Talk:Taken by Force

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Hard Rock/Heavy Metal

To the person that keeps taking out "Heavy Metal" from the Genres, please ACTUALLY listen to the record, or Scorpions in general, and leave it as it is with both hard rock and heavy metal.

2602:306:8B83:4860:656D:373F:7F60:B06E (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me. In order to add a genre, you need reliable sources and a consensus. You have neither. Good record though, I've had it for over 20 years. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for one on any of the other Scorpions albums, why does this one need one if it sounds just like those? Where's the consistency here? A reliable source on the statement that you've had the record for over 20 years would be more helpful, as clearly you probably haven't HEARD it for 20 years. "Steamrock Fever" and "We'll Burn the Sky" are very heavy for their time, and "He's a Woman, She's a Man" is pure metal. There's no logic and you're just taking ownership of the thread.2602:306:8B83:4860:58D:190C:D4F2:3950 (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the stable version of the article. If something has been stable for a long time, you need consensus and sources to change it. Same as taking genres off. I play the album regularly and I've never considered any of it heavy metal, nor anything else Scorpions have ever done. They're just not heavy enough for metal, in my view. But there are different views on what constitutes heavy metal in different countries. In the US, for example, anything vaguely loud is counted as heavy metal, whereas in the UK and parts of Europe, it has to be very heavy before we start talking about metal. It says metal on the main Scorpions article because it's sourced and there's consensus for it. No ownership. All genres should be sourced anyway really. You say "We'll Burn the Sky" is very heavy for its time; compared to what? Elton John? It's just straight ahead 70s hard rock. Hardly Judas Priest or Budgie, is it? "Dissident Aggressor" is metal. "Panzer Division Destroyed" is metal. Check them out if you don't know them. "He's a Woman, She's a Man", that's a bit more like it, but one song doesn't make a metal album. Not for me, anyway. Warrant are listed on here as metal; in the UK that would just be a joke. If you can find a decent source for the album (not the band) being heavy metal, then add it (not AllMusic "styles" as Wikipedia doesn't use those). Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's NOT about article stability. Article stability has nothing at all to do with Wiki philosophy. It's about whether information can be sourced or not. Look, I've "owned" this album since a month or so after it was released in the U.S. I called it heavy metal, and so did everyone I know the year it came out. That said, I have to wonder how old you are if you don't think it is. I suspect the reason you do not consider it metal is because you were exposed to even heavier music before you heard this LP. I'm replying six years after your post, but I'm now 61 and was 55 when you made the post. Still, if I had seen your post the day it was made I would have refuted your claim that this isn't heavy metal. You are simply wrong. Period. IT IS. Thankfully by now it is categorized, and rightfully so, as Heavy Metal. Because it is.

Your claim that all one has to do is "listen to it," is flat out wrong. No one can, without proper research, simply "listen to" anything and "know" whether it is "Heavy Metal" or any other genre for that matter without proper research into how, when and why any genre came about to begin with. You are simply attempting to force your personal opinion into the argument, and that's simply NOT how Wiki works, nor should it be.

Article stability should NEVER have anything to do with whether anyone should or should not make bold changes to any Wikipedia article. Why? Because article stability has nothing whatsoever to do with article accuracy. I've been watching Wikipedia since the year it was born. MOST articles maintain stability simply because nobody is paying attention to them. And that has nothing whatever to do with whether an article is accurate.

To enforce my own argument, let me use a reference you yourself used here. You compared this LP to Judas Priest. Have you ever compared the early LP's from JP to Scorpions early LP's? If you haven't, I encourage you to do so. Some heavy metal documentaries refer to JP as the band that introduced the "look" of studded leather, motorcycles and leather boots to the metal scene, and they are most likely correct. However it is very important to mention that JP didn't "define" heavy metal with this "look." They simply introduced the look that, along with denim, became the "look" of heavy metal.

The fact is, "Heavy Metal" as a term, had already been in use long before this "look" came about. The truth is, most heavy metal bands were sporting a look during the late Sixties and early to mid Seventies closer to the look of Paul Revere and the Raiders, with frilly sleeves, tight pants and vests. Don't believe me? Look up old videos of Judas Priest, Scorpions, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Case closed.

Can I give you a source for this? No, not one that would pass Wiki muster. But you know what? I don't care. I lived it. I saw it happen. I don't need a damned source. I SAW IT HAPPEN. I lived with friends that used the term "Heavy Metal" before it became associated with the looks and sounds that the likes of you later came to use it and define it to your own strict standards that didn't include the true history behind the term.

Whether you like it or not, the true origins of the term "Heavy Metal" are rooted in frilly garb, long drawn out jams, JAZZ, and extremely sophisticated music. Period. Facts matter. Do some research man. 73.69.251.97 (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, for instance about how "article stability" isn't the best argument here. The best argument would be listing the available sources, then arguing about how to summarize them for the reader. I'm sure there's some as-yet-undigitized stuff that was printed in contemporary reviews, including German-language reviews, that would help us sort the genre, but what I can find online is generally describing the album as hard rock and heavy metal, which is what you are arguing for. This review says the album is "heavy metal meets Jimi Hendrix" and that it shows the band in hard rock form "with a European flair." There are probably other reviews like this. Binksternet (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]