Talk:Traditional heavy metal

Merger Discussion Archives

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

---

WTF??!

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

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

Archives

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

Intro paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genres

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

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

AC/DC

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

Comment by Mark7532222

• def leppard,rainbow,maiden,savatage,yngwie the same genre :S

Got these from an edit that was reverted Zazaban 01:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though I disagree with the idea of deleting this page, I side with Mark on this, this page is a complete nonsense. A mixture of everything based on a debatable notion of "classic metal". While I originally expected to find a article dedicated to original heavy metal, I realize this is actually not the case here: there's indeed a complete confusion between several genres most particularly between hard rock, original heavy metal and glam metal. This article is not serious.

I suggest this article to be completely redone focusing exclusively on original heavy metal bands just like the german and french versions of this article did.

I have serious sources for doing so if needed.

"Think of it like the term 'Classic Rock.' The Beatles and Dire Straits don't really sound the same, but they're both called 'Classic Rock.'"

Zazaban, I'm sorry but this argument sounds like a personnal theory of yours (= Original research and POV). First does anyone have any reliable sources about the existence of the very term "classic metal"(I mean authoritative source that testifies the use of the term as A REAL GENRE, not just as an informal word used by a few people). Second, any sources that testify that mixture? Frankely speaking I never heard the term "classic metal" used as an official term. As far as I know when we refer to original 70s/80s bands we just employ the terms "hard-rock" or "heavy metal"(in a restricted sense as opposed to broader meaning heavy metal =Metal). I have searched in my music encyclopedia and in the metal encyclopedia and there is no mention of a style called "classic metal".Frédérick Duhautpas 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really big on the metal scene and have never heard this term either, so I'm just going to assume the best thing right now is to stop commenting. Zazaban 07:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Mark, first off Should I remind you the wikipedia policy concerning civility? No, I don't think I have to Because you already know, don't you?

Second, I don't think Zazaban meant to prevent us to post comments...I think Zazaban just meant HE (not we) should stop commenting because he doesn't know enough about the genre. That's all. No need to overreact. Frédérick Duhautpas 22:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

^^^^ What he said. Zazaban 00:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Well, you posted a personal attack. What was I supposed to do? I highly suggest you read Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Zazaban 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

When he said he meant he would stop commenting it was obviously about the ISSUE per se. But obviously this doesn’t necessarilly mean he’s supposed to shut up especially when he is personnally attacked. So please stop twisting his words and intentions. All in all please remember one of the Wikipedia’s prerogatives: Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

On the other hand some of your points concerning the classic metal issue are relevant, I strongly support them. But you don’t need to attack people personnaly and make sarcasms especially when you just misinterpreted their words. Because someone is mistaken about the issue doesn’t mean you have to be disrespectful with him.

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

Come on, Zazaban had the guts to admit he doesn’t know enough about the issue. He doesn’t want to argue about it anymore. So what more do you want?

Your basic point proves you’re a sensible guy,so don’t let petty personnal issues blind your judgement. I would hate to engage a wikipedia's procedure to stop this sterile conflict. Frédérick Duhautpas 19:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

......... MARK GOT BANNED LOL!

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

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

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

Oh, Let me guess, you're Mark and you're commenting from another IP...Frankely speaking, we really don't care about these childish and steril personal attacks against Zazaban.You aren't making any point when you're making ad hominem comments against him...This discussion page is a place for discussion concerning the article not a pretex to attack people.Oh and by the way one can appreciate a genre without knowing it extensively.I don't see where the contradiction is...Frédérick Duhautpas 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Let me guess, you're Zazaban and you're commenting from another IP...Frankely speaking, we really don't care about these childish and steril personal attacks Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.206.41 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah now the conspiration theory...it's getting more and more pathetic...Ok Mr paranoid, did you note that basically I argued against Zazaban thesis in this discussion and defended Mark's point/yours? So your paranoid belief that I'm him is ridiculous.

Anyway it's useless to discuss with a troll.Frédérick Duhautpas 09:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, sure man. If you wanna play the smart alec, be my guest...I couldn't care less...At any rate no matter you are one or two persons, you are troll(s) and vandal(s) anyway. So we don't care about you now. Your original point was certainly relevant but your vandalism and your attacks are sterile. Anyway when I'll have time I'm gonna fix this article to make it more serious and relevant, and with sources. From now on, I won't even try to discuss any further with you or your IP alterego. Frédérick Duhautpas 13:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite being a troll, he has some good points. This genre should be the most popular metal bands of the seventies/eighties, not a bunch of random metal bands that people just like feel like calling classic. That's my two cents.FinalFantasyTen (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're another socketpuppet of his?. Whatever... yes sure Mark/you definitely had good points. I already said it. But he is a vandal and so are you. (i.e. Wade Keller article vandalized).Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Queen

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

Oh no, not that Queen thing again...

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

Recents edits by Mr troll

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

it still made more sense than the abomination that the article is now.142.162.194.241 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If your intention is to deal with the article as if classic metal = Hard rock then your version just doesn't make any sense at all, because there's already an article dedicated to hard rock. There's no point making a double/parralel article.On a side note, I find it quite ironic you've been bitching everybody about the irrelevant approch concerning this article when your approch turns out to be as inconsistent.

There are still confusions in this article to clarify and stuffs to fix but the article doesn't state anything like classic "being a mix of several different genres" anymore now. I have made minor edits to delete parts suggesting amalgam/assimilation between classic metal and thrash or glam. So as imperfect as this version still is, I prefer this version to your irrelevant approch. This article sure needs improvement but at least it doesn't state major nonsense anymore.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Keep on doing your trolling, man.

?

Classic Metal is a term, not a genre. If it was a genre, the "classic metal bands" articles would say so under genre. This is why thrash bands should and will be added.

142.162.207.230 (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Purple&diff=180679317&oldid=180676052

HE SAID ITS A TERM AND NOT A GENRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.207.230 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

lol @ power metal yet no thrash

Classic

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

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