Talk:Nu metal/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unresolved Dissonance

I need help in finding a fair way to cite this. As a nu metal fan for 10 years, I KNOW that this is factual. Please do not revert this information. I would just like a way to cite it properly without causing controversy. For anybody skeptical, please listen to at least 1 nu metal song by korn or mudvayne.70.119.203.248 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I cited it. Sugar Bear, before you revert it again, it would be great if you explained why. You don't have to explain, but I would appreciate it. It's not my article, but I would appreciate it if I could make edits and have them "considered".70.119.203.248 (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, yet again it got removed. Its legitimate research. Stop removing it.70.119.203.248 (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not that I just want to revert everything but it doesn't seem that your source supports the statement you provide. The source states that Korn is nu metal and that Korn has the tritones; it doesn't say that nu metal bands generally have tritones. Also, it's questionable whether this is a reliable source seeing as blogs aren't normally. This mgiht be an exception though given it looks scholarly enough. Why not try seeing what people at WP:RS/N say? And if it gets confirmed there, why not try putting something in at Korn's article instead? Munci (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and try that but please note that if you listen to as much nu metal as I do you would notice that that quality is applied across the board. Tritones and dissonance can be found in almost every nu metal song in existence. 70.119.203.248 (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I used to listen to nu metal quite a lot myself. The reason I wouldn't notice is more I have little understanding of what a tritone is. :) Munci (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If I make examples with my guitar, and post them here would it be worthwhile? I will gladly do it.70.119.203.248 (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that to be honest; I don't know exactly what the guidlines and so on are for that or where it would fit in. That's helpful of you though. Certainly posting a recording elsewhere on the net and linking from the talkpage would be fine I think. Munci (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The both of you: Stop adding original research and attributing it to sources that don't back up the content added. Thanks. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC))
If you really think there's "original research and attributing it to sources that don't back up the content added" in the current version of the article, please, point out the details. Munci (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Everything you added is backed up poorly. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC))
I'm sorry, Korn, Mudvayne, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit, Taproot, Staind, Flymore, American Head Charge, and Slipknot use only power chords instead of the thousands of dissonant tri-tones and half steps which are apparently auditory hallucinations when I'm listening to music. So are you telling me the music can't be cited as a reference? I find that farfetched as it appears to be an article describing a genre of music75.139.110.45 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation overkill

This article has some serious citation overkill issues. I can only guess some serious edit-warring was going on. Always sad whenever genre warriors and their spawn have such an effect on articles. -- Ϫ 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You can see the dispute in the Talk Archives. I suppose now the article's quieter, it can be tidied up somehow. Maybe grouping refs together at the end of the sentence so the multitude of refs is only seen at the bottom? Munci (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternative metal

Last time I checked nu metal's article it was a part of alt metal article. I really thought it should have its own article and now I'm happy it has. But how come now, alt metal isn't even mentioned ANY WHERE in this article? Nu metal bands (KoRn, Deftones, Mudavayne) where a part of alt metal movement (and there are sources for this). Plus, many alt metal bands where strongly influenced by nu metal (Linkin park, Evanescence, SOAD). I think Alt.metal has to be in the "Stylistic Origins" section or at least be mentioned somewhere in the article.85.25.120.24 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem; just get some sources for that inclusion, as was done for heavy metal. —Torchiest talk/contribs 12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline

The article makes no mention of the decline of Nu metal in the early to mid 2000's. If anyone is willing to dig up references, I'd be happy to work with you. --Confession0791 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The decline started right about at 2003, resurgence began around 2010

expansion

this article needs to be expanded —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Vanilla Ice?

Is this a joke????Microamigo (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No listen to e.g. Too Cold [1] and you will probably think it less likely a joke. Munci (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he did a full nu metal album called hard to swallow, it includes songs like "Too Cold". Metalfan72 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rap metal and hip hop aren't a part of nu metal.

I don't think that rap metal and hip hop had anything to do with the formation of nu metal. Thought there already are some sources. Any nu metal which has rapping vocals in it, isn't already classified as pure nu metal, it's classified as nu metal/rap metal. Nu metal is some kind of a more aggressive type of alternative metal with strong elements of funk metal and grunge. That might be only my opinion, but I don't get it why do rap metal and hip hop have anything to do with nu metal. Could somebody explain that to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ETFFAN123 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • There are references given for those genres in the infobox. You can't just remove those, certainly not without explaining and finding some sort of consensus on the talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nu metal being metal?

Im not here to complain or something, but I was wondering why nu metal is included in the all the metal stuff when the popular opinion from most metal and non-metal fans is that it isnt metal? I mean in the same way that the dubstep article makes the distinction between dubstep and brostep and because the nu metal bands themselves even disagree on calling themselves metal. 92.7.85.226 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a subgenre of Metal. I know a lot of people who also say it's metal. --UltimateLegend (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if you can specifically find reliable (not user generated sites and forums like metal archives) sources saying nu metal isn't metal, then you can include it on this article or wherever you want to, but i doubt you'll find any. The opinion that nu metal isn't metal is just an opinion. The majority of reliable sources agree that it's a sub-genre of metal.

It is a subgenre of heavy metal. It may not be as 'heavy' as traditional heavy metal or thrash metal, but it is still metal. Portillo (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make it metal. It's called a subgenre because it fused it with other music like grunge/rap and for having a major effect on the metal scene. It says in the article that it's a fusion genre. Although if you look at the criticism section, it does talk about its dispute over being metal or not. It's not metal. It's somewhat metal. Just a little. It's somewhat grunge and rap (unless the band uses turntables and rapping and are funky, I'll call it rap, mostly rap rock). Because it fuses it with other music, so mathematically it isn't metal. Like how you mix blue and yellow together, you get green, but green isn't blue or yellow. It's half of both. Doesn't mean I'll change the article denying it's credit as metal. But that's why I believe it isn't metal. Doesn't mean I dislike it. I think it can be good. BlastBeat4 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

well that's your opinion, but you need actual sources specifically saying its not metal, and they have to be by professional journalists, not some third rate metal website, which is the case most of the time regrading this issue. and none of the sources in the criticism section are really reliable, since they were added by a banned sock puppet user inforcing his personal bias regrading this genre. And in the end nu metal isn't really an actual genre, it's just a made up term created by the media and angry metalheads, it's all just Alternative metal, and if alternative metal isn't metal then bands like Tool, Faith No More. Alice in Chains and Helmet (some of which are on the metal archives) aren't metal either — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs)

The fact that a banned user added the sources doesn't mean that the sources themselves are unreliable. – Richard BB 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I havent read any books on the history of metal, but I assume many of them include the alternative/nu metal scene as a part of the history. I think many people simply dont like nu metal and therefore dont like including it as a part of heavy metal. Portillo (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Thrash Metal is a combination of Hardcore Punk and the NWOBHM and that's still considered metal. UltimateLegend (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if you look at the list of Nu Metal bands, it basically includes every alternative metal group that came out in the 90's. Unfortunately all that is required for listing under a wiki article is that some complete moron have a job that allows them to publish their opinion (erroneous or not) in the public domain and that apparently makes it fact, regardless of industry standards. So personally I consider this whole article to be a joke, and take it with a grain of salt. Any true metal fan that is getting their info from wiki will either already know the difference or if they are new to the genre, will soon find out through mingling with others in the know. Good way to spot the Wiki Masters stalking through the crowds. Be kind to them though, educate rather than immolate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingston7 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

women in nu metal

"Nu metal is noted for participation of women in the genre in contrast to other metal genres," it currently says under "Characteristics." I don't think that's an accurate reading of the linked Billboard article or of reality. The existence of a few female bands that can be categorized as nu metal doesn't make this genre any less male dominated than "other metal genres." It's at least as much, if not moreso. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.111.67 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Nu metal was/is just as much a sausage fest as any other metal genre save maybe symphonic/gothic metal. I say that line should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.220.97 (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see more women at a Korn concert than at a Metallica concert, K? There are plenty of women at a Korn concert, but the line makes it sound like there's 5 women at an Anthrax concert and over 9000 women at a Hollywood undead concert. Take that line to an abortion clinic and abort it.

Images

This article now has only three photos. This seems like some photos could be added. WP:Image use policy states that "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." I added photos which illustrate nu metal and bands that influenced nu metal. I don't see why adding pics is called spamming. Photos add to the reader's experience.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Nu Metal

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Nu Metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by GH200 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Death metal influence

Im curious to know what death metals influence on nu metal exactly had. Sepulturas Roots had a nu metal sound but clearly had death metal influences in max cavaleras vocal style (seeing as how they were a death metal band) and the same goes for Soulflys old albums. Slipknots first two albums had lots of death metal influences including growling, double bass, blast beats, and the intensity. Mudyane have influences from the genre as do Otep. I just wonder if anyone else agrees with me as none of that is discussed or mentioned in the article. 174.237.160.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

--72.251.108.204 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)I agree. Death Metal is a big influece in Nu Metal. where do you think the downtuned guitars came from? Its Death Metal.--72.251.108.204 (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Where do you think the screamed vocals come from? Just wondering, or could this be the Groove metal influence? Groove metal was really influenced by thrash and death metal, and it influenced Nu metal.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nu metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Stylistic origins

I want to re-add alternative rock since not all alternative metal has alternative rock elements. Alternative rock elements are often used by nu metal bands and some nu metal bands don't use elements of alternative rock (but many do. Remember I said alternative rock elements are often used by nu metal bands.) and nu metal's an alt metal subgenre so clearly not all alternative metal has alternative rock elements. Just because it is called "alternative metal", doesn't mean that it always has alternative rock elements. I think adding alternative rock to the stylistic origins is necessary. While it is true that grunge is a subgenre of alternative rock. Some nu metal bands will be a combination of metal, hip-hop and standard alternative rock. Many sources say that alternative rock is part of what made nu metal music so I think it's best to add alternative rock to the stylistic origins field. Statik N (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"Some nu metal bands will be a combination of metal, hip-hop and standard alternative rock." Got an example for me? dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 15:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep.
  • Linkin Park
  • Adema
  • Trapt's song "Headstrong" (they aren't much of a nu metal band actually. "Headstrong" and "Still Frame" both are nu metal songs but other than that, Trapt aren't much of a nu metal band..)
  • Evanescence (some songs such as "Going Under". "Bring Me to Life" is nu metal with gothic metal elements.
  • Flyleaf's song "I'm So Sick"
  • Staind's song "For You"
There's nu metal bands that don't really use elements of alternative rock or even grunge (eg: Slipknot and OTEP) but a lot of nu metal bands use elements of alternative rock and grunge. — Statik N (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Which is why they call it alternative metal. I think Linkin Park and Adema would be the only strong supporters of the above statement as a whole, and "Bring Me to Life" and "Headstrong" might work too (but those are individual songs and one song alone should help set a tone for what the style is). You're right, "Just because it is called "alternative metal", doesn't mean that it always has alternative rock elements," but it is often the case. The infobox is supposed to indicate what is most often the case to get across what nu metal is at its core, so having alt metal and alt rock there would be redundant. Alternative metal is a subgenre of alternative rock - alt metal is just alt rock with the heaviness of metal. Alt rock is a stylistic origin of alt metal, alt metal is a stylistic origin of nu metal. In my opinion, we should only list the state of what the whole thing was in the first place before nu metal became a thing (i.e. alt metal), if you get what I'm saying. By your logic, we'd have to re-add funk and also add funk rock in there too, even though funk metal is already listed. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 20:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Many alternative metal songs are more metal than alternative rock. Nu metal is a subgenre of alternative metal and I don't see how songs like "People=Shit" by Slipknot and "Die MF Die" by Dope are alternative rock instead of metal. Also, I don't get how alternative metal songs such as "P.L.U.C.K." and "Suite Pee" by System of a Down are alternative rock instead of metal. "Them Bones" by Alice in Chains is alternative metal and I see it as more metal than alternative rock. The alternative metal song "In the Meantime" by Helmet is very metal. Funk rock elements and funk elements both are always in funk metal. However, in alternative metal, alternative rock elements aren't always used. I don't hear any alternative rock elements in these songs.
  • "People=Shit" - Slipknot
  • "Spit" - Kittie
  • "Die MF Die" - Dope
  • "Confrontation" - OTEP
If we didn't have alternative rock in the stylistic origins list, then people won't really know that alternative rock is one of the elemental genres that shape nu metal. They will know that funk does because funk elements are always in funk metal. But not all alternative metal has alternative rock elements. I think the word "alternative" was put in "alternative metal" for the fact that some bands have alternative rock elements but also some bands sound unclassifiable within categories of metal but are still metal. Statik N (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Nü-metalcore"

I'm surprised no one mentioned fully this whole new movement emerging from the underground "Downtempo" Metalcore scene, with bands incorporating Nü metal elements into their music, like Yüth Forever, Barrier, Gift Giver, Darke Complex (formerly Widow) or Sworn In (even though Wikipedia denies them as having anything to do with Nü metal). It deserves having a section here as there are even millions of arcticles about this movement online. No, I'm not talking about the mainstream Metalcore bands that incorporated these elements later in their carrer, like Emmure, Attila, Capture The Crown, Of Mice And Men or Bring Me The Horizon. MaggotSupremacy555 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We do mention metalcore integrating nu-metal into its sound nowadays (ex. Issues, BMTH and OM&M) on the article, but there are very few sources who use the neologism you specifically mention. There are plenty that do say they combine sounds. If I find anything, I'll change it (or Statik N might) but I don't think there are that many. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Joel McIver: "Nu-metal: The Next Generation of Rock & Punk"

Does anyone have this book? I need to do some checking on the sources. dannymusiceditor what'd I do now? 22:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nu metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References for predecessors/influences

These are all book sources that I removed because we couldn't attribute them to specific artists due to us editors not owning these books. One or more of these might source Godflesh, Soundgarden, Prong, Alice in Chains, and/or Jane's Addiction. Until we can obtain these books, they will be left here.[1][2][3][4] dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wiederhorn, Jon; Napoli, Antonia (May 2, 2002). "Korn: The Untouchables". MTV. Archived from the original on June 7, 2002.
  2. ^ Weinstein, Deena (2015). Rock'n America: A Social and Cultural History. University of Toronto Press.
  3. ^ McIver 2002, pp. 16–23.
  4. ^ Borthwick, Stuart; Moy, Ron (2004). Popular music genres: an introduction. Edinburgh University Press. p. 149. ISBN 0-7486-1745-0.
I reverted your removal because WP:Verifiability does not require each and every editor to have access to the sources. Rather, the guideline says that the sources must be verifiable to at least one editor. If you are not that one editor then you should not take down the content. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
But, you see, this'll get in the way of getting to GA status which is the eventual goal. Putting them all at the end raises WP:OVERCITE concerns. But the current revision wouldn't pass either. So the best way is to make them look as uniform as possible. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 14:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit/reviewing

I'm working through the article, and while its clear that a lot of work went into the article, there's also a lot of parts that are not cited in the sources given, go off-topic, or are extremely redundant. (Oftentimes band are identified as nu metal 2 or 3 times in the same section. We get it. Limp Bizkit is nu metal, we don't need to remind the reader of this every other sentence.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sugar Ray image

Sugar Ray is a terrible image choice for the article. Yes, some sources classified them as nu metal, but their nu metal material was not influential to the genre whatsoever. None of their nu metal songs charted significantly. They had no critical or commercial recognition as a nu metal band. They only found any sort of success from their pop rock material. There are so many more nu metal bands out there that were more influential to the genre itself that should be used instead. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. But Sugar Ray still are one of the early nu metal bands. Statik N (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't deny that they've been labeled that. But Wikipedia image policy makes it so a rather limited number of images are used in articles. If we're relatively restricted on image use, it doesn't make sense to use pictures of a band who's work was so inconsequential to the genre. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Serge on this one. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

When decline started

Do we have any sources on when it declined? From what I've read in the past, it's always been early to mid 2000s. The arguments in edit summaries saying "late 2000s" don't really make sense. Like this one. Linkin Park put out a big nu metal album, Meteora, in 2003, and then their next one, Minutes to Midnight, in 2007, was not nu metal. But that doesn't mean nu metal was big until 2006/07. It means they released a big album in 2003, and then took a long time out of the public eye creating a follow up. I can't recall any major, high selling nu metal albums after 2003. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. Source for declining in 2003.
  2. Source for declining in 2003.
  3. Source for "early 2000s".
  4. 2004 article discussing genres decline. It's evidence primarily declining sales of 2002/03 releases. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, nu metal was over by 2003, it's what all the sources say. Just because some bands were playing nu metal after that date has no bearing on whether that movement was over. For example, glam metal bands played glam metal after 1991, but the movement was dead by 1992, by the sources. — Confession0791 talk 07:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Nu metal was NOT over in 2003. Linkin Park and Evanescence were HUGE in 2003 and Trapt was, too. 2004 is when nu metal lost its popularity. Statik N (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
It was not necessarily "over", but it was definitely in decline by that point. As much as there were some big successes, there were also some pretty big commercial disappoinments too - like Results May Vary, and Dark Horse. Korn and Papa Roach had large decreases in their album sales in 2002/2003 as well. The term "mid to late" is not accurate for its decline. It was declining in 2003 and basically dead by 2005. It wasn't "declining" in late 2000s - it was virtually nonexistent. You're stretching it's lifespan out too much. Sergecross73 msg me 01:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Once again thanks Serge for making this completely clear and simple to understand. It is probably more accurate for it to have been on official decline in '04 rather than '03. Unfortunately, none of the sources seem to have the right idea... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Slipknot and Linkin Park stopped playing nu metal in the late 2000s. That is why the decline of nu metal still occurred in the late 2000s. Just because Korn and Limp Bizkit were losing popularity in 2003 doesn't mean that nu metal lost its popularity. Linkin Park, Evanescence and Trapt were huge in 2003. If we say that nu metal declined in 2003 then readers will be confused and certain stuff in the article will contradict other certain stuff in the article. Statik N (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. More than anything, we need to stick to what sources say. That's the number one rule on Wikipedia. WP:V trumps everything. Sources say the decline started in 2003.
  2. "Decline" does not mean "dead" or "done". It means "started to become less". And that is fundamentally true. Then genre can still be popular and be declining at the same time. While some artists still remained very popular, overall, the genre started to become less popular in 2003.
  3. Case in point, I don't think there was a single nu metal band that released an album between 2002 - 2004 that sold better than their prior release from 98-2001. Sales were done with just about every artist. Because the genre was in decline.
  4. You need to keep in mind that we're tracking the genre, not these band's individual careers. The measurement point needs to be the most recently release nu metal release, not the most recent non-nu metal release. It doesn't matter that Linkin Park changed genre in 2007, it matters that their last nu metal release was in early 2003 (and sold less than their 2001 release). Their inactivity from 2005 to 2006 doesn't somehow prolong the life of the nu metal genre. Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Slipknot stopped playing nu metal with their All Hope is Gone album. Also, I'm going to look for sources that say nu metal declined in 2004. Statik N (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Good luck. Sources usually point to the declining sales or flops of earlier albums as the signal of the decline of the album: Take a Look in the Mirror (2003), Darkhorse (2002), and Results May Vary (2003). Bands were already trying to get away from it before that point too, with Lovehatetragedy (2002) Believe (Disturbed album) (2002) shifting into different directions. By 2004, there wasn't much of an expectation of a nu metal band finding platinum success, as the genre had already declined... Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I found three sources. Statik N (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, good job, that's good info to add. To be clear though, the ones saying it was dead in 2004 doesn't disprove that it was declining in 2003. As I said before, "declining" and "dead" are two different things, and if it was dead by 2004, it was almost certainly starting to declining in 2003 then. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I could put in the nu metal article that while in 2003 nu metal was still popular with bands such as Trapt, Linkin Park and Evanescence, in 2003, nu metal's popularity started to decline with the low sales of bands such as Korn and Limp Bizkit. I also could add the fact that in 2004, nu metal ended. Statik N (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with something to that capacity. We have the sourcing to say that 1) Some artists still had some success in 2003 2) Generally it was declining in 2003 and that 3) it generally crashed/collapsed by 2004. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an MTV article from 2003 about 2002 releases underperforming too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that article was created before the success of bands such as Trapt, Linkin Park and Evanescence. Statik N (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The point is that it's a source that backs my idea above - no nu metal band released an album in 2002-2004 that did better than their 98-2001 release - every band was on the decline with their releases then. I wasn't particularly trying to revive the argument though, I was just more or less listing it for future use. I remember reading a number of analyses on nu metal back in the day, and I think this was one of them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Def Leppard and Bon Jovi sold lots of records in the mid-90s. Doesn't mean glam metal was anything of a movement in the mid 90s -- it was dead. This is just a comparison to illustrate the similarities. Just bc some nu metal bands had some success in the mid 2000s doesn't mean that nu metal was anything of a movement at that time. It was dead as a movement by 2003, by the sources. — Confession0791 talk 08:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, good examples. And while there have been good additions about this in the body of the article, we still need a better section heading than "Decline (mid–late 2000s)". It was not "declining" in the "late 2000s". It's decline was between 2002 and 2004, as backed up by many reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Trust Company charting at #91

This is not a good example of the prominence or endurance of the genre. This list already reading too much like a giant monotonous, robortic list of chart positions. We don't need to list so many minor ones like this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Adema

Should they be covered in here? I don't really think so. They're only slightly more successful than Trust Company, and we agreed that they weren't really important. Completeness on the history of nu metal is not what we are going for; we're not trying to create a paraphrasing of Joel McIver's book here. What really surprises me though is that they're mentioned on some unimportant compilation as opposed to their own album, a gold record. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 03:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the Now 9 tracklist, it is kind of bizarre that they made the cut when you look at the other artists on there, both genre and success-wise, so I can see how it would be seen as interesting, but I do agree that it wasn't all that noteworthy of a moment for nu metal itself. As you say, its probably more noteworthy that they had a Gold album, but even there, I don't think more certifications is what this articles needs right now, especially with how many other bands went varying degrees of platinum. Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I know, but I don't think any Now compilation should warrant any inclusion of any artist on this article. It should be the original releases, and if that wasn't big in the first place, I don't think it should be in here at all. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I support its removal. I also really don't feel like this was ready to be nominated for GA status. There's still a ton of stuff like this, and excessive listing of examples and charts, that really hinders its readability. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey, the last PR didn't get a lot about that kind of stuff. So, I'm sure this will then, even if it fails. Might get put on hold. Shouldn't be too hard to just pull a lot of stuff from the article, if necessary. And about the article's size, I realized that there are so many references in here that it may be causing the page's immense size. Maybe not so terrible after all. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Charting/content concerns

While I appreciate Statik N's efforts to expand the article, I feel like we need to change courses here a bit. We need to start trimming back on all the charting information. It's good to document, but:

  1. We cover too much many non-notable chart positions. I've removed a few now of bands charting between like 50th to 120th place on charts. These sorts of charting positions are not noteworthy to document.
  2. The prose is too densely populated with chart positions. Sentence after sentence uses the exact same formula: Band X released song/album Y and it charted at Z. Its the same thing over and over again. We need to talk about more things in between. I imagine people haven't noticed since its slowly been pieced together over time, but if you step back, and actually read through the paragraphs, its a very redundant and mechanical read.

Any input from others? Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting in the 50s, 60s or 70s of the Billboard Hot 100 is very impressive. Songs that got in the 50s/60s of the Billboard Hot 100 do get played on Sirius XM's 90s on 9/Pop 2K stations. (90s on 9 plays 1990s music and Pop 2K plays 2000s music). Statik N (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
That's debatable, but even moreso, some of additions I've removed are considerably worse than what you described above:
  1. Debuting at #53 on the Billboard 200 in 2016 is not an impressive feat. That's a very routine chart placement, if not on the poor side of things. That would equate to very few units sold.
  2. Peaking at #16 on the Bubbling Under 100 chart is the equivalent of peaking #116 on the Billboard 100 if it tracked that many chart positions. Its basically saying it missed the Billboard 100 by 16 places. That's fine if you're some garage band, but it doesn't show a significant moment for the genre as a whole.
  3. This entry was about not even being in the top 90 of the Billboard 100, and this was when the genre was still relevant and active (albeit declining.)
Like I said, the article isn't reading very well right now, and part of it is the excessive listing of chart positions. There's too much as it is, and you don't seem to be slowing down. Its better we deal with this now. If you ever get a peer review, or just if more editors start editing it more actively, you're going to see a lot of your work trimmed away at this rate. It'd be better to curtail it now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Damn edit conflict! Anyway, to even have gotten to those stations in the first place, Statik, I think they would've needed a fairly high chart position on something else as well. Lithium plays a few like Limp Bizkit and Korn, but that's it. I wanted to bring this up, Serge, thank you for reminding me. Statik, your work is great, but in the opinion of the majority of Wikipedia, the article is way too big (unfortunately). IIRC the article is at some 160K bytes. That's much too long, in comparison to other metal GAs such as industrial metal (~45K GA 2009), glam metal (~43k GA 2012). Then again there's also folk metal (~78k GA 2008), Christian metal (~81K, GA 2008) and viking metal (~80K GA 2015, near-FA). All of these, despite potential differences, have significantly less coverage. I think you overdid it, which is actually commendable for how much work you've done. But we need to take some out. I think the article on heavy metal in general, as one of our oldest FAs (2003), might be overdoing it too. But this one goes even further. I WAS going to open a PR for it eventually, again thanx Serge for bringing it up, saves me the time. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I think a good idea would be too only add chart positions that are in the top 50 or top 40. However, we should leave a few chart positions that are in the 60s/70s alone. I definitely think we should leave top 40 songs alone. Album sales and Billboard 200 stuff are important. Statik N (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
That depends on who it is, really. I'd say only like top 30 albums matter. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I was mostly talking about songs being on the charts. Now let's temporarily talk about albums. We definitely should mention albums that peak at number 1 on the Billboard 200. Statik N (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, number one songs/albums are always going to be noteworthy. But a lot of the rest of it comes down to context. A nu metal band charting at 3 in 2001 selling 400,000 albums is very noteworthy. A band marginally related to nu metal in 2014 charting at number 3 selling 40,000...not nearly as noteworthy. That's the sort of thing we need to trim back on. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Sergecross73's criticism of the current structure. All this stuff about chart positions just comes off as some blatant promotion for non-notable late 90s bands. Right now this article needs the overly detailed tag, since a lot of the content is irrelevant and not aimed at a general audience. I think the Grunge article would be a good reference point in regards to structure. --I call the big one bitey (talk) 11:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and on that note, I believe a major area for trimming should basically be a lot of the events of the last decade, after the "decline" era. The sources and editors here all seem to be in agreement that the genre declined and died in the 2002-2004 area. The genre is dead, and there's been very little in the way of actual "revival". Sure, Limp Bizkit/Korn/Papa Roach have all pumped out 3-5 albums since the genre's popularity, but they've most been in different musical styles, and have mostly fallen under the radar. Its good to note they're still active, but we don't need to list out every individual release. For example, The Connection (Papa Roach album) debuting at #17 and selling 22K copies in 2012 with an album that merely had some nu metal elements among many other genre? That's not good figures, and not important to denote in the history of the genre. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a huge revival going on, Serge. Is it commercially successful? I wouldn't say that, but it seems many popular metalcore groups seem to be going for it, especially in the likes of Bring Me the Horizon, Issues, Emmure, Of Mice and Men, and even Suicide Silence. Islander also comes to mind but I'm not sure they belong in the article because they're not as big. I was thinking there actually might not be enough out there for this section, but let me check again. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
But if they're not commercially successful, is it really a revival? Emmure hasn't even cracked the top 50 of the Billboard 200 in any of their six albums. And while bands like Bring Me The Horizon are pretty big right now, nu metal isn't really their primary genre, they're really considered a mix of a lot of other genre too. (I also noticed that Suicide Silence has zero hits for "nu metal" on its main page, so their association doesn't seem too strong either.) If revival strictly equates to "existence", then yeah, I guess, but if you mean any sort of importance as far as commercially or even culturally, I'd have to pretty strongly disagree. "Revival" just strikes me as "wishful thinking by fans" when the evidence looks like this.
That aside, I'm not trying to remove it completely, I'm just trying to trim it back some. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
So Serge, by the way, now what do you think of Suicide Silence's nu metal labeling, even outside Wikipedia? ;) dannymusiceditor Speak up! 04:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Sourced content questions which may need addressed before it's a GA

Characteristics/fashion

  • "Another contrast with other heavy metal genres is nu metal's emphasis on rhythm, rather than on complexity or mood, often its rhythm sounds like that of groove metal." This needs rewritten.
  • Is the part about female musicians really even relevant? I get that that's cool but it's not really relevant to an encyclopedia without a lot more examples. Right now, I can only think of one missing example (Evanescence, and that one's debated).
  • Why present Staind as an example of not have rapping in their music when there is a contradiction?

Also, there are overall way too many images on the right, and probably too many in general. There should be some on the left, and there shouldn't just be pictures of people randomly performing unless we're talking about their performance inside the article. Do not, however, confuse what I'm saying here with stuff like the OM&M picture and caption - that's a good example of the content we want to display here. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 03:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing some stuff

I might remove some stuff from the article just so that the article isn't overly detailed. What I will do is remove bands that aren't as notable. However, if a band didn't sell many albums but they did have at least one song that went really high on the charts, then I will let them be on the article. Statik N (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

We'll see about what your definition of "really high" is, in the past we've disagreed about this. But for now this sounds like an okay plan. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 18:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OM&M picture

Yeah, better to leave it where I had it. It bleeds into the next section if it were any later, and it looks like it's part of the "nu metalcore" section regardless of where the markup is placed. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nu metal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cambalachero (talk · contribs) 16:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Comments by Cambalachero

Terminology and origins
  • Aren't 5 and 6 references too much? Those do not seem controversial points requiring that much sources.
I was also uncomfortable with this at first, but consider the situation. These references are used to cover all the info in that sentence, and some are unavailable to the contributors without paying money for those books (McIver's book, in this case). On the other hand, individual citations to each piece are possible now because all of the other ones in this spot specifically are accessible. So we'll do that. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Will do.
  • Joe Hahn's photo grows beyond the size of the section, and does not illustrate anything from it. It should be moved somewhere else, or removed.
No problem.
  • "Nu metal bands also are influenced by and use elements of genres of heavy metal music such as death metal, rap metal, groove metal, funk metal, and thrash metal". Aren't those too many uses of the word "metal"? Death and thrash should be referred simply that way; unlike the others, there is no death or thrash music genre that isn't the heavy metal one. Still, link to Death metal, and keep the piped link for thrash. Cambalachero (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Musical characteristics
  • "Nu metal guitar riffs occasionally are similar to death metal guitar riffs", rewrite it so that you say "guitar riffs" only once.
Will do.
Vocal styles
  • The section is composed by a single tiny paragraph. It may be better to merge it into the previous one.
I have moved the hip-hop information into the vocal style section, since the info was mostly about rapping (vocal style). Are you okay with this?
Thanks for agreeing to review! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Vocals
  • Try to avoid saying "have rapping in their music" twince in the same sentence
  • If Staind, as a general rule, does not use rapping, then that's it. Remove "generally", the point still stands if only some specific songs depart from that band style a bit.
  • "However, after Staind's departure and subsequent return to their nu metal sound in 2011, the band's new song "Wannabe" contained rapped verses." This is a bit too much information. We are talking about Nu metal as a genre, not about Staind.
  • "Their concerts also drew huge numbers of women, which is much more than you could say for any old-metal band." What does this have to do with the vocal style? Cambalachero (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
All  Done. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Fashion and style
1980s–1993 Predecessors and influences
  • "Nu metal often is influenced" -> "Nu metal is often influenced"
Rewrote.
1993–1998 Early development and rise
  • "the genre soon spread across the country" -> "the genre soon spread across the United States"
  • The original of the term "nu metal" and the first band tagged with it should go toguether. However, it needs some clarification: if Robinson made up the term and it was later applied to a specific band, in which context did he made up the term? Cambalachero (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
First one is done. That second one is a wordy request to me. What is it you want me to do? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
1998–2003 Mainstream popularity
  • "...released albums that draw from the nu metal genre, though they are usually recognized for performing hip hop or another type of heavy metal". It should be rewritten to something like "Heavy metal bands [list] and hip hop bands [list] released albums with influences from nu metal".
How's this diff?
  • Did the South Park episode had some actual significance for nu metal, beyond the mere cameo? Korn clearly did not became famous for it, they had already sold a 5x platinum the previous year.
Possibly. Consider that it was debuted on a comedy TV show rather than, for instance, MTV or radio. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "cover of Michael Jackson's song "Smooth Criminal"" is too long as a link. Just link "Smooth Criminal"
  • "Despite what MTV wrote..." does not seem to be NPOV. You provide a lot of data about Korn's sales, suggesting that they still remained popular while other bands declined in sales, but the next paragraph says "Despite the decline in sales of bands such as Korn and Papa Roach...". So? Was Korn declining in sales or not? Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
2010–present Minor revival
  • "During the 2010s, there was a discussion within media of a possible nu metal revival because of bands fusing nu metal with other genres, the return of nu metal bands, extant bands going back to the nu metal genre and nu metal bands forming". So much info here, but little detail. You should rearrange the info: one paragraph for disbanded bands that returned, another for bands returning to the music style, and which new bands were formed. By the way, it may sound repetitive, but you should say "new nu metal bands forming".
  • "long-awaited" is not neutral wording, remove it.
Infobox
  • "Regional scenes" list Canada, Russia and the United States; the last one pointing to American nu metal. That's actually a redirect to the generic American rock#Alternative metal, rap rock and nu metal. The article does not seem to mention anything from other countries (only influences to Sepultura and Soulfly, but although they come from Brazil, they have been living in the US long before the nu metal first appeared). So, are there noteworthy nu metal regional scenes outside of the US, or not? Cambalachero (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Criticism and controversy

Comments by Sergecross73

I still don't feel the prose is up to GA-level. There is way too much example bloating going on. So many examples are listed and sourced that you sometimes forget what's even being talked about anymore. There's still too non-notable chart position being rattled off too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We were actually hoping we'd get suggestions from the reviewers on this. We didn't get a lot of this on the last Peer review. Peer reviews go ignored and are underpaid in attention. GANs do not - reviewer guaranteed. As long as we stay at it, maybe the reviewer will give us time - I've had a GAN sit open for a month while I worked. Still passed. I know Statik has the commitment if he just knows what to do. Can't be too hard to just pull stuff out, right? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In theory, yes, though I don't know how well it'll go with Statik, as he's been very reluctant to trim them back in the past. I'm pretty sure he'd still be adding more chart positions on if we hadn't come to a consensus against in on the talk page a few months back. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Toward the end of your point, you might be right. From the talks I've had with him, at this point, I think he'll take out or desize anything necessary to get this promoted. He really wants it. He probably just wasn't aware of how GA criterion 3b could become a problem. He's got one GA already that I helped him with, so I think he knows what's up. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion

I would like to request a second opinion on this article. First, I would like an opinion about the prose from someone else. Second, I would like a second opinion on those very frequent mentions to album sales and similar stuff: is the article staying on topic (the topic is the music genre), or is it straying too much on specific details about the bands? Cambalachero (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from nominator's colleague: I would say it is not. While I have worked on it heavily, I agreed to a GAN because I was hoping that a reviewer would give some advice as to what positions to remove. The last peer review did not get any of those suggestions in a reasonable amount of time. A GAN guarantees a reviewer. In my eyes, simply removing these parts is theoretically easy once it is decided what content should be put on the chopping block. All this was added a long time ago before the nominator had a sufficient understanding of scope. If we can get these types of suggestions from you or another user, Statik and I'd be more than willing to fix them and any prose shortcomings along the way. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree with hidden note telling editors not to edit section

The 1980s–1993: Predecessors and influences section has the following hidden note: "Please do not remove any of the bands mentioned below. If you have a problem with any bands presence here then discuss it on the talk page." This hidden note is contrary to the spirit of the editing guideline WP:Bold, which encourages editors to boldly edit pages. It appears to also be against the WP:MOS editing guidelines on "Inappropriate uses for hidden text", which say that hidden text should not be used for:[1] "*Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit.

    • When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus." ...I propose that the hidden note be modified, as there is no existing guideline or policy against removing bands from the Nu metal article. Article-level consensus is not infallible.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 07:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This is because all those bands are sourced, so in-depth discussion as to why you're removing them would be required. That's been a problem with this article in the past (thought it seems to have died down a bit) but now that the protection's off, who knows, anons might return to try and remove their favorite band from the nu metal page. That's mostly what anons did to this page back in the day, you know. It's just informing them to seek consensus for removing sourced items. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Im not really a fan of the hidden note either. I think that's good for genre fields in infoboxes in music articles, to combat frequent WP:GENREWARRING, but this is different. In fact, it could even be counter-productive here, considering all the list bloating continues to be an issue with the article. (It's one one the reasons for the GAN failure.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Your second point is relevant to me. It'd have been helpful if someone said which ones to do.... -_- dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I had worked on trimming the list bloat for a while there, but I got so much pushback and reverting from Statik that I stopped doing it. I figured if he wanted to fight against me on it, I'd let him go as see how things go without my changes. And here we are. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
He's sent me messages saying he's willing to cut back some. He just wants as much as possible that a GA will allow...I thought he might be waiting for someone to ratte a list of stuff off, but that obviously did not happen. See more below. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Cutback

We just haven't done so yet because we doesn't know where to start. I don't know everything and probably would keep some things others wouldn't, though I've trimmed some myself. What chart positions you think are worth keeping, as well as any other content you have concerns over? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nu metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Vocals on Infobox

@Statik N: Of course it is exclusive, otherwise it would go against Wikipedia:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Also, on the Template:Infobox music genre, the parameter "instruments" is about the "The types of instruments that are popularly associated with that genre", not the techniques. If we are going to include all notable techniques employed by musicians on such genre, the infobox could be longer than the actual article. So we should be the most concise possible and try to summarize everything we can. The techniques employed by the vocalists are well covered in the article, citing the again on the infobox is unnecessary. Also, if all that techniques are vastly used on the genre, so none of them are notable enough to warrant a appearance on the infobox, only defining characteristics should be there. Techniques are trivial info and go against conciseness. ABC paulista (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If we link the word "vocals", it leads to the singing article. Not all vocals are singing. So I think we shouldn't link the word vocals. Statik N (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Statik N: I get your point, but kinda disagree. The definition of "singing" is "the act of producing musical sounds with the voice and augments regular speech by the use of sustained tonality, rhythm, and a variety of vocal techniques". Since Rapping, Screaming, Shrieking, Grunting, Growling, etc. are vocal techeniques used in a musical way, they would perfectly fit under the "singing" definition. They are alredy cited on its article. ABC paulista (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Rapping, screaming, growling, etc. often is considered by many a vocal style that isn't singing. To be as neutral as possible, we just shouldn't link vocals. Statik N (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese Scene

The Japanese nu metal scene is notable because it never experienced the decline the western nu metal scene did as the never experienced the same over-saturation and resulting negative stigma America did, and their nu metal bands tended to be more artistically oriented. These bands are also notable for tending to incorporate metalcore into their sound long before American nu metalcore formed as a result of the nu metal revival. Maximum the Hormone and Dir En Grey are particularly notable. I think they deserve some mention, and if not Japan specifically, then some international section.

Ganondox (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If you've got the sourcing to verify all that, feel free to add that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Extreme Metal

Could someone put the Extreme Metal template in this page? 2601:C7:C201:C640:8CD2:1D69:587A:E222 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done EN-Jungwon 07:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Could someone remove the Extreme metal template? 73.54.195.214 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  •  Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Consistency Issue: Nu-Metal or Nu Metal?

Is there any consensus on whether there's a hyphen in the word or not? Even within the article itself, it is added or removed with no apparent consistency throughout. I understand it's a made-up word consisting of an intentional misspelling of the word "New" already, but it seems like picking one spelling and sticking to it would be better (after the introductory sentence denoting the other generally accepted spelling variations).

I generally don't see it being used with a hyphen. It can change with context though, especially in the early days, when the genre was new, and it would be called variants like "new metal". Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

sludge influence

a lot of integral nu metal bands cite acid bath as an influence like slipknot and korn 2603:6080:A500:1397:1976:6EB7:2C90:7C2 (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we need a reliable source that states this in order to add it to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sylistic origins seem excessive

Hip hop and Rap metal? Alternative metal and alternative rock? Also thrash metal and hardcore punk might had no influence on nu metal at all. It is obviously heavily relient on Alternative metal/alternative metal derivates. The more agressive aproach is likely explained by industrial metal, groove metal and (to a lesser extend) grunge influence. Thrash metal and hardcore punk sound nothing like a preceder of nu metal. An more apropriete list would be: Alternative metal, groove metal, rap metal, funk metal, industrial metal, grunge. Anything else seems not properly backed up, as rarely anyone plays only nu metal but instead artist that do play it tend to experiment a lot with other genres (example linking park and slipknot are both considered nu metal bands, they are very different in style however). Share you opinions? 212.114.206.193 (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

If there's a reliable sources that verifies it, it should stay. If there isn't, it should go. Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The only reliable source I could find was when I clicked on the citation. It only stated that bands like system of a down etc. etc grew up liking bands like metallica, slayer and hardcore punk bands. A speculation about the music taste of said artists is not considered a reliable source of stylistic origin. Do I have permision to edit it? 212.114.206.193 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
There's a bunch of genre and sources on the "Terminology and origins" section, though I didn't write it or go through and check them to see if it's all actually in the sources or not.
The page isn't protected/locked, so anyone can edit it right now. But you'd want to check what I was talking about before removing stuff. Article intros and infoboxes generally don't have sources because they're meant to be an overview of what's covered (and sourced) in the article body. So you might need to search around and see if it's covered elsewhere in the article. But then again, passerby editors tinker with genre all the time, so there could have been some unnecessarily slipped in too. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I went through and found the specific quotes referenced in each of the sources. The current source cited for thrash is a student newspaper so doesn't pass WP:RS and doesn't mention thrash, it just mentions "80s mainstays like Slayer, Anthrax and Metallica", which to say is a thrash influence would be WP:SYNTH. I couldn't track down anywhere to access the McIver source, however for the others cited I found:
AllMusic: "some combination of simplified thrash, rap, industrial, hardcore punk, and grunge"
Tompkins: "combines elements of thrash, grunge, rap, and funk"
Citron: "incorporated elements ranging from hiphop to death metal"
Kahan-Harris: "built on the early funk metal work of bands such as Faith No More by combining metal with rap and dance music. Nu metal also built on grunge and punk"
Iannini: "Se prima la base del rock pesante erano principalmente il blues o il progressive, oral'hip hop è un approdo naturale della scomposizione del suo linguaggio canonico. I Korn ne sono l'esempio principe, per il modo in cui imitano dal vivo pratiche proprie del turntablism (come già Tom Morello, chitarrista dei Rage Against The Machine), benché ultimamente abbiano virato verso il rock. L'elettronica, sia a livello di strumenti che di tecniche di registrazione, ha in- nescato un'altra mutazione genetica, anche se sono ancora in tantissimi a preferire il suono analogico. L'hardcore esercita una forte influenza rendendo il sound più asciutto, compatto ed esplosivo, mentre la lezione del funk traspare da molti grooves di basso e batteria. La componente melodica più comune al genere deriva invece dal postpunk o dal synth pop degli anni '80."
Udo:"Nu metal most commonly describes a wave of bands, exclusively American, heavily influenced by late-'80s and early 90s pioneers like Faith No More, Fear Factory, Rage Against The Machine and Biohazard, who fuse rap, metal and punk, lathered in furious teenage-angst rants and ultra-violent pronouncements delivered at high volume. Guitars are heavily distorted, the riffs are muted, and hip-hop influenced bass and percussion fills the sound." However this is more talking about the bands who influenced nu metal rather than nu metal bands.
Based on these, the current genres listed that aren't supported are: groove metal, rap metal, industrial metal [although just industrial is] and alternative rock (in the infobox); and new wave, jazz, symphonic rock, rap metal and groove metal (in the Terminology and origins section). However, there are citations elsewhere on this page in support of both groove metal and industrial metal (specifically the Precursors and influences section). Because of this, I think industrial metal and alt rock should be discussed for the infobox and new wave, jazz, symphonic rock should be removed from the body unless anyone has access to the McIver source and can find those in it. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Pantera as influential in creating Nu Metal Genre

Nu Metal bands just too the Groove Pantera was known for, and failed to add the pizzaz that came with Dimebag's guitar solos. Basically Nu Metal made it possible for average guitarist to be in the limelight, which since the 70's to be in the limelight of rockstardom you had to have guitar solos, flash, and to be huge and last you had to have originality and bring something new to the surface. In Nu Metal you didn't, you just took a little bit from one style, a little bit from another and stirred it up. It brought some great bands, and music, but it brought more forgettable bands and music than any genre ever. Stretaw (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this related to an edit you wish to make or something? This isn't the place to write personal editorials. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nu_metal/Archive_6&oldid=1185476927"