Talk:List of heavy metal bands

• Danzig = Thrash Metal ??? I think this is Doom or something. Pantera = Power Metal ??? Thrash, Neo-Thrash or Nu Metal. Only the first output(=shit) was Power Metal. Is the band named Cemetary or Cemetery? -- Zoe
  • Pantera is most probably Thrash Metal for most of their releases. Maybe it would be better if album's are also identified. Some bands evolve throughout their careers. Like : Genre - Album - Band But since this is a list of band and not of genres. I would suggest removing the classifications and make another list. --sisidapa
    • Pantera was considered Power metal and never was considered thrash. Cradle of Filth is not even considered black metal and how can they classify D.R.I. into death metal? I guess you are right sisidapa, it is better to remove the classifications.
      • Danzig is Heavy Metal - Metallic Doom Rock, and Pantera is Groove--Neo139 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

This list should be alphabetized. Reasons:

1. Metal styles overlap a lot, and many bands seem to fit in more than one style.
2. Each genre has its own page; we could move the genre-specific lists to each genre page.
3. People -- both fans and musicians -- disagree as to which style any group belongs.
4. This is supposed to be a list of artists, genre subdivisions belong somewhere else.

Anybody who opposes?

I copied the list from the NL site - many more bands and alphabetical Spearhead 22:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nice. Going to go through it now and wikify (I'm sure that Aurora Borealis thing doesn't actually like to the band but the phenomenon for example, also, 3IoB should be blue, as they have an article on here (I should know, I wrote it myself).--KharBevNor 00:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

• One band is listed under the heading of "Dark ambiental metal". Is "ambiental" a word? The article for In the woods... says that they are "dark ambiental metal", but Google only gives 2 results for that phrase as opposed to 181 for "dark ambient metal" and 2740 for "darkwave metal". I think I'll change the listing to "Darkwave metal". Change it back if it isn't accurate... I think that's what the lister meant. --Idont Havaname 21:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This list seems to have become rather redundant aside from its dubious name and debatable style determination. Most pages describing a particular style also have lists of their own (not even the same at all often) and some styles have lists of their own List of Death Metal bands. Hence I propose to either remove this page all together, make it a alphabetised list as proposed above or turn it list of styles or something like that. I'm in favour of removal. If this lists would persist of a list of band lists it should be renamed to list of heavy metal bands, as with musicians I exepct to find individual guitarists, drummers, singers etc here. Spearhead 21:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

I prefer a list of lists, but I agree this one is poorly named. Sam Spade 00:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

This should be moved to lists of heavy metal musicians, and made an index page for the various lists for subgenres and other potential lists (e.g. by decade, by country). Tuf-Kat 01:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of heavy metal genres should also be considered as a place for some of this. IMO there should be a page listing lists of heavy metal bands (according to genre), and a page listing heavy metal musicians, according to instrument played, or genre, or whatever. One way or another, we need to decide what were doing and network it all together, because otherwise its a mess. Is there a heavy metal wikiproject? I'm sure theres a music wiki project somewhere... Sam Spade 14:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres might be a place to coordinate some of this... altho currently it seems dominated by hiphop ;) I left a note @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_genres#lists_of_metal_bands. Sam Spade 15:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

If someone's feeling plucky enough to implement it, I tend to think we should have a rational, standardized structure for musician lists (i.e. list of heavy metal musicians should be the same set-up (more or less) as list of reggae musicians and list of soul musicians). I think, to avoid duplicating categories, we ought to really push for captions on all entries -- just a sentence or two to give some context for each entry. Tuf-Kat 21:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Lists of heavy metal bands by genre
• Lists of heavy metal bands by area
• Lists of heavy metal bands by decade
• Lists of heavy metal bands by sales record

• Lists of heavy metal musicians by genre
• Lists of heavy metal musicians by area (incl. by city and by country, maybe province/state in some cases, e.g. California)
• Lists of heavy metal musicians by decade
• Lists of heavy metal musicians by instrument (also a list of singers and one of songwriters)
• Lists of heavy metal musicians by sales record (incl. by album, by single, by tour, and over-all)

• Two comments - one, the black/red color scheme is a little hard to read. Second, the mainstream popularity is somewhat accurate, but metal has never really become that "play constantly on every radio station" genre. At least this is not the case in the US. I like the rest of the template, though. --Idont Havaname 21:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

Currently many of these band names are wikified, but the wikilinks take you to the wrong place. Going to Quicksand, for example, you might experience a sinking feeling. Correct these links. I suggest against filling up with external links where Wikipedia articles are unavailable, since Wikipedia policy advises against large lists of external links (WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files). And if you haven't got articles for all these bands, unwikify them. Fuzzypeg 13:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed the problem with Satan and Goatlord too. Basically, someone needs to go through the entire list for dab problems. I agree that we should un-wikify the redlinks, but anyone who creates a band article needs to remember to update the list. Maestlin 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that The 3rd And The Mortal and The Sins of Thy Beloved are under T. Shouldn't they be under # and S respectively? --IronChris 22:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Romarin 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Several bands in the list should be removed. In my opinion, those that don't have at least one full-length album shouldn't figure in the list ("The 11th Room", "Faith in Hate", etc.). Also, some bands are not metal. Porcupine Tree, for example, is a progressive rock band, though they used metal elements on 2 albums, that doesn't mean they should be listed here (even though I like their music very much!). Primal Scream is also a rock band, and should be removed. I'm sure there are plenty of others, so there's lots of work to do on this page. --IronChris 05:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I say we only list notable bands that have metal or one of its subgenres listed (not bands that were influenced). +Johnson 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Damn, this is a task. Its gonna take more than two or three guys to get this right. About half the P section turned out to be non-existent articles! I suggest we keep the non-existent notable articles wikified just so that when they are created they are already wikified. +Johnson 00:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I don't think it's a big deal for them to be wikified or not, so let's keep them like that, it'll be easier. Once we've finished correcting the links we'll also have to decide which bands to keep and which to delete... that's going to take a while too. But until all the links are rectified we shouldn't get into that, let's deal with one problem at a time. --IronChris 03:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I have corrected all links in A, B, C, E, F, G, and R. I know also that User:Romarin has corrected those in D, X, Y and Z. Still some work to be done here, but we're getting there! --IronChris 05:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I knocked out P and S, as well as some random ones here and there. One thing I noticed is that a lot of the links go to albums. This is another thing that is going to have to be fixed when we are done the links. +Johnson 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think that queen should be removed (Bloodredchaos 16:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

I noticed that about the albums too, but I think they concern different bands. For example, Damaged is a band, but it is also an album by the band Black Flag. And of course the link sent you to the album (the band Damaged doesn't have an article). So I think that when a link goes to an album, it is also nevertheless the name of a (different) band. In any case, let's wait until all the links are cleaned up before we worry about that. --IronChris 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Axel Rudi Pell is twice in the list : once under A and once under P. I'm not sure which one should be kept (though under A seems more logical, I wouldn't think of looking for Axel Rudi Pell under P...), could someone sort it out? --IronChris 00:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Every band that does not have an article (ie, a redlink) has been removed from the list. This is the best way to ensure that there's no links to people's own un-notable bands. I also removed any links that were obviously just words, and not a band. If I have removed any that should be there, then ensure there's an article on the BAND (not on the word) that exists, before putting them back in. Proto||type 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

One thing that we discussed doing before we started was leaving notable bands without articles on the list. Not every band that deserves an article has one. However, it isn't a big deal because we can refer back to the old revisions of this article for a copy of bands that are in need of articles. +Johnson 15:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good plan. Question, though. Would it not make more sense to make the articles, then add them to the list? Or am I being dumb? Proto||type 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with what you did, Proto. For a start, as Johnson says, some notable bands didn't have an article. So why not "write the article first and then add it"? I guess that makes sense, but then there are quite a few articles that would have to be written to get just the notable bands in the list. And this was a good way to check which articles needed to be done : just look what links are red and write an article.

Second, I was going through the list of bands (nearly finished actually) to check that each link referred to a band and not to a word. Removing them doesn't solve the problem, as the article may exist and the link was just wrong.

So, removing the red links, alright, that's not what we agreed on, but it makes sense in a way (though I don't think it was the best way to deal with it, it certainly is the quickest). But removing links that were incorrect definitely seems to me to be a bad idea, correcting them would have been much better. Because now looking through the whole list to find them again is going to be even longer. --IronChris 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

put bands that need articles on the project page, under the header creation. I already put some there, but there's probably a dozen others that need to be created as well Spearhead 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if what I did held you up at all dude. All those redlinks and links to words are still visible on the history of the article. As spearhead says, the project page is a way better place to list articles that need to be written. And doesn't the list look nicer now, all lovely and blue :) Proto||type 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have removed some bands like POD, Staind, Blue Oyster Cult and more, they are rock bands and cant be considered as heavy metal bands cause they have nothing in common with this style. I have removed Alice in Chains and Soundgarden from the list because they are classified as grunge bands (although I dont know why).

I think some bands of nu metal cant be here, as they sound more like rock than heavy. Only bands like Slipknot, which are heavier than POD or Linkin Park should be here

If you desagree with me, revert my changes (except for Staind and Blue Oyster Cult, which are rock bands for everyone who has listened them!!!!)

BTW, since when is Europe metal? Zaebangad 18:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Europe is considered Glam Metal. Cdscottie

I removed Firebird since they're a Blues Rock band.--Inhumer 19:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Should't the list contain Heavy/Tradtional Metal bands only?--Inhumer 03:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Heavy metal is a broad term that comprises all of the genres listed in the list of heavy metal genres. All "metal" bands with an article should be listed here. IronChris | (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I mean Heavy/Tradtional Metal in the sense of Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Saxon, etc.. --Inhumer 16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That would be classic metal. You can find a list of classic metal bands (including all the examples you gave) here: classic metal#Important artists. If you feel like it, I guess you can create a separate list for these bands. IronChris | (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It should only contain genuine heavy metal bands; and have links to other subgenres lists... such as a list of thrash metal, glam metal, black metal, NWOBHM, metalcore, etc bands. - Deathrocker 02:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK.. I've started to do what was suggested, but I have also created a section for the many subgenre lists.. and put three notable examples from each subgenre, hopefully this will help direct people adding bands to the correct, respective list. - Deathrocker 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

When doing examples, its a good idea to make sure the bands are notable and of the genre, rather than being on your favourite bands list.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Deathrocker about the changing of the list--Inhumer 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree he has done a good job. An oddity for his usual edits. Perhaps though, the bands listed as examples should be bands from the lists themselfs.

Grunge is a sub genre of Heavy Metal! This should not even be in question. Although there are Grunge bands (Pearl Jam, Green River, Mudhoney) that should be considered hard rock bands, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and Tad amongst many others cut their teeth on the Heavy Metal template and would not exist if it were not for their love of all things Metal. Cobain himself expressed his love of Zeppelin, paying homage with the song AeroZeppelin on the Incesticide album. Cobain put Punk, Metal and Classic Rock, with a dash of Pop/New Wave in a blender,called it Nirvana, and poured it into your mug. He described Nirvana as sounding like the Bay City Rollers being molested by Black Flag and Black Sabbath. Nuff said. Nirvana is just as much Metal as anything else. Just listen. Heyvee May TallHeyvee May Tall 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can Queen really be considered part of heavy metal? They were far more linked to the glam rock movement at the time. Rather than the likes of Sabbath, Zeppelin, Deep Purple, etc. - Deathrocker 08:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The same could be said about Led Zeppelin or Steppenwolf. --Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I mean being considered part of Heavy Metal, not them being Glam Rock.--Inhumer 20:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Queen were more linked to heavy metal in there early years. At the time music critics where saying they were going to knock Zep of there metal thrown.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Rumor has it that Queen shall soon be crowned "the new Led Zeppelin," which is an event that would certainly suit this observer just fine. There's no doubt that this funky, energetic English quartet has all the tools they'll need to lay claim to the Zep's abdicated heavy-metal throne, and beyond that to become a truly influential force in the rock world. — Rolling Stone - 149

Ignoring Inhumar's nonsensical comment. The Queen association with Heavy Metal is very tedious to say the least... Queen fans like to make out that the band were somehow connected to an endless list of music forms when it isn't really true; they don't have the same characteristics as any of the other bands from this period which were viewed as heavy metal.

And when this movement was around, everything from their image to their music was associated with glam rock... especially due to Mercury's image, the band's themes, music, name, etc, etc. What in their musical characteristics do they share with Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Deep Purple, etc? - Deathrocker 14:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Queen's music is not glam, it is much more complex and heavier then glam, the glam ended with the look!— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 14:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

How is my comment nonsensical?--Inhumer 06:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) You really are a fool, Deathrocker. Queen WAS Heavy Metal, a good example is "Stone Cold Crazy". "Bohemian Rhapsody" is more accurately a faux opera with metal segments rather than rock-opera. XXSaifXx 06:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think there needs to be a list of bands the formed after the Original movement. --Inhumer 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply