because we're not a metal band" lookee here: -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7vPcGRTVuA @ about 1:00 -So, just because the mainstream and the press considered nu metal 'metal' circa 2000 doesn't mean it was. Just because the term 'nu metal' caught on means nothing if the music behind it wasn't actually metal.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources? I don't mind having a discussion, but so far it has been very one-sided as far as sources are concerned.--3family6 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorizer magazine; April 2011, page 54: "metalcore, whilst taking some elements from such melodic death metal luminairies as At The Gates and Suffocation, is nonetheless very rooted in the hardcore punk genre and subculture that birthed it; so 'metalcore', ...a portmanteau of METALlic hardCORE"

Thrash metal, doom metal etc, the first word in the subgenre name is an adjective, the latter word is the noun. If it has the word '-metal' on the end, (and is MUSICALLY distinct from the others) it is a type of heavy metal. If it has -core on the end, the same applies to that as regards hardcore punk.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nintendocore

This really shouldn't belong on this list. I mean even if you look on the main page, it says nothing about being a metal subgenre rather just a fusion or collection of multiple of genres. The only thing that gives it such connections metal is that it takes influence from metalcore. In other words, it's taking influence from a genre that takes influence from metal. So all of a sudden, as long as its ancestry, it's immediately a metal genre? This is not what I grew up learning. As a matter of fact, a lot on this list is questionable. Southern metal? I've listened to metal music for more than 8 years and this is the first time I am ever hearing of this term. I propose nintendocore and southern metal should leave immediately while I question a certain other handful in the process.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that metalcore is more than just influenced by heavy metal, it is a fusion with heavy metal. The metalcore relation with Nintendocore was discussed on the Nintendocore page, and it was determined that it is a direct fusion with metalcore, at least in reliable sources, which is where it counts. Granted, I know next to nothing about metal music, but sources are what Wikipedia runs on, not personal opinion or knowledge--3family6 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

Let's say if this genre does take stylistic origins from metalcore, that is not enough to warrant its stat as a premium metal genre as even the sources themselves do not justify that. As I stated before, being influenced to a metal genre does not make them metal, and even if metalcore is a metal fusion genre (50% metal), Nintenocore as a metalcore fusion genre is 25% metal. This so called Nintendocore is a punk genre at the best and even then that is incredibly debatable, but we're here to talk about metal, not punk.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 04:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

According to sources, Nintendocore is more than just influenced by metalcore, it is a fusion with metalcore. But in case that alone is not enough to support, there is this mention that calls Nintendocore "metal-meets-eight-bit-Nintendo."--3family6 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Noisecreep is a horrible source for metal. Secondly, stop avoiding what I am saying and answer why the Wikipedia article itself isn't saying what you are saying.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the article does not say "metal-meets-eight-bit-Nintendo." But it doesn't have to. The metalcore fusion has been established, and I have specified the "metal" origins in the article, according the above provided source (which is something I've been wanting to do for a long time, at some point on the Nintendocore page the "metal" source got lumped in with the "metalcore" sources, and this discussion convinced me to finally correct that error.) Besides, Wikipedia should never be used to source itself, and there are often inconsistencies between pages dealing with similar or even the same subject matter. As to your about Noisecreep, it might very well be a horrible source for metal, but unless there are reliable sources saying it is, it is original research] to automatically rule it out because of your opinion, no matter how accurate you opinion may be.--3family6 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I want you to know that you were completely correct in removing "southern metal," it was entirely original research.

@F22, whilst I completely agree with what you're saying (most so-called 'southern metal' bands I have found to in fact to be sludge metal bands, and nintendocore has almost nothing to do with metal), you simply can't put it down to what 'percentage'; i.e. "this genre is 50% metal, so it belongs, this genre is 10%, so it doesn't" -because it's the riffs that make a band 'metal', not the amount of influence they take from metal as a whole. To illustrate my point: look at industrial metal:-let's say-Ministry for example- a good 50% of the music is taken from industrial music, synth pop, and vearious dance music genres , another 25% is taken from post-punk, and there's a hell of a lot of influence taken from punk too. So that leaves probably 10% of the music that is actually 'metal' -and that's the riffs. But, because industrial metal still uses metal riffs, by default it still counts as 'metal' by definition.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Granted, I know next to nothing about metal music" -So, with the greatest amount of respect, why do you feel you're qualified to comment on this particular subject?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really know how I got involved in this. But the second half of my sentence explains why I can comment: "sources are what Wikipedia runs on, not personal opinion or knowledge."--3family6 (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

-Why on earth do you think 'personal opinion' has anything to do with it? Also, most of your sources clearly say something along the lines of 'metalcore is a fusion of hardcore and metal' or words to that effect...so again; how does that qualify as a subgenre of heavy metal? ...Clearly, your 'personal opinion' is that metalcore is a subgenre of metal. This is POV and also fanciful interpretation of the sources. I'm just going by er, the music. This is an encyclopedia. If the information given in the article is erroneous, what is the point?

Also, journalistic sources are time-specific. For example, Kerrang!, say; would probably describe (wrongly as they're hard rock) Bon Jovi as 'metal', but almost definately wouldn't now. To wit: popular/uninformed interpretation of what 'metal' changes. But the ACTUAL DEFINITION of it doesn't.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

See the section above this for my reply.--3family6 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A proposal

-I shall put in capitals under 'REAL SUBGENRE', any genre that musically, is playing a subgenre of heavy metal. As for the others, I will explain my reasoning as to why they should NOT be included as metal subgenres:

1 Alternative metal-really just any alternative rock band that's a bit heavier than your average alt rock band. No metal elements whatsoever. 2 Avant-garde metal-an umbrella term, not a real subgenre 3 Black metal-REAL SUBGENRE 4 Christian metal-mere lyrical content does not a genre make. 5 Crust punk- a subgenre of punk rock(obviously) that takes influences from early thrash/black metal bands like hellhammer/celtic frost, bathory, motorhead, venom, but is essentially still punk. 6 Death metal-legitimate subgenre. 7 Doom metal-REAL SUBGENRE 8 Drone metal-subgenre of doom metal 9 Extreme metal-an umbrella term to desribe any 'extreme' metal band, be it thrash, death, black metal, etc. 10 Folk metal-REAL SUBGENRE 11 Funk metal--most so-called funk metal bands are really alternative rock bands with little to no metal elements (think RHCP, Primus, etc.) and the few bands that actually are playing a form of heavy metal are so few and so disimilar that it is somewhat erroneous to speak of a funk metal 'genre' as such. 12 Glam metal-journalistic term, often used retrospectively, to describe many bands who were musically really hard rock 13 Gothic metal-REAL SUBGENRE 14 Grindcore-subgenre of hardcore, albeit influenced (but not always-e.g. Anal Cunt) by metal. 15 Groove metal-REAL SUBGENRE 16 Industrial metal-REAL SUBGENRE 17 Metalcore-subgenre of hardcore, albeit influenced by (mainly melodic death) metal 18 Melodic death metal-subgenre of death metal. 19 Neo-classical metal-see symphonic metal below. 20 Nintendocore-subgenre of hardcore. a derivitive of metalcore. little to no metal elements at all. 21 Nu metal-journalistic term with no real music basis. Essentially, drop-tuned alternative music with funk/hip-hop elements, and little (e.g. Korn, Slipknot, ) to absolutely no (think Crazy Town) metal elements 22 Post-metal-musically, any heavy post-rock band. So, heavy post rock, not metal, as being 'heavy' doesn't automatically mean 'heavy metal'. 23 Power metal-REAL SUBGENRE 24 Progressive metal-REAL SUBGENRE, see also Djent. 25 Rap metal-see nu metal above. 26 Sludge metal-REAL SUBGENRE 27 Speed metal-REAL SUBGENRE 28 Stoner metal-REAL SUBGENRE 29 Symphonic metal-tricky one, as it could be argued that the mere inclusion of neo-classical/symphonic elements doesn't create a new subgenre. HOWEVER there has in been a lot of power metal bands that incorporate such elements, ( so it could be argued this is an offshoot of power metal.) 30 Technical death metal-subgenre of death metal. 31 Thrash metal-REAL SUBGENRE. 32 Traditional heavy metal-umbrella term to describe early heavy metal. Not a genre as such. 33 Viking metal-REAL SUBGENRE

So, my proposal is the list should be shorn down to: 1.Black Metal 2.Doom Metal 3.Folk Metal 4.Groove Metal 5.Industrial Metal 6.Progressive Metal 7.Sludge Metal 8.Speed Metal 9.Stoner Metal 10.Thrash Metal 11.Viking Metal

-and thus any subgenres that are in the present list (e.g. melodic death metal as regards death meta;, drone doom metal as regards doom metal, etc.) should be in subsections on each section.

As for 'cross-genre'/so-called 'fusion' genres like crust punk, metalcore, deathcore, grindcore, etc, -that are influenced by various subgenres of heavy metal but are not musically metal themselves, I propose that these should be listed below in a separate section as 'fusion genres'.

So:

1. Crust Punk 2. Deathcore 3. Grindcore 4. Metalcore 5. (at an extreeeme push) NintendocoreJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Christian Metal much in the same way Alestorm coins Pirate Metal. Every band that redeems themselves as Christian Metal can and without effort be put into a different genre (Stryper as hard rock/glam metal/heavy metal/ or Haste the Day as metalcore) which points out the lack of similarities between bands despite being under this so-called genre. There were always a group of bands that base themselves on a lyrical topic, so what makes Christian Metal any different?F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 01:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to just dismiss all of JWULTRABLIZZARD's suggestions, but I'm noticing a lot of the old, stale arguments dismissing genres like nu-metal, alt-metal, and rap metal as not metal, even though these have been discussed over and over again before, and consensus holds that all of these genres are supported as metal by numerous reliable sources. However, I think it may be a good idea to put fusion genres in their own section.

As to Christian metal, while I wholeheartedly agree that it is not really a genre but is more a lyrical classification, in numerous media as well as by a good number of Christian bands, this term is used a general lyrical and/or industry label, however broad it may be. This is explained both on this page and the Christian metal page.--3family6 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"term is used a general lyrical and/or industry label"-yup, nothing to do with the music so, not a genre at all, so it doesn't belong here.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it does belong here. The legitimacy of Christian metal has been discussed before, and even many bands in the industry don't like the label, as mentioned on the Christian metal article. However, the consensus, based on sources, has reiterated that it is a genre. At the very least, it is a distinct sub-culture and musical movement: [6]--3family6 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on! The very title of this article is 'heavy metal subgenres' -genres, or subgenres, refer to MUSIC, not lyrical themes, subcultures (although granted, subcultures do go hand in hand with the music) or 'industry labels. None of this refers to music AT ALL, therefore, it isn't a subgenre (as lyrics do not define ANY type of music-you could be singing your shopping list and, if the music you're playing is say, thrash metal, you're playing thrash metal regardless of the lyrics) as 'Raptored R22' quite helpfully pointed out, the only thing that ties so-called 'christian metal' bands together is the fact that they all have christian lyrics. So e.g. Trouble aren't 'Christian metal'; they're doom metal. As I Lay Dying aren't 'christian metal', they're metalcore, and so on.

So thus, whilst it would be perfectly acceptable to say there are 'metal bands that have christian lyrics', it would be downright incorrect to speak of a subgenre of 'christian metal' as it clearly doesn't exist.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

and, if you're going to let christian metal stay; what about pagan metal? Hell, if you're going to base the existence of a 'christian metal' based PURELY on lyrics (which is utter hogwash, by the way), why don't we include 'satanic metal', so we'd have a massive section of heavy metal as a whole (but by no means all of it-but certainly much bigger than a 'christian metal') that has satanic lyrics. So then we'd have a whole section of bands, most of which have little to absolutely nothing to do with each other. (besides lyrics and the fact they all play some kind of heavy metal)

So, you'd be bunching bands like Slayer, Venom, Immolation, Mayhem, Cellador, Apollyon Sun, Deicide, Hordes Of Satan, etc together as a non-existent genre of 'satanic metal'; despite the fact that it would be much, much easier (and more to the point, more accurate musically and in every other way) to describe them as thrash metal, speed metal, death metal, black metal, power metal, industrial metal, death metal and drone doom metal respectively.

Do you see what I mean? Basing this on lyrics alone is completely ridiculous and does not stand up to srutiny.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I fully agree that Christian metal isn't really a genre, and I often take issue even with it being used as a sub-cultural label. But, many, many reliable sources consider it to be a genre, and that is the final say in the day. It's just like "Christian music" as a whole. The only connection is a vague lyrical, sub-cultural, and/or industry association, but Christian music is definitely considered its own genre, with its own charts, radio formats, etc.--3family6 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I would conuter your inclusion of folk, stoner and melodic death metal under 'fusion subgenres': Stoner metal is a primary subgenre that is often associated with doom metal (it shares the heavy debt to black sabbath). Folk metal is also a primary subgenre. Melodic death metal is a derivitive of death metal so it belongs thereJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to re-arranging things, but my rational for putting those style under fusion genres was because they are sourced as fusions of different musical genres. I realize that stoner metal is a major style, and I wasn't sure whether I should list it under a fusion genre, but the main article seems to indicate that it is a fusion of multiple rock and metal styles. Folk metal is a fusion of metal and folk music, and melodeath a fusion of death metal with NWOBHM. Maybe the big problem is calling non-fusion styles "primary," I think we need a better term.

Just to clarify, a derivative style is one that has become a genre in its own right, often with spin-off genres built off of it. Thus, thrash is a derivative of heavy metal and probably speed metal, and death and black metal are derivatives of thrash. Whether melodeath is a derivative style in addition to being a fusion style I don't know. There really isn't that much reliable info out there about melo-death.--3family6 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, 'melodeath' isn't really a fusion of death metal with anything: it is, as the name suggests, a more 'melodic' subgenre of death metal (as the name suggests, and as opposed to, for example, brutal death metal)granted, bands like later Carcass, Arch Enemy, earlier In Flames etc. take inspiration from NWOBHM bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest; particularly in the guitar harmonies and in the solo department, but there's plenty of bands throughout the spectrum of heavy metal that do that. It's not unique to melodic death metal.

'NWOBHM' really just refers to any british metal band that surfaced after the rise of punk so yes, you get bands playing in a style like Saxon, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest etc, (which could be considered to be proto-thrash) but you also get bands like Venom (proto speed/thrash metal), Witchfinder General (proto-doom metal) and so on.

"Folk metal is a fusion of metal and folk music"-yes, but many style of music are 'fusions': look at thrash metal; that is a 'fusion' between speed metal and hardcore punk, but to call say, Slayer anything other than 'heavy metal' is frankly ludicrous. The same goes for sludge metal; which started off as a 'fusion' between doom metal and hardcore punk.

Also, regarding derivitives of doom metal,where is death/doom metal and its derivitive funeral doom metal?

"main article seems to indicate that it is a fusion of multiple rock and metal styles"

-Stoner metal is really any band that is trying to rip off Black Sabbath's 'Master of Reality' album. It is very similar to doom metal, but whereas doom metal is musically melancholy in a lot of ways-and so are the derivitives of doom metal, stoner metal is much more upbeat and has more of a groove than doom metal. It is true that many Stoner metal bands are influenced by early hard rock bands such as Blue Cheer and also space rock such as Hawkwind, but this is not unique to Stoner Metal and is really just an 'influence' rather than a major element of the music.

It could also be said that there is a distinction between 'Stoner Metal' and 'Stoner Rock', just as there is a distinction between 'Industrial Rock' (rock with industrial elements) and Industrial Metal (heavy metal with industrial elements.)

Basically; the distinction between the fusion genres and the subgenres themselves is that the fusion genres are types of music that, whilst very much affiliated in some ways with heavy metal, are very much grounded in the genre they originate from; hardcore punk. Whilst it is not accurate to call them 'subgenres of heavy metal', nonetheless they share similarities, both musical and otherwise, with various-but by no means all- subgenres of heavy metal, so they merit inclusion here, but it needs to be pointed out that, though 'heavy', they are not 'heavy metal' as such.

I wholeheeartedly understand the need for sources, but to blindy take them at face value without either proper knowledge of the subject is a bit dodgy to say the least. The academic literature is granted not vast, but even some of that is questionable; I remember a Professor at a british university made a recent study (and I'm sorry, I'm only quoting from memory) of metal as a whole, and she described Rammstein as 'black metal'; which they clearly are not in any way. So what do we look at as secondary sources? Magazines? That has to be taken with a pinch of salt as a magazinelike, for example Terrorizer, which is devoted solely to heavy metal, and is designed only for the 'straight up' metal market, uses the correct definitions -for example not describing deathcore or metalcore as 'metal', whereas a magazine like Metal Hammer, which has taken a turn in recent years in appealing to the '-core/scene kid' fanbase, tends to refer to metalcore and deathcore as 'metal' and also features such bands much more heavily that Terrorizer. So, who is correct? I would say the specialist metal magazine is much more reliable.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 'The only connection is a vague lyrical, sub-cultural, and/or industry association' -again, nothing to do with music. "but Christian music is definitely considered its own genre, with its own charts, radio formats, etc" -whilst I'm not denying there is a 'christian metalhead' subculture, a 'genre' is defined soley by the music alone, and not by any other factors. During the 90s, until the rise of the new wave of thrash there was effectively no -or at least a very small thrash metal scene or subculture, (due in part to the dip in popularity of the genre in the face of death and black metal and also the rise of alternative music) but there were undoubtably thrash metal bands around playing thrash metal. The only thing that matters in defining a genre or subgenre of any type of music is THE MUSIC, not lyrics, nor subculture, 'industry', or any other factors.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that discerning the differences between a direct fusion genre and just influences is very vague, and is maybe why this article wasn't divided in that way before. I don't mind debating the merits of various styles, but so far you have provided no research other than your own. If you have sources, please use them.--3family6 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

-Exactly why I was asking above what were acceptable sources. Also, I quoted the above tTrrorizer article and the KoRn interview so far.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you did use two sources, I apologize for forgetting about that. Generally, a reliable source would be articles by professional music websites or journalists, magazines, journals, and books. As a rule of thumb, sources affiliated with the subject are good for things like band histories or the opinions of band members, but not for discussions of genres, as genres are often promotional gimmicks. If you are going to use a website, make sure it is has professional writers and that there is editorial oversight.--3family6 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

-I imagine www.metal-archives.com would be a reliable source. It does have editorial oversight, and has detailed information regarding subgenres for each band.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical with metal.archives myself considering they use the term "shred metal" there, which I find to be completely silly.F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Metal archives does have editorial oversight, but it is not professional, and more importantly is user generated, which is explicitly against reliable sources policy. I apologize for not providing the link to WP:RS sooner, as it gives a general idea of the type of sources that Wikipedia should use.--3family6 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I was just thinking of a source that provided accurate musical information (and to be fair to metal-archives.com, it is pretty accurate from amusical point of view.) Nonetheless, I'll keep on looking...:)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"they use the term "shred metal" there, which I find to be completely silly."-with respect; no they don't; these are the categories metal-archives.com uses: Heavy/Trad | Black | Death | Doom | Thrash | Speed | Folk/Viking | Power | Progressive | Electronic | Gothic | Orchestral/Symphonic | Avant-gardeJWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on 'Christian Metal' and Crust Punk.

Can we please reach a consensus on 'Christian Metal' and Crust Punk? My view is that 'Christian Metal' should be removed completely, as it is not a genre, and musically, all bands described as 'Christian Metal' can better be described as belonging to their respective subgenrws (because they are), and that Crust Punk should stay, but in the 'fusion genre' section.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

With Christian metal, I'm going to notify editors on the Christian metal page and ask if they can give some fresh input.--3family6 (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks :)JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I hope I haven't come across as harsh, I'm just trying to cut down to the point with my posts.--3family6 (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, no you haven't, and I'm quite 'trying to get to the point' as well.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Christian metal isn't a genre regardless of what ANY source or person says. If I write a song about Jesus, then change the lyrics to be about nothing religious or to be about Satan, it doesn't change genre. If Christian Metal exists, then I propose the addition of hinducore and judacore. (Plus, 90% of "Christian metal" bands don't even write about anything Christian (see As I Lay Dying among others). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 12:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, while we’re waiting for some people from the Christian metal page to come over, I'll give some of the research I've found to support that Christian metal is a real genre. Now, I personally am not sure whether it should be, but I'm not a reliable source, and I don’t want my personal opinions to interfere with sources and research.

First, there are always differences of opinion as to whether different styles of music deserve to be labeled under their own genre, per this source.

Second, there are other genres that are classed mainly or even solely by lyrical content, such as dirty rap (though this supposedly has a distinct baseline), Hindu music, or Jewish music (though this could involve specific sounds because of the cultural nature of Judaism). Interestingly enough, at a global conference on heavy metal in Salzburg, Austria, writer Keith Kahn-Harris gave a speech entitled How Diverse Should Metal Be? The Case of Jewish Metal.

Second, there is this source, a speech on Christian metal by Marcus Moberg for the same global conference. The opening line of his introduction states: "Metal, it is often said, is all about the music. And yet, like all major and global popular music genres, it is about much more than that." This indicates that music genres are based on more than just sound, however incorrect that practice may be.

Third, Christian metal is part of the larger Christian music genre, which has much solid basis for its existence, despite it being classed as such mostly for its lyrical content. For example, the description for CCM/contemporary gospel at Allmusic says "Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is pop music with inspirational and religious lyrics. Musically, much CCM is indistinguishable from mainstream pop/rock, featuring the same melodic and production techniques." The same site’s entry for Christian rock is similar: "Most of the time, Christian Rock essentially follows the sonic blueprint of mainstream AOR and arena rock, except of course for its Christian-themed lyrics." Finally, Melinda Hill wrote an essay for Allmusic regarding the history of CCM, and says the following: "CCM by nature is difficult to define because it is not typified by a specific sound. What makes CCM is the message--and even that varies. With its themes rooted in evangelical Christianity, CCM addresses the needs and concerns both within and without Christianity. From Larry Norman’s 'I Love You' to Sixpence None the Richer’s 'Kiss Me' it is the faith of the artist that most makes the music--not the sound." It is interesting to note that Allmusic’s entry on Christian metal does seem to make the case that there is some sonic distinction of Christian metal, stating that it "falls between arena rock and pop-metal, though there are the occasional bands that are heavier." However, with the rise of Christian metalcore this statement is probably outdated, and even Allmusic give the caveat that "What ties them [the bands] all together is their lyrical themes -- every band has inspirational and religious lyrics."

Lastly, there is much to support Christian metal itself being a genre. In addition to the sources about Christian metal above, there is this inclusion of Christian metal in the fragmentation of metal in the 80’s, this source that describes metal being part of the larger Christian music genre, this source for Christian metal being its own genre, and this source as well.--3family6 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Christian metal is part of the larger Christian music genre". It is, but 'Christian music' is a phenomena, a movement, a scene and not a genre, which suggests a stylistic rather than merely ideological coherence. If Christian bands are significant within their particular metal genre, let them be mentioned there; if not they should remain within the confines of Contemporary Christian music. Cdh1984 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian music at large is not just a phenomenon. This source comments on how when Billboard no longer listed music by genre, Christian music sold better. [This book] calls praise and worship music a sub-genre of Christian music and black gospel music. In The Billboard guide to contemporary Christian music, Jars of Clay states in an interview how "there's this genre of music that's been cocreated by both the record industry at large and a Christian music industry that says, 'We're this separate music genre.'" Also, "Christian" is a music genre according to Billboard [7] [8].

Lastly, I found this fascinating source that discusses the nature of lyrics in music and how lyrics are the primary definition of Christian music.--3family6 (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm putting a lot of personal opinion into this (probably too much), but all the above sources just basically say that Christian metal is metal music with Christian-inspired lyrics. However, where must one draw the line to call a band a Christian Metal band? If there is one member claiming to be Christian (such as Slayer or Korn)? Would the lyricist have to be Christian (pre-Howard Jones Killswitch Engage, or Ancient (band), a band playing Norwegian black metal but with a Christian vocalist)? Would 50% or more of the band have to have some sort of Christian affiliation qualify? Or would the entire band have to be Christian to qualify and say that they're Christian (August Burns Red)? Does the band have to write lyrics about life as a Christian (As I Lay Dying), Christian themes (Demon Hunter), or specifically using the term "Jesus" or "God" in their songs (Underoath)? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be a discussion for each individual band on its own talkpage, and being a "Christian band" is a touchy subject. But right now all that is being discussed is whether "Christian metal" as a label itself is a actual genre.--3family6 (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Is Christian metal a genre?" Technically, perhaps not. It has been criticized artificial as a term because it covers the full spectrum of metal styles with certain lyrics. But similarly, black metal was also just a term for satanic metal bands in the 1980s, it just formed a recognizable sound in 1990s, while Christian metal stayed versatile. Weinstein mentions these (black and white metal) alongside in a book. This discussion is comparable to a statement that if national socialist black metal is a subgenre of black metal, then so is Christian black metal[9]. Both are either idealogical variations of the same music style or both nonexistent as genres. What defines a genre? Does Christian metal have musical characteristics? Any music style/band/song has. Is it a genre of heavy metal? Ask some "true" metalhead and he or she is likely to say no strictly out of idealogical reasons. Allmusic says it is "gospel music's hard rock". It has a subculture of its own as well as an internet based scene, record labels, festivals... True, very few sources call it a genre per se. "A form of metal", "a phenomenon" some state, such as Moberg in his dissertation. Personally I'm indifferent about it and I avoid using it as an attribute in articles. I would keep in the list because it is quite often mentioned with other metal genres in books and articles whether it is technically a genre or not, as 3family6 pointed out. Edit:What I'm trying to say is that Christian metal is treated as a genre but not often called one. Though one Noisecreep editor states: "It's such a niche genre"[10]--Azure Shrieker (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's about what I would say about it too. I think it should stay, but the contention over whether it is really a genre should be mentioned in the Christian metal article.--3family6 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Previously there was a statement "It is not considered a genre but more of a movement." That was not satisfactory to people and fellow editors considered it original research, and was eventually removed. It is very difficult to form a short, exact definition that stands scrutiny, satisfies all parties and can be backed with one or more sources. If you can come up with a very convincing line about it that covers all aspects and does not fall for verbosity, go for it. Moberg spends quite an amount of pages trying to answer what exactly it is. Semantically a peculiar case for sure.--Azure Shrieker (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Glam Metal

This section needs to be rewritten as it claims that it refers to the look and image of a band only and does not refer to the actual music. Glam Metal is pop influenced Hard Rock/Heavy Metal employing pop influenced catchy hooks and melody's with pop style chorus' and pop production. (Jamcad01 (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Underoath

Should Underoath be added as a Christian metal example? They seem to be the new Stryper in terms of impact.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a little cleanup

Do we really need Unblack metal listed in adjacent sections ? Why list Tech Death as a derived genre of Death and not the other sub-genres ? Anyhow, Melodeath is in the "fusion" section.... I think sub-subgenres whould only be mentioned in the text, not as separate paragraphs, like "Derived from Death metal are Technical Death metal, Melodic Death metal..." etc... Also, I'd pick other bands to represent "traditionnal" Heavy metal. Led Zepelin and Hendrix has influenced Heavy metal, sure, but they were mainly know for prog and psychedelic rock. And Aerosmith, seriously ? Even the band's article says "Their style, which is rooted in blues-based hard rock, has come to also incorporate elements of pop, heavy metal, and rhythm and blues." zubrowka74 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to do some initial cleanup. Sub-genres deserve their own sections though.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

-I agree 100% with ZUBROWKA. Hendrix and Led Zep are undeniable influences on metal, but they weren't metal bands themselves. They came before metal split off as a separate genre from the blues and blues rock, which didn't happen until you get to Sabbath. Sources for that claim? Sam Dunn's documentary 'Metal-a Headbanger's Journey' and the documentary: "Heavy-The Story of Metal" say exactly that.

Also, the section under 'traditional metal', the bit: "is a recent umbrella term describing bands and artists who play a metal music style similar to the style heard before the genre evolved and splintered into many different styles and subgenres" -well; the problem with that statement is that there are separate, established metal subgenres that are very similar to what is defined here as 'traditional metal': Doom metal like Saint Vitus, Candlemass, Cathedral, etc. is quite obviously inspired by (and a some of it shamelessly ripping off) Black Sabbath, and Power metal stuff like Iced Earth, Dragonforce, Helloween, etc. is undeniably influenced by Iron Maiden, Saxon, Judas Priest and NWOBHM in general.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fusion genres vs. non-fusion

An editor basically has stated in an edit summary that fusion genres should have their own section. This might be a good idea, so I created this section to discuss this subject. If a separation were to be done, what would the section with non-fusion styles be called? "Primary" was used in the past (by myself, actually) but this term really is not good at all. Also, a consensus would need to be reached as to exactly which styles should go in the fusion genre section.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

-I absolutely agree. Obviously, and per the sources, all the genres that end in '-metal' belong in the former group, but the latter group is more tricky,and at any rate; How do you define 'fusion genre'? For example, both thrash metal and sludge metal could be considered 'fusion genres' (thrash metal being structually and riff-wise NWOBHM and speed metal based, but incorporating influences from hardcore punk, namely the shouted vocals, speed, d-beat 4/4 drums, and sludge metal being firmly based in doom metal, but incorporates similar influences from hardcore punk) and yet it would be an absurdity to describe either as anything more (or less) than a 'subgenre of heavy metal' because the music is clearly rooted and based in a subgenre of heavy metal, which can't be said for something like grindcore (which in its essential form is just drop-tuned, speeded-up, hardcore punk and has very little or no influence from any form of heavy metal. Early Napalm Death and early Anal Cunt and bands like Siege and Repulsion are good examples. The metal influences came later.)

I welcome constructive contribution, without personal attacks accusing yours truly of being 'ignorant' or other such nonsense. I looking for a consensus; nothing more, nothing less.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, although as all music is essentially a fusion of what has come before it, you end up with an slightly absurd reductionist argument minus any kind of arbiter. Essentially, if it has significant metal elements and has been described in a non-trivial way in professional journalistic (preferably print) sources, then any of these "subgenres"/"fusion genres" is perfectly acceptable here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

-But...the whole concept of 'fusion genres' is questionable in itself, with little basis in any reputable source.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Metalcore and grindcore

Ok, sorry to bump this, but I have no objections to the inclusion of christian metal in retrospect. But I do have objections to the inclusion of grindcore or metalcore, as both are derivitives of hardcore that include elements of metal subgenres in their sound. For example, both the first bands as regards grindcore (Siege, Repulsion, Napalm Death) (see the 'Scum' documentary as regards this.) were hardcore punk/anarcho punk/crust punk bands that started adding metal elements to their sound. The first metalcore bands (Shai Hulud, Earth Crisis, Integrity, etc.)were hardcore punk bands that incorporated metal elements (particularly melodic death metal) in their sound. NOT metal bands incorporating hardcore elements. Hell, there's even an interview with Shai Hulud where they state that they came up with the term metalcore to describe 'hardcore with metal elements', which I have tried pointing out on the metalcore wiki page, but I keep getting oddly shouted down very rudely and very condescendingly, not to mention quite aggressively to put things bluntly. Even though I cited reliable sources. I was just told 'if the source says its metal, it is', even though I cited several sources that say metalcore isn't a subgenre of heavy metal, and they only cited one. If anything, I think there is some POV bias going on on the metalcore wiki page that does not belong in wikipedia, and is misleading. I also don't think the people responsible are that knowledgable as regards heavy metal in general.

Yes, it may be said, there are metalcore bands that incorporate more metal elements than hardcore punk ones; indeed, metal-archives only accepts metalcore and grindcore bands 'that are more metal than hardcore'-i.e., that come close to being metal-but not those that come have more hardcore punk elements than metal ones. To quote the website as regards metalcore: "only if its closer to metal than hardcore-Killswitch Engage is ok, Bullet For My Valentine is not." Bearing in mind this is the biggest website on the entire internet devoted to metal in general, this should be borne in mind. The only criteria that metal-archives uses for inclusion are that a band uses metal riffs in its music, and that they have released at least one album like that.

The recent series of 'Metal Evolution' documentaries by Sam Dunn completely omits metalcore and deathcore (but tellingly, not nu metal and glam metal) but does not omit anything else on this list that uses the word 'metal' as the end word in the genre name.

I have no problem with either genre being mentioned, but not as straight-up subgenres of heavy metal, because musically speaking, most bands in these two genres aren't, because they don't use metal riffs, which is the defining factor of what constitutes heavy metal, and thus its subgenres.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article says that they are fusion genres. What more do you want?--¿3family6 _contribs 11:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

-In actual fact, it only says this as regards grindcore and crust punk, not metalcore or deathcore. At any rate, the fact there is plenty of sources saying metalcore is not a metal subgenre (much more than says it is-as well as the fact that most metalcore bands don't use metal riffs) would be enough, I would have thought.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The explicit term "fusion genre" is not used, but both are very clear that they are combinations of punk and metal.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

-As are thrash metal (see Sam Dunn's 'thrash metal' episode of 'Metal Evolution') and Sludge Metal. But they're still heavy metal subgenres despite the punk influence. Again, not mentioned in the text.

By that logic, bands like Slayer, Destruction and Sodom should be detailed under 'hardcore punk' because their music is influenced by hardcore punk. Bringing in another influence doesn't negate the other elements of the sound if that is the primary, defining element of that sound, which in the case of all the myriad types of metal, is the 'metal riff', and you don't get metal riffs in grindcore or metalcore.

In short; having a few metal elements in your sound does not make your music 'metal', which is also backed up by the sources. To use a metaphor, calling any metal-influenced punk genre like grindcore or metalcore a 'subgenre of heavy metal' is like pouring strawberry sauce all over a meatball and proclaiming: "Oh look, it's a strawberry." -the metal elements present in metalcore and grindcore do not negate the hardcore punk elements in the sound, which in both cases is the primary element.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide some sources for these statements, I'll gladly mention them in the grindcore and metalcore sections. But, especially with metalcore, there are sources saying that they are metal styles as well. From my experience, it really depends on the band. But if there are sources that challenge the metal listing, they are definitely worth mentioning.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by 'metal styles'-if the riffs are still hardcore, the band is still a hardcore band and not a metal one. I'm not saying that there aren't metalcore or grindcore bands that do have metal riffs; and thus could be considered 'metal' bands by definition, but there are also just as many-if not more- bands that don't. Something you couldn't say for something like thrash metal-even if the band is really really influenced by hardcore punk, say Anthrax or Slayer; that band will still be a metal band and not a hardcore one-something you couldn't say about metalcore or grindcore. Thus, metalcore and grindcore can't be considered metal subgenres, and putting them with all the subgenres that end in 'metal' is not accurate. This is why metal-archives for example, lists Killswitch Engage (because they use metal riffs), but doesn't list Bullet For My Valentine (because they use hardcore punk riffs) -that's also why they list Napalm Death (even though they're grindcore-because they have used metal riffs on some albums), but doesn't list Anal Cunt (because again, they don't use metal riffs, they use hardcore ones.)

First and foremost, there is an interview with the band Shai Hulud; one of the first metalcore bands (and the band that invented the term 'metalcore') where the term 'metalcore' means literally 'metal influenced hardcore'; i.e. hardcore with a metal influence, but again; being influenced by metal doesn't mean your music is automatically 'metal':

"As far as coining the term 'metalcore' or coining a sound, I don’t think we did. There were bands before Shai Hulud started that my friends and I were referring to as 'metalcore'. Bands like Burn, Deadguy, Earth Crisis, even Integrity. These bands that were heavier than the average hardcore bands. These bands that were more progressive than the average hardcore band. My friends and I would always refer to them as 'metalcore' because it wasn’t purely hardcore and it wasn’t purely metal. It was like a heavier hardcore band with hardcore ethics and attitude but clearly a metal influence.""

-This interview can be found at: http://www.ruleeverymoment.com/media/interviews/interview.php?id=43and is one of the sources on the metalcore wikipedia page. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's good for a start. If there are some more sources like that, please list them. One interview though is not that much support. Even if there are plenty of sources, which I don't doubt, there are many others that consider metalcore and grindcore to be metal.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

-Actually, '3family6'; the vast majority of sources say either 'metalcore is hardcore with metal influences' OR they say 'metalcore is a fusion of metal and hardcore punk'; which is not the same thing. In fact, as I discovered on the metalcore wikipedia page; there is just one, yes, one reliable source that says unequivivocably 'metalcore is a subgenre of heavy metal' or words to that effect. Apologies for the lateness of my reply, as have been extremely busy as of late, but I will put up some other sources very shortly as soon as I can. Best regards, JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for style of metal: combination of thrash metal and hardcore, page 41, mix of heavy metal and hardcore, page 59, associated with thrash metal, a punk and metal fusion, page 141, hardcore and metal merged, "too metal to be punk and too punk to be metal," page 181, mix of thrash and hardcore, page 288, blend of hardcore and metal elements, page 16, offshoot of metal, page 104, 108.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

-Hang on a second; which one of those sources says 'metalcore is a subgenre of heavy metal'? (or words more or less along those lines?)

They all say metalcore is a combination of the two; which again, is not the same thing. The first source says it is a combination of thrash metal and hardcore the second says it is a 'mix of heavy metal and hardcore', the third source says it is neither, the fourth source says it is, again 'a mix of hardcore and metal elements', and only the fifth source says it is a subgenre, or as it puts it; 'offshoot' of metal. Again; that's just one source. This is not merely a question of semantics. The fact both genres have metal elements (which is undeniable, as well as supported by the sources) does not neccesarily mean that it is a subgenre of heavy metal.

All the people calling for metalcore to be considered a heavy metal subgenre are very conveniently ignoring the defining, hardcore elements of the sound. I mean, really; 'metallic hardcore' (of which the term 'metalcore' is a corruption of) as opposed to thrash metal, speed metal, black metal, death metal, etc. -that alone would make one think first off that it isn't even before you look at the sources; seeing as a noun always comes after an adjective in the english language, last time I checked. Again, I'm not saying either shouldn't be mentioned, but describing them as 'metal subgenres' is plain wrong, which is supported by the sources you've just mentioned, not to mention the one I provided above. If it is a combination of metal and hardcore, how is it any less hardcore than it is metal? Why is the hardcore part ignored in all of this?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The hardcore part is not being ignored, and neither the article nor I are saying that it is less hardcore than metal. Metalcore is both, just how deathcore is both death metal and metalcore, or crossover thrash is thrash metal and hardcore (and seems to be the first instance of metalcore).--¿3family6 _contribs 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources, supporting different angles of the argument: Metallic hardcore = metalcore - [11]; metalcore = hardcore + metal - page 10; metalcore = substyle of hardcore, as are skate punk, speed metal, thrash, grunge, sludge metal - [12]; metalcore = "angrier, more precise" thrash - [13]; metalcore = extreme hardcore - [14], [15]; metalcore not equated with metal - [16]; metalcore the way that it should sound [but not necessarily is] is hardcore is with metal elements - [17]; metalcore = hardcore with metal elements [18]; metalcore = thrash + punk + hardcore and is a metal subgenre - [19], page 181, 372; metalcore can be both metal with hardcore or hardcore with metal - [20], [21].

Conclusion: Metalcore is equally both metal and hardcore, though individual bands can lean one way or the other. It is a hardcore subgenre and a heavy metal subgenre. Neither style is more "important" than the other.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some more sources, that basically support the above conclusion: This forward lists metalcore as a development of extreme metal. On page 40 of this source, it cites the Massachusetts metal scene as similar to how Seattle formulated the grunge scene, and lists metalcore bands as the example. Page 1 of this source doesn't really say, it just mentions one band being "punk-metal" and talks about the use of breakdowns from hardcore punk. This source mentions a "connection" between hardcore punk and heavy metal. This one, under the "metal-heads" section, says metalcore weds "heavy metal's bombast" to "hardcore's rage." This one says it is revitalized "crossover," which is hardcore with metal elements. Page 89 in the Converge review, this source calls metalcore a spin-off of emo. And last but not least, this source on pages 112-114 considers metalcore to be metal influenced hardcore and a hardcore subgenre, and on page 109 considers it a sub-genre of post-punk.

-Sorry 3family6; but your above conclusion seems to me original research at worst, un-objective, fanciful interpretation of the sources at best. Looking at all your sources, it is clear that they are simply contradictory: you have a few sources that say it is a metal subgenre, and a few that say it is a subgenre of hardcore, and many more that say it is a fusion of the two, which again, is not the same as saying it's a metal subgenre. A subgenre can't be equally two genres-it's either one or the other. Look at thrash metal. That is also (like metalcore) a fusion between heavy metal and hardcore punk. But it's not equally metal and equally punk, it's heavy metal, it's just influenced heavily by hardcore punk. But the important, defining metal elements of the sound (i.e. the metal riffs) are still there, so it is still metal. Bands like old Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Sodom, Kreator, Death Angel etc. etc. may be influenced by hardcore punk, but they are not both metal and hardcore, they're just metal bands, albeit heavier, faster than the NWOBHM bands that preceded them and with hardcore elements thrown in. A relevant point that I've mentioned time and time again (with sources), that has been repeatedly ignored. In thrash metal's case, it is the metal elements of the sound that are more important than the hardcore ones. How is thrash metal any different to metalcore? Per most of the sources, it becomes clear (well, to a degree anyway): metalcore is metal-influenced hardcore. To be honest, and I don't mean you personally, I think most editors on this page (and to an enormous degree on the metalcore wikipedia article) have been highly un-objective as regards this article and have allowed personal bias to influence their edits, whereas speaking for myself, were every (or most) sources to say 'metalcore is a subgenre of heavy metal', that would be fine. But the vast majority of sources don't say that.

-looking at your second list of sources, the first source says it is a metal subgenre, the second three sources don't actually say, the fifth source says it is a mixture between the two, the sixth source says it is hardcore with metal elements (and hence, a subgenre of hardcore, NOT metal, it is, however influenced by metal), the seventh source says it is a 'spinoff of emo' (which, whilst I would disagree, emo is also a type of hardcore, so that's saying it's hardcore again), the eighth source says it can be either 'metal influenced hardcore' or 'hardcore influenced metal', and the last source says its a derivitive of post-punk. So, again; only one source that says undisputably that metalcore is a metal subgenre.

Going purely by the sources is all very well (but even objectively going by the sources, it does not warrant metalcore's inclusion on here as out-and-out metal subgenre), but without knowledge of the genre as a whole, the sources are pretty useless. Which is a problem as regards this page and massively, massively as regards the metalcore page.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to deconstruct this a little. First, my conclusion that it is a mixture, with different stylistic emphasis depending on the band, is not original research, as there are sources that confirm it. And your position that it is hardcore is also not original research. Both of our conclusions are well founded. But, it is certainly original research to say that a genre cannot be equally two styles. And since genre labels are not at all a cut and dry, how to tell if it is "equal" or "not equal" is going to be very difficult anyway. But let me see where the tally is so far:

Metalcore is metal substyle: 7 (I'm adding this source to those already listed)

Metalcore is hardcore substyle: 8, and 1 of those sources also considers speed metal, thrash, grunge, sludge metal as hardcore substyles as well.

Metalcore is both styles: 12, -2 considering it both but a metal subgenre, which make 10 for both. 1 style says that it is "too hardcore to be metal and too metal to hardcore," which suggests an equal mixture.

Sources that are not really clear: 4

What does this mean? 1 more source for hardcore than for metal is hardly unequivocal. And a [very] slight majority of sources say that the style is both. The metal vs. hardcore sources cancel each other out, which leaves hardcore with only a one source edge, which is not that strong at all, and there can be other sources for both sides, so there is no way to know the true tally (I'm pretty positive that there are). That leaves us with it being a fusion, both because of the majority opinion of sources, and because the metal vs. hardcore sources create an inconsistency, which is resolved by the sources saying it is a fusion. I rest my case.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot about the interview that you provided, so that makes hardcore +2, which is still not a lot.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Amending my above statement - sources saying that it is a fusion, without placing it under a substyle label, are only 2 more than the hardcore sources, which are only 2 more than the metal sources. So basically, because I am sure you could find more sources supporting each position, opinion is pretty much tied. Again, the logical way to resolve any inconsistencies is to say that the genre is a fusion, with bands falling anywhere along the hardcore and metal spectrum. This position is supported by sources, so it is not original research. So metalcore, because it is a fusion of hardcore and metal, it belongs on both subgenre lists.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

-Yet again though, the same applies as regards thrash metal. That's a fusion of hardcore and metal...but it's still a subgenre of heavy metal, not both.

-and I don't think in all fairness, you can't really use the argument "oh; well, there's slightly less sources that say its metal than say it's hardcore, so they cancel each other out" - your conclusion is total speculation-which is tantamount to original research. Yes, there are slightly more sources that say metal is a type of hardcore-but the fact remains that there are still more sources that say that. The sources don't agree; they directly contradict each other and offer two opposite viewpoints. So; what if one viewpoint is wrong? What if it's not a type of hardcore? What if it's not a type of metal? You can't just make up something to fit the sources. You have to go by what the sources say.

The objective, neutral way to look at it would be to say that yes, metalcore is a type of hardcore, but it has extensive metal influences; or, to put that some bands lean more towards hardcore, and can thus be considered thus, and some lean more towards metal. That's totally supported by the sources. But saying it's a metal subgenre, but then saying it's 'both metal and hardcore' simply because it is a fusion of hardcore and metal doesn't stand up to scrutiny: like I mentioned earlier, thrash metal is similarly a fusion between metal and hardcore (only the other way around), but are you honestly saying bands like Exodus, Kreator, Megadeth, old Metallica, Slayer, etc. are both punk and metal? No! they're just metal; albeit with hardcore influences; and no, that's not a rhetorical question.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The premise I was working from was to see what the majority opinion is among sources. And it appears that they are evenly split. Therefore, metalcore is some combination of hardcore and metal, sometimes mostly metal, sometimes mostly hardcore, sometimes both. Because which side, hardcore or metal, the style falls on depends, on the band, the genre as a whole is no more a hardcore style, as you say it is, as it is a metal style, as others say it is. Simple majority by one or two, or in this case probably even five of six does not render the other sources invalid (and even if they did the others should still be mentioned), because some sources for the other side could have been overlooked. But what you seem to be saying is "because about half of the sources are inconsistent, therefore my opinion is the half we should go with because my side has an edge of one or two more sources in this particular discussion." I apologize if that is an incorrect assessment, but that is basically what your argument seemed to say. As for another point, Wikipedia is not "objective" (I would personally argue that nothing is, but that's not relevant), Wikipedia is neutral - it just goes with what sources say, whether those sources are objective or not. As for consistency, you are partly right - half the sources are inconsistent. But they are not contradictory. To be contradictory, they would have to say "it isn't metal" or "it isn't hardcore," but they don't, they instead say "it is metal" or "it is hardcore," which is an inconsistency. But, semantics aside, the other half of the sources resolve the inconsistency. We could either a) throw out the inconsistent sources, which leaves the sources saying it is a fusion, b) mention the inconsistencies, or c) mention the inconsistencies while also mentioning that it is a fusion (I like this option).--¿3family6 _contribs 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Third person opinion That's a lot of text saying very little. 3family6 is quite rightly pointing out that "metalcore" is a fusion genre between metal and hardcore, with many, many sources to back up their point. If it is clear in the article that this is the case, i.e. this a fusion genre, then its inclusion cannot possibly be questioned. End of. If it were to be included in a hypothetical hardcore punk subgenres article as a fusion genre, then no-one should have any objection to that either. JWUltrablizzard appears to not be addressing this basic distinction, and continues arguing the toss about subgenres; I'm not quite sure where the received knowledge about this comes from. Metal Archives fails WP:RS, so is never used, and it's not like we have a heavy metal equivalent of IUPAC or the IAU for what makes an "official" subgenre. It comes down to clear and unambiguous (professional) journalistic (not fan) usage, and 3family6's sources are sound. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

-I never said metalcore wasn't a 'fusion of metal and hardcore'. Although I would question whether the notion of 'fusion genre' predates or originates from outside wikipedia. Also; not disputing it, but why isn't metal-archives.com a valid source, yet allmusic, a site that wrongly lists Opeth and Nightwish as 'black metal', is? -On another note, I've seen metal-archives cited quite a few times on individual band pages.

Secondly, Sam Dunn's recent documentary 'Metal Evolution' purposely omits metalcore (with the justification given in interviews that Dunn doesn't consider it to be metal); whereas Nu-metal and even grunge is covered. (although metalcore is included in his 'heavy metal family tree', but then so is punk rock, so that doesn't count for much)

Lastly; and I quote:

'Because which side, hardcore or metal, the style falls on depends, on the band, the genre as a whole is no more a hardcore style, as you say it is, as it is a metal style, as others say it is.'

-if it is 'no more a metal style than a hardcore style'; why is it being listed on an article concerning heavy metal subgenres?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The last point I'm not even going to comment on, as the rest of my statements above explain. The second point is one specific documentary, and if you can provide a source from an interview, that would be a notable factoid for the metalcore article. But for you first point, metal-archives is unreliable because it is user-generated. While there may be editorial oversight (which is a step up from Wikipedia, not that I'm complaining), the content is still generated by users and not professional staff. And just because some Wikipedia editors have used inappropriate sourcing doesn't validate your argument, it just means they used inappropriate sourcing. With Allmusic, the tags on the sidebar are considered unreliable by consensus (though I personally disagree with this for most situations, but that's my personal opinion). At this point, this discussion is dead. If you want to bring up specific verifiable instances, that is something for the metalcore page itself.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring 'metalcore' here because the idea that it's not metal only exists becasue 'true' metalheads dislike it. Willing to discuss Nintendocore though, as it's a very broad spectrum; Nintendocore describes everything from melodeathcore/chiptune fusions to hardcore/chiptune fusions; the only consistent element in Nintendocore is chiptune. Any cites either way? 143.92.1.32 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me; what was that about metalcore? You pretty much negated any validity as regards your argument with your first statement; which is entirely POV I have to add. I don't mind metalcore at all, in fact I quite like quite a few bands and listen to them on a regular basis, and have taken the time to see several bands live, and would broadly call myself a fan of the genre; along with many other types of music. I don't think metalcore is a metal subgenre, and not because I 'dislike' it, and I'm certainly; most definitely not a 'true' metalhead by any means. Not to say it doesn't have anything to do with metal as a whole (it does; and that's obvious), but calling it a 'metal subgenre' is stretching things a bit, particularly when you consider it comes directly from hardcore punk(albeit an offshoot of hardcore that is significantly influenced by melodic death metal and thrash metal) and not any subgenre of metal.

Getting to the issue in hand, I would question nintendocore's inclusion on here for exactly the same reasons that I did grunge. (see below) I will try and see if I can find any sources. (:JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not this tired old metalcore horse again. My opinions on metalcore are already clear. With Nintendocore, I agree that it really is a very broad term linked only by a reliance on chiptunes. But most of the sources that discuss the actual genre, not just the bands in it, refer to it as either hardcore or some combination of hardcore and metal. It really has very little metal sound, but sources are not really clear. At this point, I'm indifferent if it's removed or not.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Grunge

Grunge should not be in this list. Grunge is not metal. Grunge is depressing rock. Or depressing shit.

It is a metal fusion. I personally think agree that many or most grunge bands were (or are) not metal, but then you have bands like Melvins and Alice in Chains, to name only two. But the main point is, it is sourced as a fusion between heavy metal, punk/hardcore, and alt rock.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

-Yup; totally agree with 3family9. Yes; there's plenty of bands that aren't metal, Nirvana for example, but there are bands, in particular, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and the Melvins that are; musically speaking, metal bands; all three are on metal-archives.com; and all have stated on numerous occasions that they identify more with metal than any other type of music, Alice In Chains notably on Sam Dunn's 'Metal Evolution' episode about grunge, and in a 1996 issue of Guitar World. Soundgarden said basically the same thing in a recent issue of Classic Rock magazine. The Melvins stated in the aforementioned Sam Dunn documentary that they were (and I quote) 'what Captain Beefheart would sound like if he played heavy metal'; not to mention the fact that they basically were the first sludge metal band. As regards grunge as a whole however, I would say personally out that grunge was more a 'scene' of Seattle-based bands from a particular time (like, for example, NWOBHM was) with a particular lyrical bent and a similar musical basic-ness than an actual genre. So, some grunge bands weren't metal bands or even remotely anything to do with metal, but there were some bands that actually were metal bands, like Soundgarden, AIC and the Melvins.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Grunge doesn't belong as although it's influenced by metal is very much an alternative rock subgenre. In fact, it's often consider very anti-metal, and I have several books that describe it as a non-metal genre, and separate it from heavy metal. It's like how hip-hop and rock are informed by R&B but aren't R&B genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There are also a lot of sources that consider it a punk-metal fusion. What appears to have happened, and my observation is supported by sources for the punk side of the equation, is that the style partly separated from its origins once it became popular.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it's considered an alternative rock subgenre. It derived from punk and metal, but it ultimately falls into the alt-rock camp, to the point where they were almost synonymous in once grunge hit the big time. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So, why can't it be both alt-rock and punk-metal, as sources indicate?--¿3family6 _contribs 13:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we please have a source for this notion of 'punk metal' or 'punk metal fusions' please? I've seen this term endlessly banded about oon wikipedia; but there are no sources to back up its use. Obviously; there are metal and metal-related genres/subgenres that are influenced by punk; such as thrash metal, grunge, crust punk, et cetera, and I don't deny that, but it doesn't warrant the use of the term if its not supported by sources.

Could reference also be made to the recent Sam Dunn documentary regarding the evolution of metal. The episode on grunge on how at least the practitioners of grunge viewed themselves. Indeed, at one point, Dunn is unsure if grunge even belonged on the 'metal family tree' from his previous documentary, nonetheless; his conclusion seems to say that in his opinion; it at least merits inclusion.

• Former Soundgarden bassist Hiro Yamamoto seeming rather confused when asked 'is Grunge metal?': "Oooh...I don't know...It's certainly dark..." but saying they (Soundgarden)"had more of a punk element to their sound" although noting "although so did Metallica."

• Soundgarden guitarist Kim Thayil and former Hole bassist Melissa Auf De Maur agreeing that they both owed a musical debt to earlier metal bands such as Black Sabbath and Motorhead

• The members of Mother Love Bone/Pearl Jam acknowledging influences from and a love of Motorhead and Venom.

• Buzz Osbourne from the Melvins, noting a similar love and influence from (especially) Black Sabbath, Motorhead and Venom: (although I'd argue myself that the Melvins-at least; their earlier work, is more sludge metal than anything else)

"We are what Captain Beefheart would sound like if he played heavy metal."

-Personally; I think grunge bands should be judged on a band by band basis. There's little that ties many grunge bands together musically. A band like Alice In Chains is unquestionably a metal band (the band even say they are); but a bands like Stone Temple Pilots or Nirvana have very little to do with metal, and; as is clear in the documentary, the subsequent development of post-grunge had very little to do with any metal subgenre in any real musical sense.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

all the so called "grunge" bands that are metal (alice in chains, soundgarden etc.) all fall under the alternative metal category, and the others (nirvana, pearl jam etc.) have pretty much nothing to do with heavy metal, so i don't see why grunge needs to be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I see I've basically made the same point below. Alternative metal belongs, but grunge does not. Alt-metal is essentially metal bands flirting with alt-rock and other styles; grunge is the opposite. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello, I noticed you have made several edits regarding grunge and its relationship to hardcore and heavy metal. As someone who was done much research for the genre articles devoted to punk, metal, and grunge and alternative rock, I feel I need to clarify that relationship for you. Yes, grunge is influenced by punk and metal, that is not disputed. But you must know that grunge is formally classified as an alternative rock genre. There are several book-length sources that elaborate on this relationship--the overarching thread is that grunge is a separate from from (and in many ways, opposed to) metal. It's intrinsically linked with alternative rock, to the extent that the popularization of grunge popularized alt-rock as a whole. Grunge and alt-rock evolved from hardcore and are considered separate as well from that genre. If you want me to further explain these relationships I can, but the short version is that while metal and hardcore influenced grunge, grunge is ultimately considered a form of alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wesley. I pretty much agree with you that grunge is primarily an alt-rock style, but I've seen a lot of sources calling it a punk-metal fusion. From the little pieces here and there that I've read, the basic style merged punk, especially hardcore, and metal, with some bands also playing alt metal, experimental metal, alt rock, and/or indie rock. In my personal opinion, I think the reason that of the different styles it emerged out, the reason alt-rock became the one it is classified as is because Nirvana was more on the alt-rock side than the punk-metal side. But getting back to sourced material, a quick G-books search of "grunge 'metal fusion'" easily brings up a lot of reliable sources demonstrating the connection, while a search for "grunge punk" brings up sources both describing how grunge is a punk fusion and how grunge and punk ultimately diffused as different styles.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A punk-metal fusion doesn't necessarily mean it's a subgenre of either punk or metal. For example, nu metal incorporates hip-hop, but it certainly isn't a rap subgenre. I have a couple of sources that explain the difference in greater detail. for example. Ian Christie's metal history Sound of the Beast explains grunge's origins in metal, but makes sure to explain they are different, and that grunge is an alt-rock subgenre. This Ain't No Summer of Love is all about the relationship between punk and metal, but that also explains that when push comes to shove, grunge is an alt-rock subgenre. Michael Azerrad's our band Could Be Your Life explains over the course of several chapters how alternative rock (and in the Mudhoney chapter, grunge specifically) evolved from hardcore. Allmusic places grunge firmly in the alternative rock category. So it is not impossible for grunge to be a metal-punk combo and yet exclusively an alt-rock subgenre. Does that clarify the relationships between the forms for you? WesleyDodds (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the hip hop music and rap metal articles both have nu metal listed as a fusion genre. If the style is a punk-metal fusion, it is a punk-metal fusion. It may have turned into an alternative rock style, but it still is, or was, also a punk-metal fusion. Sources: The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge distinctly calls the style a punk and metal hybrid on page 177, and later on page 218 calls it a punk spinoff. Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture on page 508 says that the sound is "roughly" punk-metal fusion, with Nirvana at the pop-punk end, Pearl Jam in the middle with with a hard rock style, and Soundgarden at the metal-punk end. This sources helps explain that the individual bands of the style varied greatly, which would be why some sources conflict with others. Music USA: The Rough Guide describes SST Records' output as sometimes hinting at the "punk/metal fusion that would characterize grunge..." on page 401. Grunge: Music and Memory says on page 71 that the most often made comparisons to grunge are punk and/or heavy metal. On page 51 of Guitar Gods: The 25 Players Who Made Rock History, the author states that classic grunge from the first wave of bands fused hardcore punk with heavy metal. Guitar World Presents Nirvana and the Grunge Revolution on page 4 states that there is debate over whether grunge was derived from metal or punk, and clarifies it by saying that it fuses both.

So, to conclude, the grunge is both an alt rock style and a punk-metal style.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite what those articles list in their infobox, that's not how genres work. Rock is derived from R&B, but it is not an R&B genre. Hip-hop is built off funk, but it is not a funk genre. Heavy metal is borne of blues rock but it's not a blues rock genre. That grunge fuses punk and metal is true to an extent. "Fusion" does not automatically equal "subgenre", however. That's the distinction you are missing. As I said, there are sources specifically devoted to the genres in question. Those sources you offered are due to their restrictions describing grunge in a very general way. Of the sources you listed, only two are specialist sources. In the case of the Guitar World source, that same article is reprinted in the Guitar World Presents Alternative Rock collection I have on my shelf. The sources I mentioned that explain in greater detail how grunge was borne of those two genre, but also how it is more separate. You need to explore the full range of sources on alt-rock, metal, punk, and rock in general to get the full picture. In many ways, grunge is considered the definitive style of alt-rock, in certain ways opposed to what metal and punk are. I mean, I can explain this in extreme detail if you really want, but trust me, I've had to do a lot of research on grunge, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and related articles for numerous projects on Wikipedia over the years, and I can assure you grunge is not widely considered either a punk subgenre or a metal one. A derivative, yes. A subgenre, no. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: The above was pasted from my talk page. Editors, feel free to add to the discussion.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that there was an attempt by myself and one or two other editors to differentiate on this article the difference between primary genres of heavy metal, and fusion genres (at the time it was metalcore and especially Nintendocore that prompted the discussion, but now grunge is the focus). I experimented with this, but it seemed to cause more problems that it solved, as there were objections to the term "primary" genres, and debate as to whether certain subgenres (sludge metal was one in particular) should be listed as primary or fusion genres. I am all for distinguishing fusion genres again, but a consensus needs to be developed as to how to implement it. As for grunge, can User:WelsleyDodds provide some content distinguishing how grunge drifted from its punk-metal roots into an alternative style? That would really help things on both this article and the main grunge article. Especially for this article, readers could see how grunge only started as a partly heavy metal style but then moved away.--¿3family6 _contribs 14:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An issue is that such a thing as a fusion genre does not seem to exist--it's really something editors on Wiki talk about about but it seems to have no basis in sources to be considered a proper classification. The Wikipedia article on the topic of fusion genres is quite disputed. Anyway, putting that aside and getting to the point, I mentioned on 3family6's talk page how Ian Christie's Sound of the Beast explains how metal informed grunge, but it treats grunge as a non-metal genre--indeed, it came to overshadow metal in the early '90s, as he describes. Allmusic classifies grunge as an alt-rock genre and not a metal one. Deena Weinstein's book on heavy metal, one of the very first scholarly works on the genre, separates grunge and metal explicitly. As explained in Michael Azerrad's Our Band Could Be Your Life, the bands that created grunge were mixing punk and metal, but it was becoming something new almost immediately (to quote Sub Pop producer Jack Endino talking about reaction to the very first grunge record released, the Deep Six compilation, "People just said, 'Well, what kind of music is this? This isn't metal, it's not punk, What is it?") So pretty much from the start, grunge was a new, separate form. It was never a metal genre in of itself, and the Sub Pop grunge scene was never a metal scene--in fact, Alice in Chains were considered outsiders, and considered too metal for the crowd (though they forged friendships with other grunge bands later on). These books I mention are among the most authoritative works on both the grunge/alt-rock and metal genres, and they do not consider grunge to be a metal subgenre--they explicitly consider it divorced from metal, meaning it does not belong on this page. Also note that alternative rock is all about taking elements from other genres and recontextualizing them. Goth is based on glam rock. Shoegaze was modern-day psychedelia. The post-punk revival rejiggered post-punk. Post-rock takes from everything from jazz to lounge music. Britpop cribbed from every sort of British guitar pop from the Beatles to mod to punk. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out that grunge bands that do fit the metal classification do so because they are also classified as alternative metal, which is an actual metal subgenre, unlike grunge. Most grunge bands (including Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Mudhoney) aren't alternative metal, but Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are among the few that are. That explains why some grunge bands are labeled as metal and some aren't--because there's a whole 'nother genre classification involved. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the trouble with grunge was that it wasn't really a genre; it was a scene, and the 'grunge' tag became applied to it later on. A band like Alice In Chains wouldn't have viewed themselves in say; 1989 as a 'grunge' band; they would have defined themselves as a metal band and nothing else. Same can be said for Soundgarden to an extent. Nirvana would have viewed themselves as an alternative rock band in 1989; and so on. Plus, there really isn't anything musically that ties grunge bands across the board together, which is certainly not something that could be said for something like thrash metal or power metal; where any of the bands in the given subgenre will have clearly identifiable musical traits in common that class them all with that subgenre. Sure; there was a common morbid lyrical fascination and a reliance on simple songwriting and a lot of bands utilised heavy riffs, but most of the distinguishing features of 'grunge' are not musical, so it wouldn't be right to call it a subgenre, or even a genre for that matter. To put it simply; some bands were alternative rock bands, some were hard rock bands, and some were metal bands. But to call it a fully fledged subgenre of heavy metal is a bit of a stretch to be honest.

Also; user:WesleyDodds, if I may quote you:

""Fusion" does not automatically equal "subgenre", however. That's the distinction you are missing"

"A punk-metal fusion doesn't necessarily mean it's a subgenre of either punk or metal." -This is a point I have bought up time and time again on this talk page but am continually ignored.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I can see why people would think "It's part metal and part punk, so it should be a subgenre of both!" but that's not how it actually works out and how it's classified (also putting aside that "grunge=punk + metal" is the shorthand description anyway; it also incorporates elements from post-punk, garage rock, Neil Young, straight-ahead '80s alt-rock bands like late-period Husker Du, Dinosaur Jr., Sonic Youth, etc...) WesleyDodds (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"An issue is that such a thing as a fusion genre does not seem to exist--it's really something editors on Wiki talk about about but it seems to have no basis in sources to be considered a proper classification"

-Which is basically what my objection to types of music such as metalcore and grunge on here is. -I can say quite emphatically that I have been playing in various metal bands for nearly twenty years now, I studied music to a certain academic level, and have written the occasional piece of amateur music journalism; and I can say quite honestly that before the emergence of wikipedia I had never heard of the term 'fusion genre' before I started using wikipedia. Not that there aren't any actual subgenres of heavy metal; such as thrash metal and sludge metal, that do fuse a heavy metal base with punk influences but the entire concept as applied to metal and metal-related genres seems to me to be total OR created by various wikipedia users to describe various otherwise unrelated or largely unrelated genres and subgenres that just happen to combine elements of punk and metal; often in completely different ways, as if there is something that they all have in common and there is a underlying common concept in these genres that really doesn't exist. A thrash metal band like Evile; for example, has very; very little to do with a deathcore band for example, yet both types of music combine metal and punk.

try editing the part on the wikipedia page to anything other than 'subgenre of heavy metal'. I tried to change it, with the support of various primary and secondary sources that I cited and was quite swiftly subjected to a torrent of abuse with no end of unimaginative four-letter words by various editors; (including and most notably user:GunMetalAngel) asking who the hell I thought I was doing that; and was guilty of POV and being 'uncooperative' because I disagreed with someone else's opinion, who then cited only one source. I cited about eight. I really...don't see the logic if they will not cite sources to justify their edits; yet I provide them for mine, and yet am ignored. I don't understand the agression and obvious POV-ing on that particular page either; but I put it down to people; obviously unfamiliar with metal in the broad spectrum, who view metalcore as their favourite genre (partly because it's the flavour of the month; or rather; was) and consider anything other than decribing it as 'a subgenre of heavy metal' as an insult to them and it. Bizarre. Oddly enough; there were no problems at all when I edited the deathcore page in the same way. Coincidence? I don't think so. Were they to provide sources justifying their edits; I might agree with them, but they provide none and yet demand I provide a hundred.

Rant over; but basically; I only ever hear the 'punk-metal fusion' argument bought up in any debate is when users who are unfamiliar or 'new' to metal try to justify the description of questionable types of music such as metalcore and grunge as 'types of heavy metal' you rarely hear it used on wikipedia to describe thrash metal; for example (primarily because it's undeniable and unquestionably a type of heavy metal, unlike the others); and yet it is unquestionable the result of a combination between heavy metal and punk.

To put it in a nutshell as well; there isn't a massive quantity of high-quality scholarly research (though it does exist; and is increasing)as regards the subject of heavy metal and also how it is classified, which pretty much gives various sections of the wikipedia community a licence to cite unreliable sources to justify the inclusion of their favourite metal-related or metal-influenced type of music.

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

To put it simply: grunge could be described as a combination between metal and punk. But it would be wrong to call it a 'subgenre of heavy metal'. Likewise, thrash metal is also a combination between metal and punk (in a different way) and yet it is unquestionably; undeniably a subgenre of heavy metal, as all the reputable sources such as Christe will testify. There might be the odd grunge band like AIC or the Melvins that one would have a hard time in describing them as anything other than metal bands, but bands like Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Bush and Stone Temple Pilots are quite obviously and demonstrably not metal bands in any way. But the punk influence is undeniably there. If you take a list of any given notable thrash metal bands (let's say for convenience sake, Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, Death Angel, Testament, and Exodus) there is not a single one of those that could be described as anything other than a metal band. They all have various influences in addition to punk and hardcore punk in their sound; but they are all fundamentally metal bands, which is where the obvious difference in comparison to grunge becomes relevant.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. If grunge is a "fusion genre" (which is a questionable term anyway) and therefore would be both a punk and metal genre, then thrash would have to be as well, not to mention NWOBHM. But they aren't. Because that's not how music genre classification works. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I really don't care whether grunge is here or not, and I certainly don't know a lot about it. I'm really indifferent to the outcome here. I just want to make sure that other viewpoints are considered.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But have I explained why grunge does not belong here sufficiently? If so, I say it's time to remove it from this page. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To add a final cap to what I've already said, I was reviewing some sources I've mentioned and upon returning to Deena Weinstein's Heavy Metal: The Music and Its Culture (as mentioned, one of the very first authoritative and scholarly works about the genre), I found that she explicitly says "Grunge was not metal". Based on how the discussion has gone and based on the sources, I'm going to remove grunge from the page again. If someone disagrees with its removal, feel free to revert me, but leave a message here explaining your reasons and we'll continue this discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you tell me that there's a discussion going on! I too am in the camp where I believe grunge was influenced by and later influenced metal, but don't see it as a metal (or punk) sub-genre. I'm fine with the consensus reached here, but to simply quote one figure as authoritative is disingenuous at best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this one went pretty fast! If you look at the beginning of this subsection in the part that I posted from my talk, you will see that it wasn't just one source that was used.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The quoting of the source in my edit summary of the template was merely a matter of having a limited number of characters with which to explain my edit (, incidentally, this is also why I don't have a Twitter account). In retrospect I should've linked back to this discussion. But yeah, it's more than one source that's led us to this conclusion--Weinstein just happens to be the most explicit of the more authoritative sources about the matter. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)