Talk:Death 'n' roll

Untitled

Sorry, I know that I never mentioned some source, but please, don't delete this article, I can't end it for time problems. I can give you some cites, that include an entombed interview. The are some pages: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22death+%27n%27+roll%22&sitesearch=metal-archives.com. http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=5&a=ls&s=163

Please, if somebody can help with it, do it. I have to mention a thing: strictly speaking, this therm is not a genre, is only a term that the fans and some members of the critic.

Rock project?

Should the rock project be added here? or not? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The "Black metal" topic in article

Since a style nearly like death 'n' roll sure is present among a black metal style, I think the genre can well be classified as the same thing like "black 'n' roll" or "blackened rock" or there may be something else that can be used to define it. Leaving it as "black metal" just seems kind of strange to me. Come to think of it, I think "deathened rock" may be more correct but we already have deathrock... so we can't really use that. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 08:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the name of that section to "Parallel With Black Metal". I didn't put another name, because this movement hasn't got a real name. For example: Fenriz called it Evil Rock. Kommander L., unic member of an underground band (called "Fuck Off And Die"), said:``F.O.A.D. is a blasting black'n'roll metal band with some old school black metal, crust and thrash influences. The principle font of inspiration of the band is all kind of alcohol. Nothing else to say. Listen to the music.`` Another possibly name is Black Thrash, like the Aura Noir album "Black Thrash Attack". Other name was proposed by the wikipedia time ago (Blackened Thrash), but was erased because that name was never used before the creation of the article. Surprisly, the name have been very used on many websites after the existance of that article (search blackened thrash on google and you will see the [1] multiple results). All that is the reason of the title of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsalazar23491 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre project?

Should the genre project really be added to this article? It is a term but theres no term or style projects for something like this. What project would it classify as then? Add WikiProject Genre or not? −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 08:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Bands

Death 'n' Roll could be described as Death Metal meeting NWOBHM and the "heavier" strands of Classic Rock. That considered, I think there are two bands that should be included in these article:

• Gorefest: Although their first two record were "pure" Grindcore/Death Metal, they started dabbling in classic rock since their Erase (1994) album. This trend continued on Soul Survivor (1996) and Chapter 13 (1998) [2] [3].
• Pungent Stench: this band's third release, Club Mondo Bizarre - For Members Only (1994) could also be described as Death 'n' Roll.

Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some Links worth investigating

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A note on sources

There appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes a reliable source on this page. A few examples of things that are not: Last.fm cannot be used as a source as it is user-edited; this is what has led to Paris Hilton being at the top of their 'brutal death metal' section. This means that any claims you make, including simply "Last.fm lists the following as death 'n' roll" are worthless and inappropriate encyclopedia material. Similarly, web forums, blogs and their talkback sections, Youtube and Myspace are not considered reliable sources. Neither are wikis, including this one. Citing Metal Archives is apparently contentious. I would argue that regardless of how 'reliable' a given editor believes them to be, they are not a commercially-published third party source and hence should be avoided wherever possible. Furthermore, using MA searches for genre may well constitute original research. Finally, web-based review articles (in much the same way as print-copy fanzines) should never be used as sources, particularly over contested genres such as this one. This effectively leaves you with sites like Allmusic Guide. Not wishing to ruffle any further feathers by editing out references using inappropriate sources, I thought I'd just leave this in the talkpage. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to labour this too much, but regarding the Last.fm reference, not only is it inappropriate in the first place, but their list includes The Meteors and The Murderdolls. They are admittedly a fair way down the list but, as has been mentioned Nile are below Paris Hilton in the 'brutal death metal' tag. Oh, and equally damning, under Paris Hilton I discovered they have a tag for 'sexy'. Clearly a new musical subgenre then. For the record, I do not doubt the notability of death 'n' roll as a subgenre, but justifications from such sites is actually damaging to your cause. Oh, and saying 'other notable artists include' and plucking a bunch of names from the list is POV anyway unless you can explain why they are notable, other than to you. For instance, neither Phazm nor ZX Spectrum (the band) have Wikipedia page. ZX Spectrum don't even appear to be signed. If nothing else this should demonstrate why this source is weakening your argument, not strengthening it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Debate section

What do people think would be the best way to move this section forward? It seems to me that the existence of the genre has been sourced (both from the liner notes to the Entombed compilation, not written by the band, and from secondary sources, such as magazines like Terrorizer, Metal Hammer and Kerrang!). This should settle the matter, unless the concern is that an arbitrary number of bands needs to be labelled as such for the genre to exist. The section at present is I feel unhelpful... the sources used are unreliable, as I've stated previously (I don't think this is me being a 'self-righteous guardian of Wikipedia', I'm trying to help improve the article and know that policies regarding reliability will get brought up in any Article for Deletion debate - that I don't want to see happen). In fact, I think the best way for the time being might be to remove the section full stop. It will attract people that fancy sticking an AfD on the article. Any thoughts? In the meantime, if you would like me to dig out any print resources referring to death 'n' roll as a movement within death metal, let me know and I'll see what I can do. There are, I think, problems with the other sections, but let's deal with one thing at a time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I smell bullshit

I see some editors on here who I'm "friends" with (meaning we are on good terms and help each other and they are good editors), so I'd usually say nothing, but this article sounds like bs to me. I mean I've heard of black n' roll or w/e, which is equally retarded, but I do recognize that their are some bm bands who incorporate more rock into their bm. I suppose the same could be true of dm and rock. But most of the bands I see on here are just dm with groove metal elements. I admit the fact that there are dm and bm bands who are rock oriented but I have serious doubts that death n roll and black n roll are real genres. Actually I don't have a serious doubt, I know they aren't. Maybe one day... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. Definitely.

• "I see some editors on here who I'm 'friends' with... and they are good editors."

Considering your friends at Wikipedia "good editors" is the utmost statement of your POV. Whether they're actually good editors that's quite another matter.

• "...but this article sounds like bs to me."

Which is telling, regarding your lack of knowledge of the subject. For all I know, you're just another metal newbie - 2 to 3 years down the line, trying to impress others with the typical "holier (or unholier?) than thou" attitude and the sheer idiocy that comes attached to it. The fact that you are a black metal fan only worsens this situation - BM fans are particularly prone to those infantile power-drives.

On the other hand, I have been a Metal fan since 1992 - and not only that, I've also been a musician (a guitar-player, to be precise) for those 16 years. That gives me an unique perspective on the Metal scene as a whole, because:

• I probably know more about Metal than you. Not only that: I caught death metal on the rise and black metal in it's initial boom in the press.
• 16 years is enough time to develop a taste for other Rock genres, such Punk, Psychadelic Rock 'n' Roll or Industrial. That means I can readily trace the influence of these rock styles on some Metal genres.
• And being a musician, I have access to technical details which non-musicians are not privy to... Which means I can distinguish with greater accuracy the differences between Metal subgenres.

Of course, the bitch is that my arguments have to depend (largely) on internet sources, which are usually unreliable. I can't cite myself, ha ha.

And last: it's very ironic for you to mention Groove metal. There's a a huge controversy here at Wikipedia whether this is a Metal subgenre at all. Some believe it to be separate from Thrash; others believe it's the work of wikiwhores trying to re-write the history of Metal. For my part, it's a bit strange I've only heard the term "Groove metal" in the last year or so... and I've have access to the World Wide Web since 1997... Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's gratifying to know you fail to be civil to editors other than me ;-). You have written a fairly lengthy comment here, none of which is relevant to improving the article in question, but certainly raises some points that need to be rebutted. To try and deal with them in order: you question whether another editor is a metal newbie, whilst claiming that you yourself have been listening to metal for many years. You then make an intellectual leap unsupported by logic... that this in some way means that you are therefore right and they are wrong. In this day and age it's almost upsetting that it is necessary to point out this logical fallacy, but there you go. You then make the comment that black metal fans are prone to infantile power drives; an excellent example of a sweeping statement and sloppy reasoning. You then move into my favourite part of your comment, the list where you puff up your chest and tell us how metal you are. The statement, "I probably know more about Metal than you" is particularly special. Unfortunately, even if you provide a photocopy of your degree certificate in Heavy Metal Studies, you'd still be invoking an appeal to false authority; however you can't even do that, so your comment is no more than Internet posturing. Your ability to trace other rock influences on heavy metal may well be uncanny, but if you can't source it you may as well be an Internet troll. Finally, your most, um, 'contentious' point: "And being a musician, I have access to technical details which non-musicians are not privy to... Which means I can distinguish with greater accuracy the differences between Metal subgenres". Of course, there is an inner cabal of musicians that, similar to Scientology, only tell you their innermost secrets after a number initiation rituals and a hefty sum of cash. Oh, no, wait, that's actually just bollocks, isn't it? But please, feel free to redeem yourself... find me a source that explains how you being a guitarist allows you to distinguish between metal subgenres with greater accuracy. And try and do better than Last.fm, if possible. Ta. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Black 'n' roll is not a genre term I've seen used to any great deal in the press, but death 'n' roll I could fairly easily source, though I have concerns that it is effectively used to describe one band. The article is certainly a mess. A possible merger may be an alternative option. What do you reckon? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Musicindustrial. How 'bout you don't be such a dick, eh? First off I think blackmetalbaz made most of my points for me. However, I feel the need to respond to some of comments you've made, however inane they may be. I'm not the typical black metal fan, alright? And I also know my shit.

• No, I think I know more about metal, yo. Prove me wrong. I don't really care what you think you know. Yes, I haven't been a fan for quite as many years as you have. You may know more about metal than me, it's true, but I know more than the average metalhead. So you caught death metal and black metal when it was happening. Whoopie!? I caught viking metal when it was happening. Applause?
• You claim to have a diverse taste in music. Firs off none of this affects metal knowledge much or makes you a better editor. But, since we're counting, I like plenty of genres, too. Jazz, blues, soul, funk, plenty of classic rock; even some electronica, etc. I, too, can trace much of the influence of metal. I'm pretty studied up on it and I know what's true and what's crap most of the time.
• You say that being a musician makes you better able to distinguish metal genres. What makes you think I'm not a musician?
• How bout you back up off the POV train, pal?

As far as groove metal goes, it's a genre. I can better source it than death n roll. I've also heard the term groove metal for at least the last 5 years, which is longer than i've heard about death n roll. Groove metal just measn they use the start and stop method, among other things. Pantera is a prime example of this. I hate groove metal, mostly. The way they play slows down the music and it can be repetitive, as well. I wanna hear an unrelenting assault. Yeah, groove metal definitely came out of thrash, but it's become its own thing. Thanks to blackmetalbaz for his hilarious and oh so true rebuttal. If you can source it go for it. I've only head black n roll applied to a few bands and the same goes for death n roll. I think both are equally inane, though. It's just band with more groove, rock-influenced metal. I don't think it's its own genre yet. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still don't believe this should be an article. Reading it makes me cringe. It's quite uncyclopedic sounding. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have removed much of the unsourced nonsence (the entire characteristics section for instance) and the references to non-reliable sources. I am not taking this to AfD as I believe the genre is notable, but it should possibly be taken to administration if things like Google searches, Wikipedia pages, Last.fm and Metal Archives continue to be used as sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just had a great idea: why don't you all just erase the whole fucking thing off? It is just tiring to read this complaints, when any Wikipedian can erase weeks of someone's else's (unfinished!) efforts (writing, searching for references, etc) to try to improve any article. Most of the time, their only "improvement" is just wiping out content without concensus. Writing and searching for references? Nah... booooring. No wonder a lot of people give up on Wikipedia. It's the information stalinism on the internet.

If this "genre" bothers you guys so much, why don't you just erase the page? Save us some grief.

Oh, by the way, try reading some complaints about Wikipedia [14] [15] [16] [17]. Wikipedia is becoming a fucking religion - people following its dictates irrationally. Don't let it become yours... Aren't metalheads antireligious, by the way? Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You're being unneccesarily upset. Erasing the OR is just the way wikipedia works. And I am well aware of wikipedia's many problems and users who become irrationaly when it comes to the rules. As for the sweeping statement, "Aren't metalheads antireligious, by the way?" that is completely ridiculous. Among the other genres of the world, metal's fans may have a higher rate of nihlism, but such a sweeping sterotypical comment is hardly truthful. Many metalheads have a religion, whether it be Christianity or paganism. Alos, you really do need to stop with this whole fit over groove metal. It is not a wikipedian invention and it's been around longer than death 'n' roll and it does have sources that can be found. It is a much more real genre than this one. Pantera would have been one of the first of the groove metal genre. Idk how you can even deny its existence. Metallica would even play the style for a while when they noticed it was becoming more popular (due to Pantera). Shitty bands like Lamb of God still take influence from Pantera (another equally shitty band IMO) and are groove metal. I just don't get how you can deny the genre. It's extremely distinctive. The sound is just as distinctive as black metal (albeit completely different of course). Listening to Pantera you hear it right away in a song like Walk. The sludgy slower pace, but still agressive sounding like thrash, accentuated by the guitars "start and stop" method totally defines groove metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What I find highly amusing is that you listed Industrial music as a Rock subgenre. Unless if you're specifically speaking of Industrial rock, Industrial isn't Rock music. I'd think someone who is oh so knowledgeable about music would know that....JanderVK (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Trying to revive a dead topic? Anyway, this is what I have to say:

a) Is the WikiProject Rock music present anywhere in this talk page [18]? The answer? No.

b) Look at the history of the Industrial music talk page: [19]. Do you see me listing this article as part of the "Rock music" project? Again, no.

So, next time, be more careful. Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream popularity: Moderate in the early-mid 1990s to today

What the hell,if power metal ins't that popular you expect death metal sub-genre to be that popular lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

References v.666

We don't seem to be making much, if any, progress here. I'd quite like to see this page get into a decent state but it looks like it'll have to be done a bit at a time. Not a bad place to start would be with the Carcass references. I dimly remember from way back when them being referred to as 'death 'n' roll in some ancient Kerrang! or similar but a Google search is turning up nothing we can use as a reliable source... mostly here, Last.fm or other mp3 sharing sites. Even Metal Archives, Allmusic and Metal Observer, for all their faults, do not use the term in relation to the band. As they're an extremely notable band, it's obviously very important we find a reference stating that this term is used in relation to them. Further to this, the section about Bill Steer's influences is irrelevant to the article, even if Carcass are included - people like Trey Azagthoth often talk about how Malmsteen et al and various classical composers are influences, but you'd never tag Morbid Angel with a neo-classical label. The entire section on Blackstar is even more irrelevant, as despite having Carcass members, they are importantly not Carcass and were playing an entirely separate kind of music (ditto for the throwaway Jeff Walker solo project comment). Obviously there are other problems that need addressing, but any thoughts on the Carcass stuff? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF at black 'n' roll names

They talk about other possible names like "blackened thrash" or "black thrash" which makes no sense. The latter is a REAL style. There are many black/thrash bands. Most of the early black metal bands were black/thrash. Bands like Desaster fit perfect into that category. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tarnishing the good name of Death Metal

This article ounds like a glorified... ok I have no words to describe about how badly I feel about this. Death metal is fast and heavy, and if it's not, then it ain't death metal (or "death'n' roll). It seems like every 5 minutes someone is either coming up with a genre to descibe themselves or a band. Just because a band has tuned down elements of a genre doesn't mean it get's a brand new one. Bodom is a whole bunch of metal genres. You don't see me making up some special name to define them. I guess what I'm saying is, death 'n' roll may be somewhat recognised, but we really need to decide, OURSELVES (or better yet someone with actual qualifications in music, and yes I acknowledge there are some on this site) whether it really exists or not.JackorKnave (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's start adressing this: "Death metal is fast and heavy, and if it's not, then it ain't death metal (or "death'n' roll)."

I agree with "fast" and "heavy", but lets take a closer look at the fast part.

Is Morbid Angel's "God of Emptyness" or "Blessed Are the Sick" (the song) fast? No. Are they Death Metal? Yes.

Is Obituary's "The End Complete" (the song) fast? No. Is it Death Metal? Yes.

Is Autopsy's "In the Grip of Winter" fast? No. Is it Death Metal? Yes.

And the list goes on.

Maybe there's something more than "fast" to Death Metal... And let's put aside the rather subjective category of "heavy" for now. (By the way, Death 'n' Roll is "heavy" too.)

Yes, let's take this further. Let's talk about Paradise Lost's early ouvre - their Peaceville Records output, Lost Paradise and Gothic.

As you probably know, these two records were major trendesetters in the Death/Doom field. But wait - they're not "fast" at all. How can they included under the Death Metal category? Maybe it's the gruff vocals, the complex song structures, the heavy emphasis on cromaticism, the ever-present double bass drumming and the heavily detuned guitars. You can ask a musician who's well-versed in extreme metal and he'll probably agree with this accessment.

So, finally, what's my point? Maybe your acessment that Death 'n' Roll is not related to Death Metal is a bit hasty, and arguing that D'n'R isn't "fast" or "heavy" is probably not a strong defense in making your point.

And this: "It seems like every 5 minutes someone is either coming up with a genre to descibe themselves or a band. Just because a band has tuned down elements of a genre doesn't mean it get's a brand new one."

Actually, the "Death 'n' Roll" tag has been going since 1993, since Entombed released their "Wolverine Blues". That makes it fifteen years old, give it or take. (It is surely older than the "Groove metal" genre name, which some people accuse of being a Wikipedian invention.) Let me ask you something: is it really a "new" genre or is it just new to you? And this question is not an attempt to humiliate you, it is out of legimate curiosity.

Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, mate. Now let us see a list of all the known death'n'roll bands. Entombed and Gorefest seems to be focal point of your arguement (actually, they are the ONLY two bands listed), and the rest only have an album or so that you can label.JackorKnave (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate citations

My attention was brought to this article by a passing comment on an unrelated afd. I have never heard of this term before nor have I even heard the music of any of the bands mentioned. That is not going to stop me from noting that this article has some major problems. A few editors have already expressed skepticism about the validity or notability of this subject matter since it does come across strongly as a neologism. The use of the term at Encyclopaedia Metallum and Last.fm are completely irrelevent as they are unreliable sources. The staff at metal-observer.com use a lot of dubious terms such as skaldic metal and cyber metal so it's not particularly helpful here. Only the use of the term by Chad Bowar on About.com has any merit. I've removed a large amount of the article but note that I'm not the first to have done this. Blackmetalbaz had preceded me only to have his edits reverted by the one individual who seems vested in this article: Musicaindustrial. Blackmetalbaz was perfectly right and entitled to remove that sentence along with other blatant original research, including that entire section on a supposed parallel in black metal. I also removed text which use inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the point being made. For instance, the sentence "according to the All Music Guide, Death 'n' Roll albums favor verse-chorus-verse songwriting" is supported by four references but none of them even use the term death 'n' roll. There is also no reason why this article should even include a list of bands that are tagged as death 'n' roll on unreliable sources. There are still many problems with this article even after the wholesale removal of these passages. I note in particular the use of improper references to self-published sources. This includes the CD liner notes to the Entombed albums as well as the official online biography of Gorefest. Musicaindustrial, please do not revert my edit as you did Blackmetalbaz's. If you really want to improve this article, I strongly suggest you go online to search for better sources instead of adding any more original research. --Bardin (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, I in general don't have a problem with CD liner notes. They're not really self-published in a way that is problematic to Wikipedia if they're published by the label not the band, and the notes are written by a reliable third party source. Things like liner notes can be invaluable for, say, album articles. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with CD liner notes ordinarily but when they are being used to support an assertion of which band the term was first associated with, I think there is a problem. After all, anyone can proclaim themselves as a pioneer or the first to do something but such self-claims would not generally be treated as a reliable source here on wikipedia. Similarly, CD liner notes tend to be written by someone who has been paid by a record label and while such notes can be used as reference for many things, it pretty much fall into the same sphere of a self-published claim if used to assert something like this. In other words, it's not exactly an unbiased source. --Bardin (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me something, Bardin - do you believe that "unbiased" sources of information actually exist? Check out this interesting rant on Wikipedia [20]. "Neutrality" is a dangerous myth - go read Michel Foucault or Thomas Khun and see why. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is an extension of that fallacy. What we have here at Wikipedia is just a concensus between different points of view - that's all. No true "neutrality" to speak of - just the tyranny of majority. Musicaindustrial (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read Foucault but if you really agree with that rant, then why are you not boycotting wikipedia? This is hardly a relevant discussion anyway. Whatever faults wikipedia might have, this is not the place to discuss it. If you want to propose changes to the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, you can do that elsewhere. If Entombed were really the first band to be identified as death 'n' roll, then surely there would be some other sources out there besides the cd liner notes indicating as much. --Bardin (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Carcass? I doubt it...

Carcass, to my knowledge, belongs to the following categories of genres:Grindcore (goregrind), Death metal, melodic death metal, and some people see elements of thrash in their latest stuff. On the wikipedia page for Carcass, NOT ONCE ARE THEY CALLED DEATH'N'ROLL. Please source this, RELIABLY. I have no doubt that this genre was "created" by music reviewers trying to sound edgy (or God forbid, they were misquoted or taken out of context.), if Carcass is included in the so-called genre.JackorKnave (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the wiki page for Carcass and their album Swansong, and guess what? Not a single mention of this death'n'roll, even the Swansong album is listed as melodic death metal... in fact, a quick check revealed fully half the bands listed here are NOT classed as "death'n'roll" on their respective wiki pages. In my humble opinion carcass should definitely be removed from the list. Death'n'roll is a dubious genre at best to my mind and any milestones by carcass in this genre would be best described as ambiguous. Any one agree?JackorKnave (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any unsourced information from the article. --Bardin (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Okay, I made some radical changes, and by that I mean removing Carcass from this page. Perhaps a bit hasty (somone please check my edits, I'm far from infallable), but as we all know, anything I do can be just as easily reverted anyway, but at least I made my case. To repeat: Carcass is not listed as Death'n'roll and to this date never has been.JackorKnave (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you did. It was bold. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Coffins... are they notable enough?

Seems to be a litle difficult to find any information on them, even outside Wikipedia. I googled it and the best I could find was a myspace page. Also I think the page labelled them as death metal (dunno if that counts though). JackorKnave (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a Japanese band so that probably explains why it's so hard to find stuff about them.JackorKnave (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    Normal   0                         MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Concerns

I've read the article, and a lot of it just feels like OR. I didn't read all of the discussion page so forgive me if I address things that have been discussed before.

Intro

A) "Death 'n' roll is a term used to describe the sound of death metal bands which incorporate punk, hard rock and NWOBHM stylings"

punk/hard rock/NWOBHM stylings? Who claims this? F.e. where are Gorefest's punk influences? How does Entombed "incorporate ... NWOBHM stylings"?

The "punk/hard rock/NWOBHM stylings"? Again, read the "Origins" subsection of the "History" section.

As for the Gorefest situation, that's easily remedied. I replaced the "and" for an "or". Now it reads:

"Death 'n' roll is a term used to describe the sound of death metal bands which incorporate punk, hard rock OR NWOBHM stylings".

Which means that a death metal band heavily meshes their music of any of these three styles could be considered death 'n' roll... Which also means that Gorefest doesn't need punk influences to be considered death 'n' roll. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

B) "Notable examples are Entombed and Gorefest."

These seem to be the only 2 well-known examples. The bands mentioned on metal-observer don't seem to be notable (except for maybe Hearse). Is it worth having an article describing a term that is only applicable to 4 or 5 notable bands? Isn't this an undue weight issue?

Are you familiar with Pungent Stench's Dirty Rhymes & Psychotronic Beats (1993) EP and Club Mondo Bizarre - For Members Only (1994)? Most of the songs on these two records have a 70s rock feel to them: mid-paced songs, use of wah-wah pedal, back beats and bluesy, Led Zeppelin-esque guitar riffs - hence, "death 'n' roll". Pungent Stench isn't featured here, though, because of the lack of reliable internet sources (who said you can find everything on the Web?).

Six Feet Under has also been been considered on and off as a "death 'n' roll" band - they even released a cover song EP celebrating their rock 'n' roll favorites from the 60s and 70s - Graveyard Classics (2000), which is a testament to their classic rock edge. But... guess what? No reliable (online) sources for this one too.

I would even go as far as saying that Swansong (1996) by Carcass is a prime example of "death 'n' roll". Yes, it is has been (wrongly) tagged as melodic death metal, although a closer look might reveal that Swangsong is closer to Thin Lizzy than At the Gates. If want some further proof of the musical direction they were taking at the time, just hear the defunct Blackstar.

As for the fact that Wikipedia doesn't have much to say about this subgenre, well, that doesn't say much either. There are grotesque fact errors throughout Wikipedia that go unchecked - hell, some editors go as far as defend them. This is what happens when you have an online encyclopedia mostly vandalized (oops, edited) by clueless teenagers. The fact that anonymous users can edit it only worsens its supposedly informative content. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

C) "....double bass drumming, gruff vocals and detuned guitar riffing being given a "rocker" treatment."

A "rocker" treatment? What the...?! This isn't very encyclopedic.

Did you notice the quotation marks? Did you know that one of the quotation mark's uses to signal the unusual usage of a word? Did you also notice that "rocker" pipelinks to "Rock and roll"? Maybe the next time you might want to restrain your derogatory comments and try to understand the text's logic first. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Main part

D) "Considered one of the premiere death metal bands of the early 1990s, Entombed had, since their Earache days, been influenced by the likes of KISS, The Misfits, Motörhead and Discharge."

How is this information relevant to death 'n' roll? They might have been influenced by Die Flippers or Johann Sebastian Bach in that period. Nice information for the Entombed article, though.

OK, let me lay it out to you then:

1) "Death 'n' roll is a term used to describe the sound of death metal bands which incorporate punk, hard rock or NWOBHM stylings to their music".

2) "Considered one of the premiere death metal bands of the early 1990s, Entombed had, since their Earache days, been influenced by the likes of Kiss (HARD ROCK), The Misfits (HARDCORE PUNK), Motörhead (NWOBHM) and Discharge (HARDCORE PUNK)."

According to the liner notes used as reference on this article, those influences eventually came to the forefront on Wolverine Blues. Capicce? Maybe this could be more explicit, to avoid further confusion. Musicaindustrial (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The genres (HARD ROCK) etc. are not mentioned in the booklet. This is original research. Sentence 1 is an assumption based on sentence 2. The genres of the bands who have influenced Entombed aren't necessarily an influence on death 'n' roll. I could rewrite those sentences and make it consistent with the genres in their articles:

1) "Death 'n' roll is a term used to describe the sound of death metal bands which incorporate glam metal, horror punk or D-beat stylings to their music".

2) "Considered one of the premiere death metal bands of the early 1990s, Entombed had, since their Earache days, been influenced by the likes of Kiss (Glam metal), The Misfits (Horror punk), Motörhead (Speed metal) and Discharge (D-beat)

You just did some very shaky music taxonomy over here, my fellow editor.

According to Allmusic, Kiss are hard rock [21], Discharge [22] and the Misfits [23] are hardcore punk and Motörhead are NWOBHM [24] (they also do tag them - incorrectly - as "speed metal", but I'll adress that later).

According to another generally well-regarded source - Rockdetector - Kiss are hard rock [25] and Mötorhead are simply tagged as hard rock/heavy metal [26].

And by the way, the Misfits considering themselves "Horror Punk" is roughly equivalent to Rammstein calling themselves "Tanz Metal". These are made-up "genres" (metagenres) with the purpose of making their inventors sound more unique.

Also, "glam metal" a.k.a. hair metal a.k.a.cock-rock was an early 1980s invention. There no such thing in the seventies, when Kiss were at their prime. It only came to be after the Los Angeles scenesters such as Mötley Crue starting releasing records.

There's also something profoundly interesting I just read in Wikipedia's D-beat article: "D-beat is a style of hardcore punk that has existed since the early 1980s, pioneered by Discharge, for whom the genre is named." Trying to trick me, eh mate?

And last, I'd like to strangle the dumb bastard who 1st said that Mötorhead was speed metal.

To illustrate my point, let's compare Mötorhead with the first de facto extreme metal band ever: Venom. Both some things in common, such as:

1) A distorted bass guitar sound;

2) The singers favored "rough" vocal deliveries;

3) Their drummers (Abbadon and Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor) were keen on fast tempos and double bass drumming.

Even considering those commonalities, Venom and Motörhead had huge differences. One was Venom's lyrics, which dealt primarily with satanism, occultism, etc. The other was the very different playing styles of Mantas and "Fast" Eddie Clark. You see, the latter was basically a classic rock guitar player i.e. lots of pentatonic, Blues-based riffs, extended guitar solos filled with double stops, etc. Jeffrey Dunn/Mantas solo's, on the other hand, favored fast double picking, tapping and Floyd Rose whammy bar techniques, which put him in league with other 1980's guitar players and not the 1970s "school" that Eddie Clark belongs to. Also, Mantas created a lot of chromatic riffs, which practically don't exist in the Motörhead canon. Eddie Clark would never have written the verse riffs of "Black Metal" (the song), for example - they're too fast, too chromatic.

So, there's a huge gap between Ace of Spades and Reign in Blood. And by the way, Slayer were never big fans of Mötorhead... Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense, does it? And according to the text those bands where an influence on Entombed since their first full-length, which clearly is a death metal record. Entombed (Nihilist) where also an important influence on death metal. Using your reasoning we should consider Kiss (Glam metal) to be an influence on death metal.

Heavy metal split off of hard rock when it lost its blues roots. Stoner metal emerged when metal bands looked back to the 60s/70s and incorporated blues-rock into their music. Death 'n' roll emerged when death metal bands (Entombed) went back to their blues roots; in a way it is "stoner death metal" or better yet, death metal bands that play blues-rock.

Not quite.

First of all, "stoner metal" has deep ties with the doom metal scene - many of 1st "stoner metal" bands came from it. It wasn't just "metal bands looking back at their classic rock roots". Be more specific.

Second, when Entombed went into their "death 'n' roll" phase, they weren't necessarily revisiting their "blues roots" (if they ever had any). Kiss and Black Sabbath are one thing, Willie Dixon and Albert King are another. These artists inhabit very different worlds, socially and musically.

Third, declaring death 'n' roll a kind of "stoner death metal"? Now that's original research, for sure. Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I still think the content needs to be changed drastically. It is not accurate enough. Kameejl ^(Talk) 03:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My view on death 'n' roll: OK, my view is OR, so it might not be of any use, but maybe someone will agree with me. I think the article is wide of the mark. The bases of death 'n' roll is obviously death metal and blues-rock (or hard rock/classic rock, if you will). This is already evident in the article ("This album showed more than a passing nod to classic rock") and "Wolverine Blues". Simply put, the genre is death metal with an apparent blues(-rock) sound. Wolverine Blues and Soul Survivor are full of pentatonic riffs, bluesy leads, hard rock drumming, and hard rock songwriting. By bringing these bluesy elements to the forefront, some death metal elements are pushed to the background:

-There is less focus on speed. Rhythm patterns tend to "groove" and the use of syncopation is more common. Blast beats are omitted.

-Tempo/key and time signature changes are not prominent. Chaotic death metal song structures are replaced by more traditional rock oriented song structures.

-The chromatic/dissonant approach is lost in favor of a more melodic pentatonic (bluesy) approach.

Some death metal elements are preserved:

-highly distorted and downtuned guitars

-the use of techniques such as palm muting and tremolo picking

-gruff vocals

The above is partially backed up by Allmusic (Regarding Wolverine Blues Allmusic states: "whether this music even qualifies as death metal, given its standard rock characteristics: comprehensible vocals, steady tempos, and verse-chorus-verse songwriting. None of these characteristics is associated with death metal ... For instance, the vocals ... are mostly comprehensible; however, they're delivered with such ferocity, they're as powerful as, if not more so than, the most guttural death-growl. Likewise, the guitars ... riff along at a steady tempo, but they're so heavy, they cut like a buzzsaw ... and pummel away like a jackhammer ... the drumming ... is hard-hitting yet never to the point of blastbeat, it's the songwriting of Wolverine Blues that is most removed from the confines of death metal.")

Death 'n' roll just goes back to the roots of heavy metal/hard rock. Therefore it has lots in common with genres like stoner metal (to a lesser extent groove metal). Just like stoner metal bands, D'n'R bands listen to the likes of Deep Purple, Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, etc.. Some bands even have songs featuring instruments hardly seen in metal, but often seen in 60s/70s blues-rock: f.e. Phasm uses mouth organ and Hearse uses organ.

More I'm not denying the existence of the term "Death 'n' Roll", it's valid as a term, but I'm questioning it's validity as a genre. The term is used for, how many, 5 bands on wikipedia? This is an undue weight issue. The term is featured in the death metal article infobox next to genres like blackened death metal and deathcore, which have dozens of band articles on wikipedia.

The "blackened death metal" article is a goddamn joke, by the way. First of all, it doesn't cite a single source. Second, it is plain wrong. Behemoth's Satanica (1999), the first black/death album? What about Dissection's The Somberlain (1993)? Or even the Vital Remains debut, Let Us Pray (1992)? Hell, the death 'n' roll article is way better than that piece of crap! Musicaindustrial (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the quality of the article but about how big the scene is. There still isn't a big death 'n' roll following. Kameejl ^(Talk) 03:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So, death 'n' roll doesn't have a big following but "blackened death metal" (what a ridiculous name!) has one. Really? Have you any empirical evidence to back that up? Musicaindustrial (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need empirical evidence. I just counted the amount of bands considered notable here on wikipedia. But this discussion is pointless. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, you do need empirical evidence. That is what references are for, so people can prove what they say (and write).

2) Using Wikipedia itself as part of an argument? That's a definite no-no. Use reliable, "outside" sources instead.

3) May I remind you that you're basing your opinion on a largely incorrect, unsourced article?

4) And a friendly piece of advice: don't try to snake your way out of a losing argument by calling it pointless... Musicaindustrial (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1) No, I don't need to prove any single word I write here. You confuse article content and discussion content.

2) I used Wikipedia as back up for my assumption based on experience. I was not trying to prove anything. I was trying to discuss a subject. I've used dozens of sources for everything I wanted to be sourced but got no single comment on the info I provided.

3)What article?

4)This makes me laugh. I'm very confident about my musical knowledge so I really don't care about winning or losing these kinds of arguments. Certainly not when

5)"And a friendly piece of advice: don't try to snake your way out of a losing argument by" using ad hominem arguments and ignoring the real issue here: the accuracy of a wikipedia article.

From now on I won't waste any more time and won't reply to ad hominem arguments or any argument that doesn't relate to the matter at hand. (And no, this does not imply losing an argument). Have a good day. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to have some sentences and a couple of examples in the other fusion part in the death metal article and to delete this article. Any opinions on this.

In the meantime, the content needs to be changed drastically; I'm going to work on that.

Cheers Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Musicaindustrial, I'm sorry but this is not working out, I'm not getting the point across. I'm not saying Kiss isn't rock or that you got the genres wrong or whatever. I'm saying you can't draw conclusions like you do. Why? I'll try another example: Destroy Erase Improve's CD booklet states Earth, Wind & Fire was an influence on Meshuggah. That doesn't mean all Meshuggah-like experimental metal bands have funk/disco influences.

When I'm reading "the sound of death metal bands which incorporate punk ... or NWOBHM stylings" then I immediately think: "NWOBHM? like Iron Maiden/Saxon/Diamond Head? Punk? Like Sex Pistols/Ramones? What elements of those genres made their way into e.g. Soul Survivor? I'd say few. Therefore I think there won't be any source to back it up. Punk/NWOBHM didn't inspire Entombed/Gorefest to play groovy, pentatonic, blues(-rock) based riffs. Blues-rock did. It's called Wolverine Blues' for a reason.

And, I'm sorry but I don't understand the relevance of the Venom/Motorhead example. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes that support my opinion:

"the proper follow-up, Erase, was released in 1994 and found the band moving subtly toward more traditional forms of metal, partly through its sure sense of groove. That approach crystallized on 1996's Soul Survivor, which combined death metal with the elegant power and accessibility of '70s British metal." Allmusic

'70s British metal = Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, Black Sabbath, Motorhead etc. All blues-rock (or at least very blues oriented) bands.

"Chapter 13 was issued in Europe in 1998, and it continued Gorefest's interest in classic rock" Allmusic

classic rock mentioned above: Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath

"1993’s Wolverine Blues is largely considered to be Entombed’s watershed moment, seeing the band shed some of its pure death metal elements for a more accessible, rock-based" About.com

Rock based. No punk and NWOBHM.

"The songs are a nice mix of faster death-n-roll with punk influences" About.com

So death-n-roll generally has no punk influences.

"Bellgrave - Hard Blues 1, Death'N'Roll" Metal-Obeserver

Hard Blues

"Debauchery - Back In Blood, Death'N'Roll ... Of course, there are also plenty of riffs stolen from AC/DC (see “Death Metal Maniac”)" Metal-Obeserver

AC/DC only plays pentatonic blues-rock riffs

"Entombed - Inferno/Averno, Death'N'Roll ... That's When I Became A Satanist" is what I considered SLAYER going Stoner Rock." Metal-Obeserver

Stoner rock, the 60s/70s inspired genre

"Mucupurulent - Bloodstained Blues, Death'N'Roll" Metal-Obeserver

Bloodstained Blues

"However, unlike most “Death & Roll” bands these guys don’t routinely resort to cheap Stoner Rock rhythms to get their groove across" Metal-Obeserver

Most “Death & Roll” resort to stoner rock, the 60s/70s inspired genre

Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Other bands playing the style and etc

Sanctimony is another band that plays in this style now so does Deuteronomium (band). They should be mentioned in the article. Others can be found by searching death 'n' roll under genres on The Metal Archives and for the parallel black 'n' roll you could create an article about it if you get sources. Also, would I suggest a list section for this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.124.9.20 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.secretsmoonzine.cjb.net

  Triggered by \bcjb\.net\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death 'n' roll. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617183213/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/phazm/antebellum-death-n-roll.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)