Talk:Nu metal/Archive 4

Resurgance in 2010

A stylistic resurgance, along with new material from many former Nu Metal bands, is apparent this year. First off, We have Limp Bizkit releasing Gold Cobra, and by listening to Why Try, you can tell that the band has not waverred from thier old Nu-Metal sound one bit (except they may have gotten a tad bit heavier). Then we have Adema, with thier original line-up, saying they are gonna realise some new material as "The Real Adema" most likely meaning that they are gonna have a similar Nu Metal sound as before they split. Nonpoint released some new material. It might not be Nu Metal, but the band is. We have Deftones returning with some Nu Metal elements in their sound. Drowning Pool released a new album last month, and Godsmack has released new albums too.

Aside from Limp Bizkit with an obvious Nu Metal sound, and those other bands making comebacks, we also have Disturbed, KoRn, Linkin Park, Mudvayne, and Lostprophets releasing New Material in or around 2010. And we can't forget P.O.D. anouncing new material soon.

I'm not saying they are all reviving new metal, it isn't neccisarily a resurgence of the Nu Metal sound, its just a comeback. With all of these former Nu metal bands coming back around, we might be able to call this a new wave of Nu Metal. But then again, if limp Bizkit finds succes with Gold Cobra, who knows. Lostprophets, P.O.D., Linkin Park, KoRn, Disturbed, Mudvayne, Godsmack, Drowing Pool, Adema, Nonpoint, Deftones, even Papa Roach, and all the other Nu Metal bands coming back with a full on Nu metal sound, maybe even with rapping and turntables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.194.199 (talk • contribs)

Should the phenomina that all of the original, succesful Nu Metal bands are releasing new material be mentioned? Altenhofen 04:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all opinion. What relation do these ideas have with improving the article? Since this was an umbrella term that has been used since 1994, there's no real evidence of a term "diminishing" in popularity, although some bands associated with the term have become less popular. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC))

How is saying that "Nu metal bands are releasing new material" opinion? its fact. nearly every major Nu metal band is releasing new material, and the sound and style of [some] of it is recognisably Nu Metal.Altenhofen 04:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything having to do with a "resurgence" of anything is an opinion, unless there is a source stating such. While, yes, there are nu metal bands releasing new material, that doesn't necessarily mean a "resurgence". (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

What about this http://blog.washingtonpost.com/clicktrack/2010/02/taking_sides_is_the_return_of.html Syxxpackid420 (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also concern that calling it a "Resurgence" would be a bit premature. Yes there are new ablums out but we have to wait and see if they have MUSTARD (meaning will they sell well over a period of time). I would say we need to wait at least a year to call a section this!!Moxy (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We could at least create a "Nu Metal in recent years" section, detailing information about KoRn's and Limp Bizkit's new releases. Altenhofen 01:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yes pls expand the article,,,for some odd reason this article gets smaller ever-time i look at it...AS a new fan of this type of music,,,, and an old man that grow up on Sabbath and Zeppelin i need to know who falls into the class on music :) ...Moxy (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like focusing on specific bands, as if they had sole importance in a musical genre. It would be more helpful if this was a coignent term with aspects and attributions that everyone agreed on. It would seem fairer if, say, Deftones were discussed a bit, since they had more critical approval than Korn, and were doing basically the same sound beforehand, but not everyone can agree on that Deftones are nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

I am not trying to focus on specific bands, i am trying to get RECENT information on Nu Metal. Saying "KoRn and Limp Bizkit are releasing Nu Metal material in 2010" is not "talking about specific bands," it is Giving descriptive, important information. If we were to add information without talking about the musical group(s) it relates to, than we would have to say "multiple Nu Metal bands are releasing Nu metal material in 2010." that is no descriptive, and just plain stupid. Altenhofen 01:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you see my point. I don't think it's particularly notable that Korn and Limp Bizkit are releasing new albums this year. Get it? (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC))

How is it not? Altenhofen 03:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Limp Bizkit is highly important in relation to anything, and Korn has been consistently releasing albums since 1994. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Re:Talk page comments

Re: Comments at User talk:Munci#Nu metal dispute. This is something that should be done with all editors involved as well as preferably third parties, not just one or two editors.

Lead - It's got already 5 sources that have been established as reliable by independent editors that it's a subgenre. You can't reasonably oppose that any more.

More sources identify it as a fusion genre. Many use the term "subgenre" in confusion without relating to the actual subject. There's a huge difference between this and thrash metal. It's not a subgenre - if it were, Korn and Limp Bizkit would be identified as heavy metal bands in their infoboxes, and that would piss people off, because it's not accurate. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Which sources are these? So far there's only one citation for it being a fusion genre. If there were more citations for it being a fusion genre, that could well go in front. Also, is being a subgenre and a fusion genre really mutually exclusive? Anyway, pissing people off is not really that relevant. People might get pissed at e.g. the cover of Virgin Killer but it's wikipedia policy not to be censored. Munci (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between using an image that may offend people and using phrasing that may be inaccurate. We have to include an album cover, even if it's offensive. We don't have to put slanted material in an article just to pad it out. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Unless you provide sources to say otherwise, there is no 'slant' to saying that "nu metal is a subgenre of heavy metal" because that's what RSs say. It's not just to pad it out. It's because that is the main description found in RSs. This is the only reason I want to put this in the article; the best reason. Munci (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the RSs say. The sources you added aren't particularly great, and certainly not better than other sources describing it as an umbrella term or fusion genre. This is clearly not a subgenre of heavy metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Yes it is. They are good sources. This has been shown at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard already. It clearly is sourceable to RSs that it is a metal subgenre because of this. Which better sources are you referring to though? Actually produce some sources why not? Munci (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why you think industrial rock and hardcore punk are the most common influences I really don't know. That's not even what is stated in Joel McIver's book. He says (page 10) "For our purposes, if it's modern metal and it derives a certain proportion of its sound from hip-hop, punk, glam rock or funk, it's in.". The three main influences he bolds in the section "How did we get to nu metal from old metal?" are grunge, rap metal and funk metal. These are thus the genres that should be in the stylistic origins section of the infobox.

See List of nu metal bands, and the influences on each one. What I've come to a conclusion to based on sourced estimations of the sound of each band on that list is that most bands are influenced by either heavy metal music, some form of industrial rock, or hardcore punk. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

That seems a bit like Original Research to me. Most of the bands on that page do not have influences mentioned on their articles anyway. The closest you've got is overlap genres which I expect is most often rap rock, alternative metal or post-grunge. Munci (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not original research. It's based on the sources for the bands. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Which sources? Which bands even? You've not given any examples. Most bands listed in the article List of nu metal bands do not have any statements referring to their influences anyway. Munci (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. Nearly half of the list has a section like this, for one, or sources elsewhere that, while not cited in the band biographies, do use the terms I've stated. To describe nu metal as deriving from rap rock or post-grunge doesn't fit all of the bands ascribed with this terminology. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Which bands still? Even just link to a single page which says such a thing can you? I never said I thought post-grunge was influence for nu metal. I said there is frequent overlap. Difference. Munci (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

rap influenced vocals - well, this is what the RS says. This is even a guy who's an expert specifically on popular music so you can't use that "he's not from the right field" argument. The aggressive bit I can kind of understand that it does not significantly differ from other metal. So that bit I'm fine with leaving out, preferably replacing it with some of the other characteristics described by Pieslak.

Again, not every band associated with this term is sourced as having rap-influenced vocals. We're looking for generalization here. Saying that some bands use rap vocals has no specific relation to nu metal or alternative metal. The only genre in which bands directly use rapped vocals is rap rock. And I have no idea what "rap-influenced vocals" means. That implies vocals influenced by rapping, but are sung rather than rapped, which makes no sense. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Not every band no. 'Generally' does not mean 'all'. I understand 'vocals influenced by rapping, but are sung rather than rapped'. It's like in the choruses of Did My Time or in Stupify. Munci (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like original research; I should point out that Korn and Disturbed are both categorized as rap metal by Allmusic. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Trying to get you to understand what is actually meant with specific examples. I don't quite understand why you point this out. There is no category on allmusic "nu metal" and allmusic most certainly is not the be-all and end-all of the music criticism. And there is much overlap between rap metal and nu metal. Munci (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Allmusic does have a nu metal categorization, but their software is funky. I've seen it on a few pages, in the genre box, although, admittedly, placed incorrectly. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

There is no page equivelant to this:Rap metal at Allmusic for nu metal. Munci (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there is, but it got lost in the programming. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

DJs - fine , this bit I was just not being careful enough.

Characteristics - again, this sourced to RSs. And I don't even understand a reason why you oppose it. "More slant. Not generalized in any way." - What does that even mean?

It means, if you look at the sources for every band over at list of nu metal bands, it would be inconsistent with these categorizations. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Again seems like OR which contradicts RSs. RSs are what matter. So you think that less than half of the bands listed have riffs as focus or have much syncopation? Munci (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not OR. It's based on the sources which describe the styles of bands ascribed with this term. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

" you deleted sourced material when you reverted to your preferred version - it's very notable that previously established artists would release albums incorporating elements of a style." - if you're referring to the part about Machinehead, Slayer etc, I didn't touch it. It had already been removed from the article. Even see in the history. Munci (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I was mistaken. It looks like another editor removed the material, that edit was reverted, then the article was messed up anonymously, and another editor reverted to the wrong revision, and then you made your edits. My mistake. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

So what do other people think about the slant? Munci (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple sources calling it a subgenre. If there are supposedly more sources saying it's a fusion genre, then by all means, provide them. Until then, I think it's fine the way it is right now, saying both, but leading with subgenre, as that is better sourced. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 16:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's wrong. Calling nu metal a subgenre is severely slanted. Categorizing it as a subgenre would require editors to list bands that are clearly not heavy metal as heavy metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC))

Is its not a subgenre than why isnt it removed from the {Heavy Metal} template? Portillo (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)