Talk:Soilwork

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

They are not "more melodic" these days[edit]

This section states that Soilwork's late albums "introduced elements from American alternative metal and adopted a more melodic sound", but that's just plain wrong: early albums were full of Iron Maiden-like melodies and guitar harmonies, late albums have more simplified hardcore-punk-like riffs which are obviously less melodic (simple listening to random songs of early and late albums is the proof). A metal song can't be "more melodic" and "more american alternative metal" at the same time.

Cleanup[edit]

Seems like this talk page was filled with random jarble. Also, removed some biased comments on the actual article. --Resonant0ne 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a reference for the Will Smith mention. BigMar992 21:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The idiot who wrote this article is obviously hearing this band from the newer albums and has no idea what melodic death metal is, it would be more accurate to mention their direction into modern rock.

They actually nowadays should be considered Metalcore and nothing more. --70.180.95.49 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)MetalGuru[reply]

Soilwork are not a metalcore band. There were some elements mainly on the last two records sure, but in the end, I think those writing these comments about metalcore sound bitter and biased to me. I think alternative metal is a perfect description nowadays. Why add another genre? It seems to me some people are just overthinking and adding things for the hell of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.181.123 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were never metalcore, people just label them as that because they don't understand the history of the genre. What actually happened is metalcore bands ripped of Soilwork's sound, especially the vocals, but it was alternative and groove metal bands which influenced Soilwork, not metalcore. Ganondox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I notice that the soilworkers.com fansite keeps being added to the article regardless of the various reverts and warnings against it. The fansite does provide some interesting info that is not present in the Wikipedia article, however the fansite also contains copyvio content and according to WP:EL, links to such sites that carry copyvio content are strictly forbidden. So I'll keep removing the fansite unless Wikipedia policy changes or the fansite changes and I doubt either will. --Leon Sword 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


From Adam at Soilworkers.com: The Official Soilwork Fansite I was hoping an independent source could add a link to the official soilwork fansite to the wikipedia (www.soilworkers.com). I think it has a right to be there along with their main site because it does hold some unique information. Wikipedias for German, Spanish, Swedish, and Suomi have it linked among others so hopefully someone in this country will deem my site worthy. Thank you. 22 July 2007

Article content[edit]

why not put up the other acts that speed is in. Like Disarmonia Mundi, Coldseed, or Terror 2000 (I know the last 2 need entries...) but still —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shatterzer0 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Soilwork-logo.png[edit]

Image:Soilwork-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive metal[edit]

I think this tag fits them quite perfectly. I know they have their own sound and much like In Flames have kind of wandered off the path of "purist" melodic death metal so to speak, so this tag would cover pretty much anything they have done from Figure Number Five onward. Also think In Flames should get this tag too, as both of these bands like the grow and expand outside the bounds of the norm, much like Opeth who are considered progressive as well. Just a thought. -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen both Soilwork and In Flames as being prog (except perhaps lates In Flames album). Surely they have tapped into new metal and alt-metal, and melodeath alone is not fitting to both perhaps. Haxxiy (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the alternative metal tag fits them for some reason. I got a huge prog vibe from A Predator's Portrait where they really put an emphasis on instrumentation and performance. Overall, Soilwork is a big mix of styles that is certainly an "alternative" to most streamlined sub genre artists. I don't think In Flames and Soilwork could have started out more different stylistically although both embraced American metal styles in more obvious ways with Natural Born Chaos and Clayman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.181.123 (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

There're some attributes to this band's genre outside of typical melodic death metal: 

    - Use of metalcore-esque vocals.
    - Use of clean, "singing" vocals.

See the song "Stabbing the Drama." Metalcore-y brute vocal style and rhythm, and clean vocals during choruses....I'm guessing the "Core" attributes can be passed off as being related to melodeath, but not the clean vocals; these are not part of extreme metal. I'm adding alternative metal to the genre to accomidate this..Zaruyache (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section states that Soilwork's late albums "introduced elements from American alternative metal and adopted a more melodic sound", but that's just plain wrong: early albums were full of Iron Maiden-like melodies and guitar harmonies, late albums have more simplified hardcore-punk-like riffs which are obviously less melodic (simple listening to random songs of early and late albums is the proof). A metal song can't be "more melodic" and "more american alternative metal" at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.162.93 (talk • contribs)
Where are the melodies in Iron Maiden's music? Guitar harmonies most definitely, but these riffs aren't melodies. One of the characteristics of Heavy Metal is the lack of melody. And why can't they be "more melodic" and "more american alternative metal"? The bit of alternative metal that's anti-melodic is the metal...not the alternative part. Not that I see any alternative metal in here. I'm thinking someone meant metalcore (which some people (allmusic.com...) think is alternative metal). Which is exactly what you describe. I interpret this to mean simpler rhythms, usually at a fast tempo, with either hardcore/metal vocals or melodic lead guitar on top with some solo work sprinkled around. And that's what I hear when I listen to Figure Number Five. Comparing this to The Chainheart Machine, the description fits perfectly. I'll change it to say metalcore instead of American alternative metal. marnues (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of melody has NEVER been a characteristic of Heavy Metal. The riffs in heavy metal are melodies, plain and simple. They might usually consister of power chords, sure, but as they are all the same chord structure it's just a melody made of chords. There is also melody in the vocals, the bass parts, and in guitar solos. Heavy Metal is actually LESS harmony based than Hard Rock as Hard Rock is usually based around few chords, which are harmonies, while Heavy Metal is based around a few riffs, which are melodies. The only metal which lacks melody is some extreme metal like Grindcore and Brutal Death Metal. Now, sometimes metal isn't considered melodic, not because it lacks melodies, but because instead of sticking to a single melody it uses lots of melodies over the course of the song. Oh, and the reason why mixing it with Alternative Metal makes it less melodic isn't because Alternative Metal isn't melodic, because it usually is, it's because Melodic Death Metal is MORE melodic. Ganondox (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While editing the genre column I took a look at the article http://www.seaoftranquility.org/reviews.php?op=showcontent&id=5882 that was used as a reference to Soilwork's Technical Death Metal cred. The article mentions no such thing. I'm removing this genre from the list as I hear nothing particularily more technical from Soilwork than any other Melodic Death Metal band. Sure they have technical skill, but there has to be some to be a metal band. Usually technical music is at odds with melodic music. marnues (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soilwork were never melodic death metal... ever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.181.123 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be in your opinion, but that means nothing since reliable sources classify them as melodic death metal. BrainPower3 (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC) 11:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Soilwork. 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) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soilwork&oldid=1210440563"