Talk:Post-metal

The term "post-"

Before criticizing the genre name as if the subgenre doesn't exist at all, consider the terms "post-" and "progressive" used in other art media such as post-modernism and post-impressionism. It is entirely possible to still create an impressionist painting, but it's also possible to create a post-impressionist painting. Essentially "post-" is a way of saying "Uses its suffix as a springboard but deconstructs the original style using other typically unrelated influences or techniques in order to explore new unique avenues that would not otherwise be part of the initial genre." Meanwhile, "progressive" typically refers to deconstruction of the genre using its own materials for further experimentation of the genre itself. Post-metal uses metal as a foundation, but deconstructs the sounds from metal and mixes it with otherwise typically unrelated genres to explore what else can be done with it. Prog-metal is still firmly rooted within metal but experiments with metal's own sounds and styles. Frankly I'd point to there being very little difference between progressive metal and technical metal, before pointing the finger at prog and post.

Examples, using architecture:

• One could build a house the standard, classic way with typical materials and tools (classic/root genre).
• One could also use those same typical materials and tools to build a house in a non-traditional way, in order to experiment with new ways a house can be built ("progressive").
• One could also use portions of those materials and tools, but hybridize them with unrelated materials and tools to create something entirely different with the concept of a house as its base but which may not even be a house in the end ("post-").

205.250.211.218 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy (1)

This genre doesn't exist. It's just made up to (for whatever reason) further categorize bands that already have genres. The 'criticism' topic on the article offers no arguments why it should exist, just that a lot of people think it shouldn't... Evanmontegarde 22:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)evanmontegarde

It 'exists' in just that way - it creates label for a group of similar-sounding artists whole music is a merge of countless others. A jazz enthusiast might subcategorise genres and styles in a way that someone unfamiliar with jazz will be completely mystified by, and this is a metal/alternative music equivalent. Seegoon 18:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a music reviewer for Harm.us and I would be hesitant to create post-metal as a genre. It seems too pretentious too me as a label and further obfuscates already ambiguous and hotly contested genre distinctions. There is no common linkage to these bands. There is no popular or consensual impetus that warrants the creation of this page. I am a music critic by trade and even I believe that this category is merely a ruse to stroke the egos of music elitists so they can pontificate and point to this article as a verification of their outlandish fantasies. 203.214.47.30 13:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To something to be Post-, the genre before it has to die. Metal is a thriving genre. Post-Rock is also non-existent. Makiyu 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Post- genres, social movements and political philosophies can, and do, co-exist with their origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ootmotl (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock still exists. And, well, the name POST isn't maybe the most correct, but post-rock exists, so why not post-metal. Though usually music can be both post-rock and post-metal. There are subgenres for these (Post-rock from indie rock to ambient, post-metal from free experimentation to sludge metal and more ambient structures), and that's one legitimating subject here. Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The guy from Isis did not coin the term "thinking man's metal", nor has it anything to do with post-metal. Queensryche used that term to market their genre of progressive metal years ago. Also, something I'd like to bring to the table: What exactly is the difference between "avant-garde metal" and "post-metal" (besides the fact that both "genres" use pretentious and abstract terms to identify themselves)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.38.41 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, avant-garde metal are those things in music that are more clearly from other genres, and you should remember the slight differences between avant-garde and experimeltal music. Dynamic Progressive Turbulence Creator (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-metal is the fusion of post-rock with heavy metal, avant-garde metal has nothing to do with post-rock. 2605:A601:A927:1900:F4FE:BCBF:BA1A:F64B (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Questionable bands

While I am in favor of the use of the term "post-metal," I don't see the reason for having Kayo Dot and maudlin of the Well in the list of notable bands, as they already fit so perfectly into the "avantgarde metal" genre. I don't think that they share the similar sound of ISIS or Cult of Luna. Also I would say the same thing for Boris because (as far as I know) they don't have any releases that sound similar to the rest of the bands. Brownishleaf 13:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you. A specific sound has to be labelled, and I'm not sure that bands like that adhere to it strictly. Seegoon 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded… if you look in those artist articles, Boris is clearly sludge/doom/stoner and Kayo Dot is experimental/alternative. I don't necessarily agree with those uncited genres but nowhere do they say post-metal. (Nor do either sound like it.) = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 15:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. What I'd like to propose is to include one or more sources for every band listed (and meanwhile comply with WP:LIST). It discourages people to add dubious bands and it makes every entry verifiable. I did it on several lists and it seems to work.. I'll start searching for sources... Emmaneul ^(Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Boris needs to be removed from this article. They have one release (2000's Flood) that could be called post-metal, but that would be so far of a stretch that it does not warrant them being mentioned at all in this article. Also, the mentioning of orchestral music incorporated into post-metal, when was there ever orchestral music in any Intronaut song? 76.232.33.78 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned out the "Notable bands" section again, and I think it should stay limited to about 10 bands (If you think a different band should be substituted, please make a case for it) The existing list was (with a ! after the ones I removed):

• Battle of Mice !
• Burst
• Callisto
• Cult of Luna
• Godflesh !
• Intronaut
• Isis
• Made Out of Babies
• Mouth of the Architect
• Neurosis
• Pelican
• Red Sparowes !
• Rosetta
• Russian Circles !
• Sunn O))) !
• Thy Catafalque !
• Tool !

Battle of Mice was unsourced, Godflesh is generally not included in most accounts I have seen of the genre, Red Sparowes and Russian Circles are post-rock (and Russian Circles has already been discussed), Sunn O))) is Drone metal, Thy Catafalque does not have the necessary basis in sludge metal (and I do not believe that they are notable enough to be included in such a section), and Tool is a progressive metal/rock band. As was said previously, in an article of a genre as disputed as this one, I do not belive that we should be including bands that are borderline at best in the "notable bands" section.

On a different note, I didn't edit it in, though I feel like The Ocean Collective has more claim to this list than, say, Burst and maybe Callisto (in terms of genre) and Mouth of the Architect or Rosetta (in terms of notability). H2ostra (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Minsk may also deserve mention on the list. H2ostra (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, and there were reliable sources for all the bands removed except for Battle of Mice, who are called post-metal on their page (that should be sourced also, but considering the band's sound it shouldn't be too hard to find a reliable source). I really don't like genre arguments, so I'm going to make a proposal to try and cut this short: for controversial additions to the list, there must be more than one reliable source stating them to be post-metal. Is that acceptable? --LordNecronus (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that may be the best course of action for now. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that "post-metal" is used as the name for a specific sound and genre (descended from sludge and post-rock, as best demonstrated by Isis, Cult of Luna, later Neurosis, and Pelican), but is also, less commonly used to describe a much broader movement away from more conventional metal structures, which would include such bands as Sunn O))) and Agalloch. H2ostra (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of list

I've been bold and cut down the list to the most notable exponents of the genre. Many of them were redlinked, or only labelled post-metal by a stretch. I feel any more additions should be more carefully considered, and possibly discussed here. However, for legacy's sake, here's the list as it stands before the edit:

• Agalloch
• Amenra
• Boris
• Conifer
• Callisto
• Cult of Luna
• Fall Time
• From Now On
• Giant (NC band, not late 1980's band "Giant")
• Isis
• Jesu
• Kayo Dot
• Minsk
• Mouth of the Architect
• Neurosis
• Old Man Gloom
• Om
• Pelican
• Red Sparowes
• Rosetta
• Russian Circles
• Silence Kit
• Splintered
• Tides
• Unfold

I can't claim to be an absolute authority on the genre; but niche/redlinked bands don't truly contribute to the encyclopaedic or informative nature of the article. Seegoon 13:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea to me this this sounds like a BS genre, made up by music critics who think they know everything. Most of these bands don't even sound similar, or can be labeled a legitimate genre. T REX_speak 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a distinct sound forming/that has formed. Listen to the similarities between albums like Panopticon, The Eye of Every Storm or Oceanic with bands such as Mouth of the Architect, Pelican (band), 1-2 Seppuku, Russian Circles, Red Sparowes etc. etc. etc.. I think there is a case for labelling this. There are a lot of post-rock elements yes, but at the same time, the approach and result are both quite different to what is most often describes as post-rock. Mwhale 06:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Um OK. Anyway, new rule should be enforced here: don't link to redlinked bands. It's a list of notable bands, and if they're notable, they're likely to have their own article. I know this means the removal of some archetypal bands, but until they have their own pages the links are useless. Seegoon 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Removing of Russian Circles

They're often referred to as post-metal, but it's hard to find a definitive reference to such. Any ideas? Though they are post-rock, no doubt, they also seem to fit post-metal as well. That's the trouble with post-metal, it's often very close to post-rock, and is thusly difficult to classify without at least some crossover. Thoughts? Moonty 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an understandable sentiment, but Russian Circles are borderline. And, given the dissent expressed for even having this page, we should probably refrain from including any questionable bands. There are already several decent examples on the list and it would be best to stick with obvious examples. Abbenm 02:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Moonty 04:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Legitimacy (2)

I truly believe that some views expressed above are not shared by people who consider themselves fans of the mentioned bands. If anyone feels it will contribute, I could gladly assemble a list of reviews/interviews (and perhaps band biographies) that clearly and obviously associate many of these bands, and that suggest the emergence of a common genre they are all a part of. Here is a quick sample from About.com's Heavy Metal section on Mouth of the Architect's Time and Withering album, second sentence:

http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/fr/mouthofarchitec.htm

These kinds of references are easy to find and almost obligatory on sites that regularly encounter and review this type of material, and I will gladly draw up more such references if anyone thinks they would be useful. Also, if you check for any Isis albums on Amazon.com you will find many of the listed bands there as well. You can also read opinions at Isisboard.com (Isis fan community) and see that a large group of people associate these bands in a way that is well-represented by this article.

As for Harm.us, I looked at that site, and they only even review two of the listed bands (Callisto and Mouth of the Architect), with nothing at all on Isis/Neurosis. And, even those two reviews were from an outsider perspective of a generally mainstream metal oriented site, obviously unfamiliar with this common sound that regular fans generally seem well aware of. I respect your site's metal credentials generally speaking, but Harm.us is not familiar these kinds of bands.

In general, I think this article is at least well founded and that it clarifies the standing of these bands, rather than obscures it. -glenstein aka Abbenm 76.179.26.12 04:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

All this proves is that Mouth of the Architect is not an obscure band. This doesn't prove that post-metal is an actual genre and not a term Isis made up. Makiyu 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It demonstrates more than that. It proves that people who have encountered these kinds of bands (including music reviewers) ascribe a common sound to all of them, and associate them together in a way well represented by the article.

Also, a short sampling of reviews finds music reviewers using this term to describe them as well. A few reviews which describe the relevant bands as post-metal:

sputnikmusic review on Callisto

Metal Storm review on Mouth of the Architect

IGN on Isis

The Skinny on Red Sparowes

And of course that is just a brief sampling. It is a fact that this term has permeated music circles and that it is used to describe these bands. Abbenm 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that the most common criticism of the term is that the bands listed tend not to want to identify themselves as "post-metal". But I just think I'll point out promo material for Isis describing them as post-metal in a serious way with not contention about the genre: Southern Records' page on Isis. I know it's not the be-all and end-all, but it does demonstrate record labels wanting to go down that route. Seegoon 14:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers using the term means absolutely nothing. Reviewers have called Slipknot thrash metal, Children of Bodom black metal, are they correct? It's not a question of whether the term itself is valid - It's a question of whether it's needed, which it isn't. Looking at every band mentioned on the article, they can all be put in subgenres that already exist. It'd be like taking a bunch of death metal bands that sound similar and putting them in "Lifeless Metal" or something. Post-Metal is a term which has no reason to exist. Looking at this list here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sludge_metal#Atmospheric_sludge you can see quite clearly that there is a huge overlap with atmospheric sludge (A valid genre that's been around far longer than the term 'post-metal'). What is the point of calling Russian Circles, a post-rock band, and Rosetta, a (mostly) atmospheric sludge band, a new genre when they already have ones that fit perfectly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Evanmontegarde (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

I second Evanmontegarde's argument and introduce some more empirical evidence. Post-punk as a genre exists within the journalistic and popular lexicon due to having inherent sonic dissimilarities to it's predecessor while retaining the fundamental aesthetics of it's predecessor. Post-Punk for example utilizes synthesisers and electronic sounds, eschewing distorted guitars - earning it's label as "post." It still retained its anti-establishment stance, retaining the "punk" term. The article describes "advanced lyrical and musical structures" but Post-metal does not feature any production techniques, musical form or lyrical themes that are completely exclusive to this "genre". I am yet to see any such formation of a post-metal "movement" and I believe that those who do are largely imagining it.Crushtor 06:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moonty

Was there something wrong with my line 47 edit that got removed? I'm guessing you just reverted to the version before my edit, because you also restored a misspelled version of the word "reinstatement". There should be some sort of message there however to discourage the addition of bands to the list, and the present message seems to address this only indirectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbenm (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A more coherent debate

I can see there's a fair amount of back-and-forth here regarding the validity of this genre, and its labeling as such. To work towards a really decent, solid yay or nay, there are some pertinent questions which need answering, from both the pro- and anti-labeling camps. I'll tell you now that I am for the use of the label, so expect a bias in that direction. However, any conceptually adequate, complete argument against it will also bear my full consideration. Here are the important questions - feel free to add more, or respond in whatever constructive manner you see fit.
1. Is there a prominent and cohesive enough musical movement to justify the use of one label for all bands?
2. Do the people using the labels carry enough reputability for us to distil the term from their use?
2b. Bearing that in mind, do said bands self-identify as "post-metal"?
3. Why, among all the myriad names attributed to this genre, is "post-metal" chosen?
I'm sure there are more which I've missed - add any you see fit. Seegoon 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seegoon's response

I know this is a bizarre concept, but I'm going to respond to my own questions and hope you guys will follow suit.
1. I reckon so. Beginning with Isis and Cult of Luna, we've seen a legion of soundalike bands formed in the past five or so years. Although few of them have achieved the reputation of Cult of Luna or Isis, their influence is clear. I'll name a few: Pelican, Tides, Rosetta, Russian Circles, Fall Time, Callisto, Finger of God, Jakob, Red Sparowes, Mouth of the Architect, Khoma, The Ocean, Transmission0...
2. This is one of the most contentious issues, I'll admit that freely. However, in our sources we can see New York Times journalism and magazines such as Terrorizer and Rock Sound have begun to take it up.
2b. This is another issue. However, it is rare for any band from any musical movement to volunteer themselves into a fixed genre. That said, I've seen Isis promoted as post-metal more than once. I'm talking about a fixed decision by their distributors and record companies. A sticker on the cover of either SGNL>05 or Celestial described them as "post-metal alchemists", and a Southern Records promo sheet also uses the term. I haven't dug around for other bands so much, as Isis' page is a pet project of mine and I focus my attention on that.
3. Another hard-to-answer question. Simply put - it's the only one on which there appears to be some form of consensus. You see "instro-metal" and suchlike banded around, but if you mention post-metal to someone, they tend to know what you're talking about. Likewise, it implies some form of progression from metal, which I believe is a fair piece of conjecture. If you look at post-rock, it isn't so much a direct progression of rock, but an altered perspective on what came before it, over time morphing from one thing into another.
I know these aren't all great points, and I haven't completely convinced myself. However, I hope it'll spur some creative discussion on. Seegoon 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole creation of the Atmospheric Sludge Metal/Post-Metal is wishful thinking. This whole school of bands who ripped off Neurosis and Godflesh are not Metal atall. To be begin we need to first need to all accept that both founding artists came from “Core” backgrounds and arrived at their sound without influence from Metal. Before claims of “Guitar Tone” get posted you should be aware and hopefully accept the fact that “Heavy” music exists and sometimes it isn’t actually Metal. They have cited their influences many times infact never implying any Metal let alone Doom but rather experimental music and industrial. Lately post-rock has become a even more prominent part of this school of post-hardcore bands. Not alone that but the big players in the school of bands who did infact rip them off also had core backgrounds.

Cult Of Luna’s previous incarnation was a hardcore band. Isis used to be hardcore and their songwriter runs a hardcore label. Neurosis used to be hardcore. Callisto fashion themselves as hardcore and infact share a lyrical theme of Christianity which is very prominent in a number of hardcore bands. Buried Inside call themselves a hardcore band. Pelican members (apart from one) were all involved in “core”.

This page needs to be deleted

--Lysergix 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The genre exists, so the article shouldn't be deleted, but perhaps given to a better name, or at least merged with post-rock. The problem is nowadays articles are using 'post-metal' among other terms to describe these bands. I've added to the Criticism section an insightful quote by a Pelican guitarist who says they are more punk and hardcore than metal. –Pomte 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

merging with post-rock could be a good idea 211.31.37.3 03:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice to any argument for deletion of the article for now, but only lightly, not strongly. Simply because I am a big metal enthusiast, and yet have never heard the term before. There is already a big problem with the myriad of sub-sub-sub-genres and so on, my argument here would simply be that we already have a problem with a band being given a new genre to itself just because it's a little bit different. Sure, it might be worth noting when a band sounds different, but a genre by it's very definition has to include a variety of sounds under one general heading. I would only see a reason for this article to exist if I listened to a good number of bands termed "post-metal", say a dozen at least, and could not legitimately put them into any other category. If this cannot be done there simply isn't cause for the term to exist. The reason I'm a little hesitant is I admit that I have not yet sampled the artists listed.

Now, I do realise that really, for this article to exist, all it needs is for people to be using the term, however innaccurate it might be. But I put it to everyone else here that the existence of an article in of itself encourages such a thing. If people see an article here they will start using the term more, and so it justifies itself. Thus, I would be VERY cautious about this article. All the more so because the very term "post-metal" sounds, to be frank, absurd. There might be a genre described within this article, but I would suggest in the strongest possible terms the phrase "post-metal" be replaced as soon as possible, if the article remains that is. It's ridiculous. The term could mean two things. Either A) Something after metal has gone, which is hasn't. Or B) A different kind of metal, while the original still exists. But this tells you nothing. If we're accepting the existence of "post-metal" while "original metal" still exists, then surely everything done from now onwards is "post-metal". Prophaniti 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is a bit weak. Post-metal may sound absurd but there are quite some genres called post-X (post-grunge, post-punk, post-hardcore, post-black, post-bop, post-rock) while the original genres still exists. I used the term post-metal before I knew of this article, and a lot of people do, just look up some reviews etc: e.g. [1], [2], [3]. I think post-metal is a straight forward term that originated from its rock equivalent post-rock. Simply put, post-metal is metallic post-rock (incorporating metal elements like heavy distorted guitars, shouted vocals).

Like post-rock post-metal is:

• hypnotic and often droning
• more concerned with pure sound and texture than melodic hooks or song structure
• usually instrumental, and if it does employ vocals, they are often incidental to the overall effect

source [4]

Post-metal may not be a genre that is used often, but that's just because it's a fairly new phenomenon (but with very clear musical traits). This is a legitimate term and the article should be kept. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Live Post Metal Boring?

Does this actually bring anything to the page? This is one reviewers opinion, and as far as i am concerned and my friends that like post-metal are concerned, live performances of post metal are certainly not boring. I do understand that this is just opinion, and surely citing a reviewer (12) cannot be justification for adding this. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.177.5 (talk • contribs)

You're right. I've removed that section, but I think it can be recreated when we find a more variety of sources about the nature of post-metal shows. –Pomte 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversion

These two sentenses seem to be in Controversion

• Isis' Panopticon (2004) is a prime example of post-metal
• Isis are often credited with laying down the conventions and definition of the genre in less nebulous terms, with their release of Oceanic in 2002

If Oceanic (2002) was already post-metal than Panopticon (2004) was not prime --A4 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ufomammut

I dont think Ufomammut should be in that list, it's straight up stoner doom not post-metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.249.161 (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say that after the release of "Eve" by Ufomammut in 2010. 69.237.149.106 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Stylistic origins

Ok, the "stylistic origins" box is out of control.
Let's pare it down to the sources discussed in the article. So Aaron Turner says the prime forebears are Flying Luttenbachers, Melvins, Godflesh, and Neurosis. Flying Luttenbachers are a punk jazz group, Melvins and Neurosis are sludge metal groups, and Godflesh is an industrial metal group. Actually, Godflesh could also be considered sludge, so let's just cut it down to punk jazz and sludge. I guess we're considering Helmet to be post-metal, and they're a noise rock group, so that gets added. If Tool counts, they always cite King Crimson, so we'll add progressive rock. Seems to me like this is enough. If we're going to add some other stylistic origin, I think some source or argument should be presented. Shoegazing should be added, too, given the prevalence of the "metalgaze" label. Aryder779 (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the bands considered to be Post-Metal are usually tagged also as Sludge. From what I've read and heard, post-metal started out when sludge bands added more post-rock characteristics to their sound. And there is an overlapping between the so called atmospheric sludge and post-metal.Xr 1 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sludge

"When Neurosis first began in 1985, few would have guessed that they would become the beacon of progressive sludge."[5] "Isis' first official release, this 1999 EP shows off a few different facets of the band's hardcore/doom/sludge/metal style"[6].The first post-metal bands are described as sludge by reliable sources. Tell me again why sludge isn't in the origins' box.Xr 1 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because those don't say that post-metal came out of sludge. This article is about the style as a whole, not individual bands.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well okay , but who started the genre? Or it just appeared out of thin air? I mean really how come the music background of the first bands that started the genre ISN'T the style's origins? Really tell me how. Xr 1 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Because the origins is what reliable sources say the genre as a whole emerged out of. Individual bands will have their own unique styles. Often this carries over into the origins section, but only if reliable sources say so. Fictional example: "Post-metal band Neurosis plays sludge-metal" is not definitive; but "The characteristic sludge-metal style of Isis is credited with the emergence of the post-metal genre" or "the sludge influenced post-metal scene" would be definitive. Hope that helps.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Isis Panopticon.jpg

The image Image:Isis Panopticon.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thy Catafalque and Lento

These sources for Thy Catafalque and Lento, are they reliable? --LordNecronus (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, both are essentially webzines with no professional content. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

List

I really think the list should be kept to 10 bands, as this is a genre article, not a list article. It really doesn't need to include every band that anyone has ever called "post-metal", just a few of the most notable examples. If anyone feels that there should be a complete list, a separate list should be constructed. As of now, I have only removed bands that did not have a reference from the list, because I didn't want to impose my own subjective view of the genre. The bands that I think should make up the list:

• Isis
• Neurosis
• Pelican
• Cult of Luna

These top 4 are easily the most often cited members of the genre, and should all definitely be on the list.

• Rosetta
• Minsk
• The Ocean Collective
• Mouth of the Architect

Aside from those 8, perhaps Godflesh or Intronaut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H2ostra (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, the list should stay as it is (with sourced additions, of course). If it gets too big, then we can create a List of post-metal bands article and move the bands there. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Presence of Tool in article

I'm not sure Tool counts as post-metal, despite the apparent labeling of the band as such. Rather, my interpretation of the sources is that they mean to describe something that comes after metal, and while post-metal may hold similar meaning -- turning away from convention, particularly -- I'm not convinced that's what Tool is doing. The term is being used differently than is meant when we discuss the genre-term. Thoughts? – moonty (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the three sources used to cite Tool (silly of me, I know), so I'll take a look at them now and see if they're actually citations. If they specifically call Tool "post-metal", then Tool stays. I will take a look at the context they're used in, as well, however. --LordNecronus (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Tool's vicious, post-metal attack", "Tool's bag of post-metal goodies" and "post-metal stylings" - none of them, technically speaking, are direct "Tool is post-metal" citations, but they're all a bit vague, so I can't tell whether they count as citations for Tool's post-metal status. Does anyone else have any opinion to offer on these? --LordNecronus (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that all of the above citations refer to post-metal as a metaphor, rather than the real Post-Metal genre. I am pretty sure that Tool shouldn't be labeled as Post-Metal in any case. If everyone agrees, I suggest removing it from the list. — Gahonzu (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tool is Alternative metal and Progressive rock/metal, it has nothing to do with this genre, there's nothing "sludge-y" about their music. 98.223.21.132 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Add Tool to this list now, no-one has even heard of the other bands on here so it would be unencylopediac not to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.169 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Post-metal"

The proper name for this genre is "Atmospheric Sludge metal" aka Post-metal, just saying. Not a shred of Heavy metal in this music. Also, "Heavy metal" is not specific enough, this is a sub-genre of Sludge and Post-rock. :/98.223.21.132 (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Underoath

As surprising as it may seem, Underoath has been described as post-metal on Define the Great Line by two separate sources. As my addition of the band to the list already been reverted twice by an IP, I will give an explanation as to why Underoath qualifies. While it is true Alternative Press uses the term as a passing description, a Sputnikmusic staff reviewer uses the term twice, the second time elaborating that "Other influences creep in all throughout, such as the slow, sludgy post-metal with soaring guitar leads, extremely similar to Cult of Luna or Isis that appears in quite a few of the album's tracks..." So at least one of the sources is referring to the post-metal genre as described on this article and by this article's sources, and not as a simple passing reference. I have added quotations of the post-metal descriptions into both refs to avoid over-zealous editors in the future.--3family6 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

-There is a huge difference between something being post-metal and something having a post-metal influence. Underoath are metalcore and while they certainly have some post-metal influence present in their more recent works they can not be defined as a post-metal band. Meshuggah has jazz influences. Would you call Meshuggah a jazz band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.34.216 (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. But the Alternative Press review straight says the band updated its style with "post-metal ambiance," and while the Sputnikmusic review is discussing influences, it also straight out says "slow, sludgy post-metal" not "slow, sludgy post-metal influence."--3family6 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

-(Sorry for not formatting this correctly, I don't frequent here). First, you mentioned the Sputnik review. I frequent that site, and have read that review a couple of times. The quote is "Other influences creep in all throughout, such as the slow, sludgy post-metal with soaring guitar leads, extremely similar to Cult of Luna or Isis that appears in quite a few of the album's tracks..." While you are correct in saying that it explicitly says "post-metal" and not "post-metal influences," that sentence is still, in fact, talking about influences (Other influences creep in... such as the slow, sludgy post-metal). This is still saying that post-metal is an influence to the band's sound. Also, if we're going by Sputnik's definition, they have the band grouped under the genres of metalcore and post-hardcore. On sputnik, post-metal bands are usually categorized as "metal/post-rock," or "post-rock/hardcore," or any combination thereof, as the site does not have a formal tag for post-metal or atmospheric sludge. I understand why you would call them post-metal, and their latest effort especially has some strong influence, but they are, in the end, a metalcore band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.34.216 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about the formatting too much, your post looks fine :) You do have a point about it mentioning post-metal as an influence, but I'm not sure if the ref is weak enough in that regard for it to be discounted. The second part of your argument doesn't hold water, 1. because it's an original research assumption that all post-metal bands will be tagged a certain way, and 2. because band profiles can be user edited. The first part of your argument is definitely valid, and hopefully someone else will jump in here and help develop a consensus.--3family6 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

- Look, I'm not sure why you are so adamant that Underoath be included in this list. Why are you not making the case to add post-metal on the genre description on Underoath's actual page? Anyway, yes, a couple tracks have post-metal influence. This does not make them a post-metal band. If someone came to this page, saw Underoath on the list, and then listened to them as an example of post-metal, that would be incredibly misleading. They are a metalcore band, period. I'm actually a fan of theirs (moreso the really old stuff with Dallas Taylor) and they've never been anything but a deathcore or a metalcore band. If they release an album with more than half the tracks consisting of post-metal, then I would have no problem adding them to the list, but they've never come close to doing so. Anyway, I can't remember if it was you that undid the deletions on the page saying that a consensus hasn't been met, but shouldn't we agree that Underoath is a post-metal band BEFORE putting them on the list at all?--Vinny (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really that adamant that Underoath be on the list other than because of the references to post-metal. More than half the tracks might be post metal, because the one ref says the album style includes "post-metal ambiance" and the other ref says post-metal influences quite a few tracks. But while the refs are not clear enough to say that post-metal is on only a few tracks, the argument could be made that it is only on one album. Maybe specify in the list that it is on Define the Great line?--3family6 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

- References to INFLUENCE on a few tracks just isn't enough in my opinion. I don't know the exact parameters for including "notable bands" but I'm pretty sure Underoath does not meet them. And just listen to the songs yourself. It's clear they're talking about a couple songs on the album that are a little slower and build up a bit and have no vocals. The rest of the songs really aren't ambient.. and ambiance isn't enough to qualify a band as post-metal anyway. As the description says for the genre, "It is broadly characterized by downtuned, distorted guitar(s), heavy atmospherics, gradual evolution of song structure, and a minimal emphasis on vocals." Almost all Underoath songs focus heavily on vocals throughout the entire track, and only a couple songs have a gradual evolution of song structure. Most songs have a verse-chorus structure and don't gradually build. Listen to bands like Isis or Neurosis and then listen to Define the Great Line by Underoath. It's very clearly different, there aren't many similarities at all. Even a broad scoped genre like purely progressive metal has more similarities between the bands included in it.--Vinny (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither reference specifies just a few tracks, if anything Alt Press and Sputnik are saying the opposite. While I personally agree that Underoath on Define the Great Line is not post-metal in the vein of Isis and the like (though I have not heard Isis other then some clips) beyond a few tracks, there are some similarities, and more importantly, sources. Ambiance alone is not enough to qualify the band, but post-metal ambiance is, and in this mention in the review the article neither says only an influence nor specifies that's only a few tracks. Because the band is only sourced as post-metal on this one album, I see no problem mentioning this in the Wiki article.--3family6 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

- You are correct that they don't cite any specific tracks, my mistake. I still implore the use of common sense in this case, however. Everyone knows Underoath is not a post-metal band. Most reviewers make a bunch of references about how a band incorporates things from other genres only as a way to EMPHASIZE a point. They're not actually calling the band post-metal. Incorporating post-metal melodies and ambiance on one album does not qualify them as a post-metal band. Post-metal has been argued in this article itself that it's not even a genre and that this article only exists because certain bands go barely outside the boundaries in EVERY way, and thus only having one or two qualities from post-metal shouldn't be enough to define them as a post-metal band. It's also been argued that the list on this page is growing too large. Again, the list is for "NOTABLE" post-metal bands. These are bands that have a long history of influence and notoriety in the post-metal genre. Every band on the list has "post-metal" in their genre section on their respective pages. Underoath does not satisfy those requirements.

By the way.. I noticed you listed grindcore and emo on the Define the Great Line page... I'm sorry but.. what? As I said before, I just think you're being a little too adamant and grasping at straws. The review you cited doesn't even say they're grindcore or emo, it says they find the ground BETWEEN the genres. Meaning.. they are part of neither genre. There's absolutely no way a band can be post-metal, emo, Christian, and grindcore.. it's just impossible. Grindcore is defined by short, 2-3 minute tracks that are very aggressive and violent.. this is the complete opposite of post-metal/ambient where 10 minute tracks are the norm.--Vinny (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case I concede that you are right, when I initially put up those two descriptors I mentioned in my edit summary that those two styles might not be sound, due to the nature of the ref. I was planning to remove those anyway and mention them in context in the actual article content, so I have no objections to that edit.

In regard to your first paragraph, we may actually be getting somewhere. You're argument about the band only having one post-metal album is sound one, and that may warrant removal. If this page is frequented regularly by at least one other editor, I would say we should wait for them to step in here. If not, I think we can remove Underoath. As an aside, I don't really understand your objection to the list being to long. If it gets too long for this article, it could be made into a separate article in and of itself.--3family6 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

- Just pointing out that most genre pages with NOTABLE bands listed on them should be short and concise and feature the defining and most influential bands in that genre. In this case bands like Isis and Neurosis would definitely be there, as well as most of the other bands listed already. Anyway, I agree with waiting for another editor breaking this tie unless too much time passes.--Vinny (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixture of post-rock and sludge?

How exactly do you mix post-rock (an approach) with another genre? Apparently everything that features repetitive high-register guitar riffs drowned in reverb is "post-rock influenced" these days. And as if that wasn't enough, people actually use the post- prefix wrongly to label these supposed fusions. Furthermore, sludge is usually hardcore with doom influence, not the other way around. Most sludge bands (including Neurosis) are considered more hardcore than metal, so why don't you use the post-hardcore label to describe these atmo/prog sludge bands instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrhaa (talk • contribs) 11:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Post-rock is a specific style, albeit a fairly broad one, and Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. However, when I was looking at the references, it appeared that the post-rock influence might be original research, but then I found this which confirmed it: "primarily the whole Neurosis-Isis-Pelican post-rock metalgaze school." As for the post-hardcore recommendation, do you have a source?--3family6 (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A source for what? Neurosis has always been a hardcore oriented band, even Wikipedia says so. Wouldn't a hardcore oriented band that's supposedly post-rock influenced fall under post-hardcore and not post-metal? The "reliable" sources of post-metal are mostly comments by "important people".

Post-rock isn't a specific style, just like experimental isn't a specific style. Post-rock is rock that transcends rock and not just "clean, sprinkling guitars and loads of reverb", which some people think, hence all these new and mislabeled post-x genres. You just can't fuse post-rock with something else, since post-rock is not an aesthetic, but a principle, an approach. You can take this approach and apply it to metal, but "post-metal" bands simply don't. They only add some clean, "atmospheric" parts to their music.

If anything, atmospheric sludge is a mixture of sludge and dream pop, shoegaze and similar genres. In my honest opinion, I don't even think there's a fusion here. Taking an "atmospheric" or "dreamy" approach is nothing new and often occurs naturally within a genre. --Wrhaa (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to have a source that says post-metal comes from post-hardcore. And also, do you have references that say post-rock is an approch and not a style?--3family6 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that "post-metal" derived from post-hardcore. I said that it's funny how a hardcore band such as Neurosis suddenly creates a whole new metal genre out of the blue. Sludge bands have more in common with hardcore than metal, so it would be more logical to call atmospheric sludge post-hardcore instead of post-metal since atmospheric sludge is a subgenre of sludge, a hardcore oriented genre. Sludge features very short and repetitive guitar riffs, pessimistic philosophies, hardcore vocals and sometimes even the infamous d-beat. All of these are hardcore traits which didn't exist in metal before it got fused with hardcore. Sludge bands mostly stick to hardcore audiences too. The doom influence is the slow, "skullcrushing" touch these bands have.

""Pelican's Trevor de Brauw said, "I have an affinity for metal, but I don't think of Pelican as a metal band. So when people call us 'instrumetal', or post-metal, or metalcore or whatever, I can see why they say that, but it's not something that I feel a close connection with... I feel our [music] has more in common with punk and hardcore.""

"characterized by the use of instruments commonly associated with rock music, but using rhythms and "guitars as facilitators of timbre and textures" not traditionally found in rock. Post-rock musicians typically produce instrumental music."

Very vague description, but atmospheric sludge bands simply don't do this. --Wrhaa (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the article is vague and unsourced, and this subject is out of my league, so you probably have a lot of good points. But if sources say that a band is metal, then it's metal, whether we agree with that or not.--3family6 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deftones

Okay, I'm foreseeing a big dispute coming with the Deftones addition. So I checked the sources, and they look reliable, and though the term "post-metal" isn't used, two of its synonyms, "metalgaze" and "shoegaze metal," are used. The biggest problem with these refs is that they refer to only one album, and per the Underoath discussion above on this talkpage, one album is not really good for listing the band as a representative of post-metal (I'm personally not completely at ease with this, but that was the consensus reached in the above discussion).--3family6 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Efectivelly, one reference is about their newest album, but the other spesks about the white pony album and onwards, wich means that the band have released four metalgaze/post-metal album. i found a quote on another article: "In the past the Deftones hunkered down for years inside jam spaces and recording studios to create its progressive blend of skull-splitting groove metal and luscious shoegaze."[7], hope it helps to add Deftones here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.154.30.101 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I read the references more thoroughly this time, and I think you are right.--3family6 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, if Deftones makes it here, i will add the post-metal genre to the band's infobox and to their albums aswell.189.165.38.7 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Careful with the infobox, as with those we try to be as general and inclusive as possible. With albums, make sure they are explicitly labeled as such. Good luck,--3family6 (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, I was under the impression that Deftones (a band I enjoy greatly) qualified more as alternative rock/metal, which encompasses a wide range of bands, most with similar qualities (Godsmack, Helmet, Therapy?, etc) so I don't think Deftones should qualify. I'm mildly surprised that the Japanese band Boris isn't listed, though, further discussion maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.0.187 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same about the Deftones, but I don't really listen to them, so I would not know. With Boris, all that is needed is a reliable source.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of post-metal bands

We now have a list class article for the post-metal bands: "List of post-metal bands". Please move/use necessary info and references from here or the post-metal bands articles on the list. Also add post-metal bands you know (with ref/source it will be better). The list is new and needs a lot of work. Please contribute. Thanks. Winter Gaze (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content

I have removed the following text from the article:

The simplest way to define post-metal is as a fusion of post-rock and heavy metal. This indicates the interplay of light and dark - taking the distorted guitars and guttural vocals of metal and setting that against the clean instrumentalism of post-rock. Pieces tend to be at a slow- to mid-tempo, focusing on chord changes and barrages of sound rather than lead guitar riffing and shredding, and usually eschewing guitar solos.

Isis' Panopticon (2004) is a prime example of post-metal, and post-rock elements are clearly evident in the contrast between calm melodic passages and aggressive distortion-driven climactic sequences. Similar musical structuring can be heard in Pelican's second album released in 2005, The Fire in Our Throats Will Beckon the Thaw, again with a focus on gradual evolution of structure.

There are a number of completely instrumental post-metal bands, such as Pelican and Russian Circles.

Production is usually very tight, and there is little "garage band" feel to the music. This allows for pervasive or minimalist sections, often including instruments such as clean guitars or synthesizer, to come through more clearly.

The general philosophy behind post-metal production is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so each instrument is usually given about equal presence. Vocals are often not particularly high in the mix, and in most cases are "barked" in the style of hardcore punk or metal, i.e. guttural and shouted, rather than growled in death metal. Lyrics cover a wide spectrum of issues, usually somewhat metaphysical, existentialist or macroscopic, as opposed to deeply personal or directly allegorical. Themes often include political dissatisfaction, or criticism of herd mentality.

The result of this is often long songs, commonly in the range of six to eleven minutes. Therefore a typical post-metal track is not generally suitable for radio play, nor is it commercially viable. Similarly, albums are often created as quasi-conceptual, creating the greatest impact when listened to as a whole. Likewise, it is not uncommon to see literary influences on albums, such as Red Sparowes' At the Soundless Dawn.

A typical post-metal piece might start with a lone guitar, but eventually build to six-plus members playing simultaneously, as shown in songs like "Genesis" from The Beyond by Cult of Luna. Likewise, a post-metal song may leap "head-first" into the music, with distortion and aggression evident from the start. Songs like this challenge the definition of the genre, but the majority of them will contain clean interludes or lulls, usually as parts of a build-up in themselves. Relevant examples include "False Light" from Oceanic by Isis, or "Australasia" from Australasia by Pelican.

--Nite-Sirk (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Metalgaze"

The post-metal article is currently claiming that the term "metalgaze" is synonymous with post-metal. The source provided, a Pitchfork album review, reads: "For Broadrick, his brilliant Jesu project (a kind of epic and melodic, shoegaze-glazed Godflesh) has been like the elder master responding to the work of his students (primarily the whole Neurosis-Isis-Pelican post-rock metalgaze school) and in turn, blowing open the whole genre, yet again." Putting post-rock next to metalgaze doesn't mean the writer is suggesting these two terms are interchangeable, which is what's being implied in this encyclopedic entry. Anyone who believes this sentence is suggesting that these two terms are synonymous probably also believes it's proper English to say "H₂O water" or "cat feline".

A good example of what a source should say in this situation would be the following citation for post-metal being synonymous with atmospheric metal. The source provided, a pdf document of some sort, reads: "Neurosis, one of the pioneers of experimental metal (also often referred to as atmospheric metal or post metal, in reference to the term post rock)..." This source explicitly and directly supports the claim made in this encyclopedic entry.

See also: Wikipedia:No original research, which reads, "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research..." Fezmar9 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Malconfort (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I found some more explicit mentions: An interview by Blistering, though this one could be a little vague, and an article by Michigan Daily, which makes an absolutley definitive connection. "Shoegaze metal" and "NeurIsis metal" are synonymous with metalgaze (and therefore post-metal) as explained in an editorial by Rhapsody.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Something I should have mentioned in my previous statement is that I don't really have a problem with this claim in general, only the way it was being presented and sourced. It also stems from an argument on another talk page where a user was insisting that shoegaze metal and post-metal were the same thing, but had little evidence to support this theory other than this Wikipedia page said so and a few blog entries. I think the Michigan Daily source you dug up is both credible and explicitly states what it needs to. I'd support the reintroduction of this material with that source, but probably not the Rhapsody article or the Blistering interview. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand, for the record I never thought that you were opposed to the claim. I'm not sure why Blistering is considered unreliable, especially since this particular article was written by the Editor-in-Chief, who has contributed to About.com and Metal Maniacs. I would think that in this case it would be redundant, not unreliable. Same with Rhapsody. This is a major and reputable company that features interviews and articles about various artist, whose writing and editorial structure seems similar to Allmusic. Why is it unreliable?--¿3family6 _contribs 00:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rhapsody is an online music store with a smaller written component. They may not be considered reliable as their writings could be seen as attempting to advance a sale. The article you have provided here reads to me as "hey, check out this genre you may have never heard of, buy our service and listen it." You also describe the article as an editorial, which is an inherently biased opinion by definition. Rhapsody was discussed at WP:RSN back in October 2010. The result of the discussion was that it's probably not reliable (at least in that one instance). I don't know anything about Blistering personally, it just didn't appear reliable at first glace and didn't seem to warrant a second glace after seeing that Michigan Daily was a fine fit for this situation. I've seen dozens of new music sites pop up in my years editing Wikipedia and a cursory glace didn't show anything impressive that a professional/established website might have. Your claim that the writer for Blistering also writes for About.com wasn't really impressive either since many RSN discussions[8][9][10][11][12] (just the first five I found) have deemed the site of questionable reliability and should be handled on a case-by-case basis since the site has no editorial oversight. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So all these things said, i'll put Shoegaze metal and metalgaze back, i don't have time to cite all the sources properly so i'll let it up to some editor here.Trascendence (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, the shoegaze metal statement is still being debated, and if you don't have time to do it properly then let someone else who has the time do it. Now, getting back to the sources: About.com has a professional editorial staff and is run by a third party. Allmusic has come up a lot too, and the consensus is that it meets RS guidelines. I do not see how About.com is any different. Besides, Metal Maniacs is also reliable. So even if Blistering is not reliable, the author in question is. As for Rhapsody, it has a professional editorial staff, and the site is at least partially run by MTV Networks and Viacom. The "editorials" actually seem to be typical standard music journalism. This is what I meant by saying it is similar to Allmusic, in that it's "blogs" are professional stories that go through the editorial process just like you would find in Rolling Stone or The A.V. Club. Yes, they are biased, but so are reviews (they have to be by definition) and most news stories in any music publication.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this: The author of the Rhapsody piece is a very highly established music writer, so if Rhapsody is unreliable, which I don't think it is, Chuck Eddy is reliable as an SPS.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In journalism there are writers and there are editors. Writers create the material and editors review the material to make sure it doesn't feature opinions or factual errors, and also makes sure it something the publication would like to represent. Editorials don't have this oversight and are regarded as simply opinions. Many news organizations (especially newspapers) have disclaimers about their editorials and how they should not be considered factual or accurate. WP:RS reminds us that: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So basically, if you wanted to use these two sources, you'd have to phrase it as "David E. Gehlke of Blistering believes that metalgaze and post-metal are synonyms." This is the same way that reviews are treated in reception sections of album articles: "John Doe of Publication X liked this album because...". About.com doesn't have editorial oversight as noted in the RSNs, and it's not run by a third party, it's owned by a third-party. I don't understand why Allmusic is being mentioned here at all. I don't see how being owned by Viacom makes a source reliable. Viacom also owns Nick Jr. and Bubba Gump Shrimp Company; are these reliable sources of information too? I also don't understand why this argument is ongoing if I already agreed with the Michigan Daily source. Does this simple claim really need three sources when one will suffice? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Two sources are needed and used, one for metalgaze and the other for shoegaze metal and the rather humorous "NeurIsis metal." Both of these meet reliability criteria, as the first is a reliable student paper and the second, while the publisher has been questioned in this discussion, the author himself is reliable. So really, this discussion can end. The big problem I have with the RSN's above is that they accuse About.com of not having editorial oversight without evidence. I've been reading About.com's process of becoming a writer, there is extensive editorial oversight at first. The question is whether it continues once an author is established. But this would be a discussion for the RSN. The reason I brought up Allmusic is that it also has been heavily discussed on RSN and frequently accused of being unreliable and subject to frequent accusations of bias.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Something else I've been wondering about: If an author writes a book, the publisher is the third-party. So wouldn't a journalistic piece be thought of the same way? For instance, Eduardo Rivadavia writes for Allmusic. Isn't Allmusic the publisher? Or is Allmusic considered the same as the writer, and Rovi Corporation is the publisher? I honestly don't know what the standard is here.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic might have been brought up a few times but I don't see a single discussion where it wasn't immediately deemed reliable. All the discussions for About.com however almost immediately deem the site unreliable due to their lack of editorial oversight. If you have proof of such oversight, perhaps you could open an RSN discussion and submit your evidence. I believe in common language, yes, Allmusic is the publisher of something that Eduardo Rivadavia writes. However, when using {{cite web}} Allmusic is the work and Rovi is the publisher. Rovi is actually the company who distributes album information across the web to sites like Metacritic and Yahoo. Also, do you really feel that the humorous "NeurIsis metal" is truly encyclopedic and not just something that you find amusing? Google only turns up 15 results for "NeurIsis metal" and many of them are just copies of the Rhapsody editorial. It's clearly not a widely used term and I believe you're giving undue weight to some writer's own neologism. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll save the About.com and Rhapsody issues for RSN. I wanted to put some sort of caveat with NuerIsis metal, but there wasn't one directly in the Rhapsody article. How should this proceed?--¿3family6 _contribs 19:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Late to the discussion. The most reliable source for "metalgaze" and "post-metal" being interchangeable terms is this: https://books.google.com/books?id=D_eKBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=%22metal-gaze%22+%22post-metal%22&source=bl&ots=pi5if_RwpI&sig=0C13pCbVNJGIIPlgqvoVYB_3Kyk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8nuil6KPMAhWG6xoKHf1jACs4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=%22metal-gaze%22%20%22post-metal%22&f=false

Whether that alone is sufficient, I don't know. Madreterra (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Sludge metal" in the other topics section

In my opinion, it is not necessary to find a source which explicitly states that post-metal has sludge metal origins, in order to put sludge metal genre into the "other topics" section (not stylistic origins part). If we look at bands such as Isis, Pelican, Neurosis or even Jesu, we can say their music mostly have sludge elements (which has been also stated in their own articles). It is that obvious. And even if we needed a citation to put a genre in the regarding part, why wasn't the "drone metal" genre sourced at first? The source necessity for such a detail just seems like an exaggeration (unless the claimed genre is controversial for the article, of course.) - Myxomatosis75 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative metal?

Does anyone see a connection between the two? this genre seems to be a fusion of certain alt/indie rock genres(like shoegazing and post-rock) with metal, while alternative metal originally referred to bands that fused alt rock/grunge with metal, before becoming a sort of blanket term for nu metal (due to the grunge influences in that genre), and two of the bands mentioned (Helmet and Tool) were, and still are classed as alternative metal. I call the big one bitey 10:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd be okay to add alternative metal to origins if there is a specific source about it. Otherwise, all other claims would be original research. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalgaze not Post-Metal?

All the bands labeled as Post-Metal here seem to be Sludge based, but what about the other Metalgaze bands? There is also alternative "dream metal" along the lines of Deftones, Blackengaze like Alcest, some Agalloch, and Cold Body Radiation, and the atmospheric djent like Cloudkicker and Chimp Spanner. Are these considered to be the same genre as Isis and Neurosis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.6.22.11 (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Agalloch's The Mantle is probably a major influence for the "blackgaze" movement, alongside Ulver's early work. The perception of what is post-metal indeed seems to have evolved outside of sludge metal origins. For example Metal Archives lists bands like Agalloch and Sólstafir under post-metal despite them not being linked with sludge metal in any way. Post-metal seems to have rather become a stylistic descriptor than being a genre in itself. Blizk2 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

this is a genre, but the article doesn't understand it

this is "original research", so, following my other recent additions, i'm going to just throw a section in here and let other people work it out. i'll point out, though, that i lived through the popularization of post-rock while living in ottawa (halfway between montreal and toronto) in the late 90s and early 00s.

while i'm not denying the existence of the whole sludge/grind thing, i don't think that post-metal (as we understand the term) is properly derived from it - or at least not entirely. the way i remember it is that post-metal was simply a heavier variant of post-rock. that is to say that a lot of kids into various types of hardcore listened to a bunch of gybe! records and got a bunch of ideas from it. then, the kids that were into post-rock picked up on it, largely as a reaction to the predictability of post-rock during the period. it was a breath of fresh air within the onset of a kind of monotony. post-metal consequently has a parallel development with a clade of electronic post-rock acts (65daysofstatic, god is an astronaut, pivot) that likewise developed out of a kind of boredom with the rules of post-rock.

what does that have to do with reinventing metal? it doesn't have anything to do with that at all. now, maybe there's a kind of thinking centered around the development of black and doom metal that does go through this process of reinvention. i don't really know a lot about black metal. if such a process happened, it was very distinct from what post-metal (as we know it) was.

the pelican quote in the article gets it right. what that means is that the stylistic origins section should include something about (post-)hardcore, and maybe remove shoegazing as redundant - we don't need both gaze and post-rock, as the gaze influences comes in *via* the post-rock one. you can note that post-rock lists shoegaze in it's origin section. it also explains why so many people are arguing about this: they're conflating two very different things that in reality had only a very small overlap in listenership. the first is the rise of a new kind of metal, from grind through to black. while that might conform best to the philosophical idea underlying "post-metal", nobody that listens to it thinks of it like that, and so the article strikes those people as silly. the second refers to a desire by hardcore kids to give symphonic post-rock a bit of a deeper kick, which was grasped on to mostly by hardcore kids and post-rock fans.

so, this page shouldn't be deleted, but it should be separated into these two different ideas, one derived from the merger of post-rock and hardcore and the other from the reinvention of metal. stated bluntly, "post-metal" as we know it is just "post rock with riffs", while the sludge and black streams of metal went through a reinvention that could more fairly be term "post metal". the colloquial usage does NOT conform to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

finally someone making sense... I feel like this article needs to be re-written to better communicate what the genre is 2A00:23C5:EDB1:1:80D3:63CC:7B28:CED3 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060825195406/http://www.callistochaos.com:80/bio.php to http://www.callistochaos.com/bio.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

userbox

Code	Result
{{Template:User Post-metal}}	This user enjoys post-metal.	Usage

Infobox image

@Mashaunix: So tell me, what does that image shows us the distinction between post-metal and other metal forms? Visual Art? Plenty of metal bands use it on their shows, and such eerie, forest-y background is a commom trope in metal in general. Including background imagery is a very commom practice on concerts overall, and this image in particular show us nothing distinctive. It's just wasted space and bytes. ABC paulista (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I have been to several Brutal Assault festivals including the latest, which spans the entire spectrum of metal, and very few bands use visual art projections. Usually they have a background banner with the band name or album art. Yes, eerie nature imagery is not limited to post-metal, but here it takes a strong precedence over gore, evil entities and other hyper-stylized negative imagery common to other metal. The art in this image is very abstract and dreamy, which is uncommon for metal and illustrates the links between musical and visual characteristic of post-metal. The image also illustrates the simple fashion style of the band members (short hair, blank t-shirt and jeans) as opposed to the bombastic fashion (long hair, striking black clothing) typical of most metal. Perhaps another image could emphasise these differences even more clearly. But you seem to be opposed to the use of images in infoboxes by default, which I frankly don't understand. It makes the infobox stand out visually and gives the reader a quick introduction to the aesthetic associated with a genre. When I reworked this article I put a great deal of care into its visual side, choosing a set of images which represent some of the genre's most significant figures while simultaneously illustrating the themes discussed in the text. This image of Broadrick and Jesu ties the infobox and introduction to the history and characteristics sections.--MASHAUNIX 15:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mashaunix: I Strongly disagree. First of all, eerie nature imagery is more associated with genres like Celtic metal, Folk metal, Pagan metal, Ambient black metal, funeral doom and bands like Agalloch, Suidakra, Wood of Ypres and such than Post-metal in general. Second, gore, evil entities and other hyper-stylized negative imagery is only commomly associated with punk-influenced metal genres, like Thrash metal, Sludge metal, Metalcore and others, other subgenres don't use such imagery frequently. Third, simpler fashion is commom for more maistream metal genres, and the usage of plain black is common in general. Fourth, the usage of background imagery is very commom in more maistream concerts to compliment the thematics of that specific songs.

And, you are wrong about images on metal infobox, quite the opposite, I,ve just added iamges for Medieval metal and Pirate metal and I'm going to do the same for other articles, even this one. I am against useless images, and the one being used here is clearly one of them. I personally don't care the amount of work you've put in here, but even if you put a great deal of care into its visual side to try to illustrate the themes discussed in the text, frankly you failed. The Neurosis image with the Eclipse is the only one who hints on something unique, the other ones are quite generic.ABC paulista (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, sorry for assuming, but your edit summary literally was "We don't use images on infoboxes in this project". You make some good points but I am not quite sure what it is that you think makes an image "useless" (which seems like a very hardline approach to the visual side of articles). Of course the aesthetic of post-metal is much more loose and hard to pin down than that of Medieval or Pirate metal which have a very clear focus, but a selection of images of key post-metal artists still illustrates the general aesthetic of the movement. None of the visual aspects are neccesarily limited to post-metal; artists from a variety of metal-associated genres may use dreamy visuals, abstract art projections, and short hair/plain clothes. But the shared emphasis on these aspects nevertheless does characterize post-metal, as each of them is simply much more common in this genre than in the general bulk of metal-related genres (where on the other hand, evil blackXred imagery, bombastic fashion and long hair is common). (By the way, Agalloch are discussed here as a key pioneer and WoY have also been associated with post-metal.) Just because the images used do not make this emphasis very obvious but merely indicate it to some extent does not mean they are useless in illustrating it in the infobox and beyond. There is always space for improvement, and I appreciate that you take a keen interest in this, but an "all or nothing" approach is IMO counter-productive.--MASHAUNIX 16:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mashaunix: If a genre doesn't have a very clear distinct focus, being more loose and hard to pin down than others, IMO it shouldn't have a image on the lead because none would be able to present the general imagery associated with the genre. The image inside a infobox is the single-most important one for the article, and since infoboxes' infos must be the most clear and concise possible, the imagery inside them also must be too. The iamge must be the most clear-cut and defining possible, with such characteristics being the most striking and plain obvious possible at first sight. All or nothing approach might be counter-productive in some occasions, but it is utterly necessary when trying to achieve standadization, and that's what I'm trying to do here: Standardize a quality pattern for these images. So, if a image does neither present all of such characteristics that define the genre, nor present them in a very clear and easy-to-see way, so it is useless for the infobox. The current image achieve nothing of both, so there must be more representative images somewhere. If not, it's better to leave the infobox without one.ABC paulista (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, @Mashaunix: Let's reach a consensus here. Should we include images on infoboxes or not? Every time I remove them, I'm reverted, but everytime I include them, I'm also reverted. Honestly, I'm fed up with all this inconsistencies. ABC paulista (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

As I stated in edit summaries, I don't believe it's appropriate to single out a single band and place them in the info box. It's an WP:UNDUE issue. I just spotchecked like 10 articles, including WP:GA and WP:FA articles, and none of them do it. Another 10 or so didn't have them until I reverted your additions today. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since you are both opposed to my propositions, though for two different reasons (A the image must be very clearly defining / B a single band should never be given the spotlight), I would say let's leave all images out of genre infoboxes UNTIL a wider consensus is achieved through discussion ideally at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force with a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and other relevant project pages. I will be going on holiday tomorrow and probably won't touch Wikipedia until June, but if you would be so kind, please include a copy of my core argument as follows in the discussion once it is started:--MASHAUNIX 10:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I argue that it would be beneficial if most music genre article infoboxes included images to give a quick introductory illustration of each genre's aesthetic. There is a "musical" and a "cultural" side to every genre and these two are closely linked; cultural context shapes sound and vice-versa. A genre's aesthetic manifests sonically, but it also manifests visually in art, clothes, objects, places etc. Therefore, an infobox image can give an immediate idea of the genre's orientation. For example, for a reader who has never been to a heavy metal event, its dark and bobmastic style should be immediately illustrated.

There have thus far come up two major arguments against this. User:ABC paulista has argued strongly that to serve its purpose, the image selected would have to present the most common visual characteristics of the genre in a very clear and striking way; it would have to be held to a very high standard. Such an image may be impossible to find or agree on, and in that case it is better to exclude it. I have come to be generally persuaded to this but I believe that the adequacy of an image as a general illustrator can be discussed on a case-to-case basis. We could use a standardised voting system wherein a user would nominate an image on the article's talk page, notify the relevant wikiprojects, and add the image IF support for it outweighs opposition.

Furthermore, multiple users have contended that selecting any single artist/event for the spotlight of the infobox is giving WP:undue weight to it over others. My counter-argument would be that the benefits of an adequate image as a quick illustration outweighs its potential detriment of over-emphasis. The image caption can be used to highlight the "illustratory" aspect of the image; rather than saying "X count among the most succesful heavy metal bands" it can go along the lines of "X showcasing typical heavy metal fashion at a 1980 concert". (Such use of caption can also help with resolving the first issue of clear illustration: images should be nominated and agreed on WITH captions.) The band and/or event selected should definitely count among the most prominent in the genre and this may be a point of endless debate. However, I think a simple standard to go by would be to choose a band that is mentioned in the lead. Such a mention already gives much prominence to several bands, and any reader who looks at the infobox is also likely to browse through the lead, so it will overall be clear to them that the image does not represent "the most significant metal band" etc. but merely one band which academic consensus places among the most significant and which is used for illustration. In the example of metal, I think Judas Priest would be a good fit.

All in all, consider that most genre articles already highlight some bands in the lead and others in images throughout the text. To choose an infobox image is no different from this; it's not a whole different level of "cherry-picking". I hold that the benefits of quick aesthetic introduction make it well worth the effort of carefully selecting an image which users can agree to be adequately illustrative and representative. Achieving such consensus may indeed prove difficult or impossible in some cases; but that does not mean we should completely rule it out as an option in ALL cases.--MASHAUNIX 10:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry @Mashaunix:, but one must sign its own comments, so only you can input your own opinion on this subject there. If you are interested, here's the link to this discussion on the project. ABC paulista (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice, I thought it would take longer to initiate.--MASHAUNIX 08:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Godflesh post-metal validity

I see some people here saying Godflesh doesn't belong in this article. I don't have a huge say in the race, but I did do 80% of the Godflesh article in a rewrite this year, and in doing so found many sources for it being important to post-metal. You can find a list here CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 20:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)