Talk:List of thrash metal bands/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Defiance

This band has no article on wikipedia. The link provided redirects to the disambiguation page, where there is a mention of this band. Also Encyclopaedia Metallum mentions a thrash metal band of the same name. I had earlier renamed its link to defiance (band), but someone has reverted it back. Hoping that the edit war [:P] ends here. Weltanschaunng 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a policy of keeping only those bands on the list which have an article in wikipedia. for example on the discussion page of "the list of black metal bands"[1]. There is no point of mentioning them if you cannot read more about them on wikipedia. On this point i am deleting defiance and the two other bands that have appeared on the list. Weltanschaunng 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah you can't do that, Bands deserve recongition! Just look around the net they be there. and if there not here as articles make one. simple. METALFREAK04 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Metalfreak, the point here is wikipedia is not an advertisement site, its an encyclopaedia. And a very good one at that. If bands without articles are allowed to be listed, the whole page will be filled up and will become unreadable. Hence the policy. Weltanschaunng 10:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, then erase that fairly insulting entry because it reflects ignorance. Granted Defiance was not a mainstream success,"Void Terra Firma" was a huge influence not only to the Bay Area Thrash scene but the underground scene in the country as well especially during a time when Grunge was rearing up its ugly,untalented head. Guppusmaximus 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.204.103 (talk)

delete trivium off of list

trivium is metalcore not f-ing thrash (Seth4000 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)) Seth4000

Overall, they are, but there are sources citing thrash metal influence in their music, so they stay on the list. Prophaniti (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Violator

Violator were under Canada, when in actual fact their country of origin is Brazil, I dunno if this was a mistake, seeing that the section for Canada is immediately below the section for Brazil but I made the edit.ThePerfectVirus (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Trivium

Is Trivium Thrash? Wikipedia says its metalcore/thrash. I have not heard them, but I have a feeling they are not (based on lamb of god and other metalcores). Anyone with knowledge on this please post here, or do the needful. Weltanschaunng (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhere between Metallica and modern metalcore. It's not unlike Sanctity and the latest Shadows Fall album. Most people probably wouldn't consider it thrash and only a few of their songs, if any, come close to the intensity of thrash metal. Adamravenscroft (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've never thought of them as thrash... but reliable sources show that they are. [2] Funeral 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I doubt Allmusic Guide can be trusted for genre debates. They don't even have a genre tag 'groove metal'. I came across this bit while Pantera was still in this list.Weltanschaunng (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Allmusic isn't a good source for genre when they have one genre page combining black metal and death metal as the same genre, despite them being pretty far apart. Adamravenscroft (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Allmusic is NOT a reliable source with regards to metal genres. Even ignoring mistakes like that, there's nothing to actually indicate any authority on the genre. Prophaniti (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I never heard them before but I doubt they are real thrash metal either. Although it could pass as "Modern" thrash metal. Theres thrashcore too but it's not implied as being a fusion of thrash metal and metalcore but with early hardcore punk as faster hardcore punk. --CircafuciX (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivium used to be really gay post hardcore (screamo) pretty much w/ some metalcore, but now they basically try to be what Metallica would have been if Metallica had stayed real metal, but worse. So yeah they should be on the list I guess. Navnløs (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivium were never post-hardcore or screamo. In fact they played a type of metalcore that lacked much of the punk influence (breakdowns, etc.). It was modern metalcore with a stronger emphasis on the metal. Their most recent album is a sorta compromise between metalcore and thrash. It's not too different from the older stuff, just devoid of the screams. Anyway, there's been much debate about this around Wikipedia (on their page) if not the entire internet. Their style is a bit too removed to be considered thrash and the only reason this debate even started was because some IP address edited their name into this article. Adamravenscroft (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivium's latest has elements of thrash metal, but overall no, it can't simply be called thrash, it's only that in part, and hence they don't belong here. That's not mindless elitist hate either, I like the new album. But it cannot be described overall as "thrash metal". Prophaniti (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find Trivium fall under the "New wave of American heavy metal" most of which is pretty terrible, this is the only aspect I don't like about Wikipedia, a number of fans can actually deliver a verdict on a band's genre, yet a website like allmusic, that covers ALL MUSIC is less likely to have specific knowledge about thrash metal. Ugh ThePerfectVirus (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a perfectly reasonable point to make about allmusic. It's a shame that it gets relied upon here as the end-all source for music. In truth, the more general a source is, the less reliable it's going to be on specifics. Especially in this sort of case: thrash metal is very much not a mainstream genre. Granted, it's had some mainstream popularity in the 80s and recent times, but it's still overall not what you'd call "mainstream music". Allmusic covers just that: mainstream music. Alas, that's the way wikipedia goes with it. Prophaniti (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is not the only source that calls Trivium thrash metal though... The Rolling Stone (since taken off the site but here makes refrence to the review im talking about -- http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?reviewid=27422, js proving it was there becasue I cant find it), IGN (http://au.music.ign.com/articles/916/916522p1.html) and about.com (http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/gr/triviumshogun.htm) also list Trivium as thrash metal... The point about thrash being mostly underground is a good one and trivium are by no means pure thrash (eg. metalcore)... but you cant ignore the mainstream success of thrash bands like metallica, megadeath and anthrax... in particular metallica albums 'Master of Puppets' and '...And Justice for All'. trivium's last two albums have very obvious influnces from these albums. My opinion aside there is multiple sources calling them thrash metal is more my point. 220.245.131.186 (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I like it how an actual arguement with sources gets ignored because it doesnt comply with some editors person opinions. (y) 220.245.131.186 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Death/Thrash and similar fusions/styles

I decided to continue here instead of going crazy on Weltan's page so we can get some more suggestions, sources and get consensus, etc. We are trying to decide on what constitutes as thrash metal, be it death/thrash or "deathrash", black/thrash and melodic death+thrash. We would need to provide (a) source(s) that these bands are actually thrash or they will be contested like the few that have been above^. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have any band that has played thrash any time in their career or a fusion of thrash (incl. the ones you mentioned) in the list. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree on two provisos... firstly, that there is a reliable source and secondly that they already have a Wikipedia article. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we keep the bands in for now. I would like to know the difference between 'deathrash' and actual death metal, though. Welt^anschaunng 10:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think deathrash would just be a fusion of thrash and death metal. You ever heard Torture Squad? They mix thrash and death, so I guess they're deathrash. It's good stuff and has elements of both. Morbid Saint also combines thrash and death. Those are the only bands I know (and like) that combine thrash and death to any great degree. Oh, well and Possessed of course. That's all I can think of right now anyways. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't heard the first two, I've heard Possessed though. Hmmm, now I see (or feel) what deathrash is like. Welt^anschaunng 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SHIHAD from New Zealand Thrash metal? How do they end up in this category? At best they are an alt rock band. They should be removed. The Roadie, New Zealand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.50.110.36 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin

"thrash metal is the product of American bands..."

My dispute is that is it really the product of Amreican bands?.. Sodom formed in 1981, Holy Moses in 1980... Around the same time as Metallica and Exodus respectivly, With Venom forming earlier in 1979...

I'd suggest that it is prehaps a little bias to say that solely American bands came to define the genre... Dims25 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your change is correct, nice work spotting that.--3family6 (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pantera

Why isn't Pantera listed on the page? There no more thrash than some of the bands on here, like for example Fear Factory... or Shadows Fall. 72.209.181.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

File:Pentagram(chile).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pentagram(chile).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation For Overkill (band) Insufficient

As per 3Family6's mention that it is in the 2nd sentence, it only mentions that it was crucial in the development of thrash metal. It does not say that this artist actually plays this genre.Curb Chain (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Then it can be backed up by this source and this one. These explicitly call them thrash, and the PopMatters source can be used for Overkill's role in East Coast thrash.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for using terse edit summaries earlier. The edit behaviour seemed to indicate that I had stumbled across someone who was just arbitrarily deleting entries. Obviously the list is not going to be hurt by cleaning out a few unknown acts from Venezuela or the Philippines. But when you start to see elite thrash bands that are famous around the World like Annihilator getting deleted... it almost looks to regular heavy metal editors that they've stumbled across someone who falls under the ol' WP:TROLL column. And, lets face it, when someone deletes a reference for Overkill who are a legendary heavy metal band and easily one of the top 10 thrash bands of all-time because it contains the word thrash but not metal... or deleting 2 of the 3 Teutonic Titans of Thrash... well... that just looks like it fell down from under the WP:DICK tree. BUT... more important than any of those other "WPs" is WP:AGF. And I can certainly AGF that those bands were removed rather than referenced (citations are easy to find for most of the more storied acts) simply because you don't know the subject well and you were just trying to help by cleaning up a lengthy list. So I think editors can be more lenient when they know they are building an article with someone who wants to do right by the article... but doesn't have any real in-depth knowledge of the subject. You were right that Onslaught and Sabbat weren't ref'd. But at the same time... where Britain is not exactly known for it's thrash metal exports but they do have 2 extremely notable/influential thrash acts... Onslaught and Sabbat. (look at Andy Sneap's recent resume) So rather than delete notable entries... it would be more productive to just tag them and then find a few refs to hold them in their place (since refs for them are easy to find anyway) Hope that helps. Maybe, from now on, instead of blindly deleting entries who's own 'name-power' justifies getting them on the list... perhaps everyone can come here to this talk page and say... "I propose removing W, X, Y and Z" Does anyone have objections... or know of some references that will help validate them on the list. Again... sorry for my earlier error. Good luck editing. Take care. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Onslaught I found a great quote from "Heavy Metal in Britain" by Gerd Bayer (published by MPG Books in 2009)... he says "While Metallica were perfecting the thrash metal genre with the release of Master of Puppets, in Europe bands like Onslaught began to add a blacker image to their own brand of thrash metal. Their albums were dark and aggressive thrash metal and the band made ample use of diabolical imagery. Along with earlier contemporaries like Venom, Mercyful Fate and Bathory their use of this imagery coupled with their thrash metal music style gave birth to another more ghoulish brand of heavy metal called Black Metal." Pretty good quote. I am rough when it comes to cite-book ref format. I will review the citation style page later. It's not that important now since the band is still listed with a {cn} as a space holder. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you want more book refs for Sabbat (I think books refs are WAY better than All Music Guide)... in The Encyclopedia of Heavy Metal by William Phillips and Brian Cogan (Greenwood Publishing ISBN: 978-0-313-34800-6.. pg 241) in the biography of Andy Sneap it says "One of the most important contemporary heavy metal record producers and mix engineers currently working, Andy Sneap got his start as a guitarist for British thrash metal band Sabbat in 1986 before moving into producing. Sneap has produced albums for thrash metal bands such as: Exodus, Machine Head, Megadeth, Kreator and Testament among others." Not a bad quote there either... more about Sneap than Sabbat... but it does include the words "thrash" AND "metal"... so there ya go. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

The list is now fully referenced, as per WP:RS and all of the other metal lists (see list of black metal bands, list of death metal bands, list of speed metal bands, list of power metal bands etc.). POV blurbs have been removed; that information is present (or should be) in band articles, and has no place here. Bands should not be added if they do not have an article or a reliable source. Having said all that, it's irritating to note that there are still editors out there that will delete things from list articles without even doing the most cursory search for sources. They need to read WP:DICK and WP:POINT. Again. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

They do not need to do those things as the editor who puts unreferenced information into an article has the responsbility to ensure an reference is too pursuant to WP:BURDEN.Curb Chain (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject here, User:Blackmetalbaz did not say that an editor needs to find sources. I believe the point Blackmetalbaz was trying to make is that attempting to find sources, even if just a quick scan, is less confrontational and can keep a situation from escalating. Yes, the burden is on the editor adding content, but other editors can step in and help, as the editor adding content may be unaware of Wikipedia guidelines (after all, one of the central pillars of Wikipedia is ignore all rules). Also, an editor can add a "citation needed" tag or a "not specific enough to verify" tag instead of just deleting content. However, it can be very time consuming to keep up this type of activity if frequent unsourced editions are encountered.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Dishonest Revert

[3]

1. Wikipedia was not used as a reference
2. The reference uses the word "thrash" and does not indicate which genre of thrash is used (This can mean the two "trashcore" ones could be used)Curb Chain (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My revert was completely honest, I reverted for precisely the reasons I gave. You are right about the second point, that was a bad reason. But it was an honest one. As to the first point, you provided a link to the Wikipedia article thrash, which is why I said you used that as a reference. If you were just using that as a quick reference, then I apologize. But thrash is a synonym for trash metal, as used on this About.com article.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The closest thing the article says about that is "Thrash metal is also known as speed metal". It does not say that "thrash is a synonym for trash metal". It uses only the word "thrash" throughout the article.

And although about.com useuses this term this way, unless you can provide a source that proves allmusic.com also useuses this term this way ("thrash"), the verifications will fail.Curb Chain (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic uses the terms interchangeably as well, as on this link, this link, and this link. But yet on this link they treat it as hardcore. Basically, from what I've seen, if the term is being used with heavy metal, it's thrash metal, and if the term is being used with hardcore, it means hardcore. What just shocked me is that it appears Allmusic has completely removed thrash metal as an isolated genre from their database. Why on earth they did that I have no clue.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously shows how the term is ambiguous. As such, the references used by your revert is substandard.Curb Chain (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that ambiguous. Crossover thrash bands clearly would be included in this list; I'd need to do a bit of digging to check the exact status of the "post-thrash" bands (it's not a terribly widely used term, as a bit of a catch-all). Thrashcore are refrred to as such, and the claim that "thrash" was a term used for punk and hardcore bands in the 80s is itself unsourced. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to describe this taxonomy?Curb Chain (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Curb Shain: Really, the burden on you should be to provide sources that "thrash" isn't thrash metal, as all you have done is cited Wikipedia statements, most of which are unsourced. But please don't accuse User:Blackmetalbaz of not using sources, if I understand them correctly, the statement above says they are looking for sources. I'm not sure what exactly sure what you mean by "taxonomy," the terms above are all on the dab list, and crossover thrash is a thrash metal fusion, so it is the same as thrash metal for all practical purposes of this discussion.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should rather amend the inclusion criteria to "some sort of thrash metal". This will allow the floodgates to open.Curb Chain (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)