Talk:New wave of American heavy metal

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metal 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 United States: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music (assessed as Low-importance). Music/Music genres task force C‑class article's assessment and to help us improve the article as we push to 1.0.Regional and national musicWikipedia:WikiProject Regional and national musicTemplate:WikiProject Regional and national musicRegional and national music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I felt I should note my removal of FFDP from the list. The main man, vocalist/guitarist, songwriter Zoltan Bathory is not American, and therefore should not be considered part of an "American" movement within the genre. I will also remove other non-American bands. Think about it, you never saw Anvil considered NWOBHM even though they presaged Thrash just like their British counterparts, because they are not british. While FFDP has a sound which definitely has similarities and influence from NWOAHM bands, they are not American, and therefore not actually part of the movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.16.233 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of them are American, correct? Then FFDP stay. The nationality of one member doesn't decide the nationality of the band. --81.103.117.82 (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly feel that Korn, Disturbed and Otep should be removed from that list, and added to the "shitty 90's Nu Metal" list. Really? Korn? I think there should be a mandatory palm muting rate limit to keep nu metal bands out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.246.146 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read some of the debating here, and I want to help. NWOAHM? Here's what it is, in layman's terms, according to printed sources I've acquired at my local Borders just last week:

• Complex riffs reminiscent of the NWOBHM. This is where the term NWOAHM in and of itself originates from: the fact the guitar riffing is actually effortful and not just slamming/breakdown stylings. It reverts back to that shred-style, thought-out production value, when late 90s-2000 "nu-metal" began throwing that out with constant chords.
• Guitar solos are back, if not just clever sting-picking passages for a bridge, as opposed to simple repetitive chords or single-fret breakdowns.
• The vocals are brutal but more decipherable than, say, death metal growls. They have that loud, American boot camp infliction. Throaty, tough guy essence. You can see that in the headlining bands here. There is some singing, although not often.
• Traditional instrumentation set-up, i.e. no keyboards or turn-tables. Guitars and drums only. This also is how it keeps its tie-in with the "hardcore punk" backdrop: you are using the bare bones essentials.
• Urban-modern look. Hoodies, jean chains, camouflage patterns, t-shirts, black wristbands, etc. That type of shit. No overtly-leather clad or spiky accessories, really (studded, maybe). And really, who cares too much about defining a look... I'm only making the point to help differentiate in comparison to say, black metal, where face paint and spikes are often a trait.
• And for what it's worth: interpersonal/social angst topics in lyrics. These guys aren't singing about orcs or walking corpses, for example (or who knows, maybe sometimes, as a concept, but it's not their overall gig). This is probably a controversial bullet, but I'm just trying to add some color to these shades of gray for you.

Not much more I can say besides that. Some of the recently posted sources should help clarify. This IS a legitimate genre, even if it started out questionable in authenticity. Then again, which genre hasn't? Enough texts and characteristics are shared to backup NWOAHM as an actual descriptor. The REAL issue, however, is regarding its strength as a STAND ALONE descriptor. From what I gather, a band is never "NWOAHM" on its own. Other titles befall bands individually, like "thrash" or "melodic" this or that. So that probably hurts the strength of this genre title in some people's eyes, but it doesn't invalidate it entirely. Also, there's a questionable chronological factor: I get that it was early 1990s in origin, but was the Wave necessarily BIRTHED then, or were the seeds only planted then (ie NWOBHM seeds planted in early 70s) and then the wave was established when this name came about, early 2000s? That's the only real source of contention here. 72.219.135.50 (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page claims that bands Panter and Machine Head did not draw from blues influence, but instead entirely from Thrash and Hardcore. This is wrong; both bands draw heavily from early metal bands such as Sabbath. Songs such as Cowboys from Hell, Walk, 5 minutes Alone (Pantera), Take My Scars (Machine Head), Refuse/Resist (Sepultura), The Law (Exhorder) and many more Power Groove songs draw massively from blues. That’s not to say Thrash/Hardcore didn’t play a huge part in Groove Metal, but bluesy metal contributed an awful lot.

Infact the whole idea of Groove Metal is to mix the blues sound that was lost during NWOBHM with Slayer and Metallica-esq thrash. Not to mention bands listed as NWOAMHM like Mastodon and Down basing aspects of their respective sounds on Blues riffing and Blues technique.

I'm not saying I'm against the idea of the movement, but the information you have for the basis of the movement is straight up wrong.

As far as I can see, the only criteria for these bands to be NWOAHM is that they have to be American. Does this mean all american metal bands are part of this genre? Maybe there are some musical characteristics that could be included, or a description of what makes these bands part of this so-called wave, other than their nationality and their fame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.75.38 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Strapping young lad aren't even from USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.120.194 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is My Bloody Valentine. They are from Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.251.63 (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is NWoAHM a legitimate, accurate, and useful term in musical discussion? The three links which act as reference for its existence define it as three different things. "Post-grunge" says one. "Glam metal" another. And whereas one says it breaks away from the blues-roots of trad metal, another goes on to say it was heavily influenced by NWoBHM - one of THE most blues-orientated forms of heavy metal.

My problem is that the term NWOAHM appears to be attached to any US band from a certain era (and as a fan of many of these bands at the time - much to my shame - I can vouch that absolutely no-one in the media or otherwise referred to the bands of the 1990s as "NWoAHM"). It looks like a rebranding and repackaging of the old "nu-metal" formula after the label "nu-metal" became a pejorative term.

If there is no meaningful, collective identity of this contrived collective group of bands, then changing the article to cover the book of the same name would seem like the most informative way to go - you could even have a section in that article which details the current information and stating that since its publication, it has influenced some people to try and identify a selection of bands who represent the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal". I do not think that wiki should be in the business of retro-actively creating non-existant social groups and artistic movements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.7.184 (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the list of bands that supposedly make up NWOAHM... For the most part, these bands really have nothing in common. Come on, comparing the legendary Pantera to mediocre wannabes like Avenged Sevenfold and Trivium? I think your so-called NWOAHM is nothing more than a list of metal bands that are relatively popular today. If I'm wrong about this, then please correct me, but I don't see why this article really even needs to exist. 68.217.38.21 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a list of bands that bring today's metal into new directions (and also mainstream), (as NWOBHM did in late 70s and early 80s) + the history of how it happened. I am not the one who says that Pantera (among others) started this movement, in which is Trivium now one of the most notable bands. I am just reporting what sources say. It needs to exist because it is

notable

.

You said "I think your so-called NWOAHM is nothing more than a list of metal bands that are relatively popular today." At first it is not mine NWOAHM (you can expand it). And I really do not know how to help you if you don't like the NWOAHM. Lots of people don't like it. Lots of people don't like lots of things. But wikipedia wants to be

neutral.--  LYKANTROP  18:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it does need to exist but you're right, some bands shouldn't be on there. Some of them are just American Metal bands that started in the 90's on up but a lot of them do sound alike and don't fit well into any other genre and it's good that there's an article about this. -Snook666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snook666 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the first paragraph. This has to the be the worst compilation of bands that supposedly share a musical lineage I have ever seen. I mean the worst of the worst. It's not simply about finding bands that "sound" alike (not that these bands do, either). But what about noting commonalities in aesthetics, song structures, and other artistic affinities? Within a framework such as this we can begin to think about bands like ISIS, mastodon, neurosis, godflesh, jesu, and even the mars volta as occupying a similar musical/artistic space. Bands such as Trivium, As I Lay Dying, and Lamb of God simply do not fit this category. This is ultimately the point of something like Wikipedia: to focus on creating justifiable definitions and categories. I just can't see any justification in lumping mastodon, trivium, avenged sevenfold, and pantera together in the same category. They are separated not only by periodization (eras, not merely years), but also by the movements they themselves have attached to. Perhaps a "New Wave..." is in order, as the second paragraph suggests. But why constitute it as a single, monolithic category? I firmly, firmly believe that the so-called "New Wave..." should be split into various factions that further delineate the varying approaches of the bands the comprise this "New Wave." Metal, as a genre, is incredible in the way it attacks music. We should celebrate and protect this diversity, not obscure it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.32 (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No we should not. It would be an

original research.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would agree that the list is retarded and meaningless. Where are High on Fire/Sleep and Death? With all these bands looking back to Death as the "founders of death metal" nowadays it really doesn't make much sense to leave them and some of the other bands out of Florida off this list. High on Fire should be on this list too! If not one of the most popular bands (but then again, how many bands on this list really are?), they were hugely influential. Mastodon formed at a High on Fire show!--24.19.171.110 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im taking slipknot off of the list here. Slipknot is nu metal, being more similar to korn or SOAD than Trivium of Killswitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.118.2 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion results in that many are misunderstanding this as a 'genre' rather than a 'movement'. The NWOBHM was a movement consisting of many genres (for example, Motorhead and Iron Maiden do not sound alike at all). The NWOAHM is similarily a movement represented by bands that span all genres of metal, with the only stipulations being: they are truly metal (sorry, Rage Against the Machine, as good as they are, don't belong on this list), they are American, and they are rivaling the rest of mainstream music with record sales and ticket sales.Dude reino (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a real thing. This is stupid and I believe the idea of one author, not an agreed upon consensus from either metal critics or fans. This page should be deleted, this concept is ridiculous; there was never a lull in American metal which would precipitate a "new wave." Also there are a lot of bands grouped together in here who's merit as being "metal" in genre are suspect. This whole page is dubious. §174.17.74.209 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NWOAHM is an umbrella term for the extreme metal movement that happened in the states, that originally was influenced by the NWOBHM. In other words:

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal (Speed Metal meets Punk) inspired a movement in the states which was more dark (Thrash Metal). Thrash Metal is the father of most extreme styles of metal (except Doom, which is older than all of them) But, I digress, American Thrash Metal gave birth to several subgenres, and influenced the formation of others, including: Black Metal, Death Metal, Metalcore, Post Thrash/Groove Metal and several others. Had it not been for the NWOAHM, extreme metal as we know it wouldn't exist today, as it took inspiration from the original "extreme" style of metal, the New Wave of British Heavy Metal bands. Thrash had its beginnings in the early 80's, thats right around when this "Extreme" Metal phase began, experimentation with noise, chromatics, beat syncopations, el diabolus en musica, wolf notes, basically anything that sounded scary, angry, or creepy, off the wall, crazy, unorthodox, etc was emphasized with this period of music, and its still going on today. If you noticed: In 1982, you basically had 2 camps to choose from in the USA. Thrash or Glam. But later on, throughout the next few years expanding onto the next 2 decades, several several several Heavy Metal subgenres came out. And the more that came out, the darker, heavier, and was beginning to shape heavy metal into a darker shade of black, if I'm making sense. In 1982 you didn't have "Death Metal" - but by 1988 if you hadn't heard of it you weren't "in the know" in heavy metal inner circles. It was a big movement in the states and had it not happened, had not thrash metal inspired these other extreme bands in such a quick period of time, heavy metal wouldn't be the same. Sure, Metalcore gets lumped in there, but it's not the only genre associated with this movement. Its an umbrella term meaning the entire movement (which is still going on to this day). It just back in the day was used as a joke term between some thrash metal bands but eventually got adopted by Metalcore bands who decided to wear it as their banner. But it spreads out further than that. Its the whole movement. Its several genres that spawned from mostly Thrash. DarrelClemmons (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Lyknatrop. This is ridiculous. You're supporting him and yet you don't see that he's saying something different than you. None of his sources say anything about thrash metal or metal earlier than the 90's. Mostly metalcore. Lyknatrop isn't even trying to say that thrash metal bands or bands in the 80's were NWOAHM. As far as he's concerned NWOAHM is from the mid 90's onward. So idk why you're supporting him. And no sources support what you're saying, either. There's only a handful of real critics who even talk about NWOAHM like it's real and as far as those few people are concerned what you're saying is wrong and NWOAHM is basically just metalcore bands and bands from the mid 90's onward. Which is crap. Actually what you're saying is more accurate than Lyknatrop, though stil wrong, however the sources don't support anything you're saying but they DO support Lyknatrop, though it's only a few sources and they're total crap. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blizzard Beast for the compliment on my accuracy above, which I am glad you see it at least half way as I do, as for Lykantrop, I believe he means well too. Its just something that needs more sources, because me, personally, I don't think its "metalcore and metalcore alone" I personally relate it to the American Thrash movement, which spawned all these other genres to begin with. Its the parent of all these newer sub-genres. Edit: one huge thing that irks me is the fact that so many people think that the Bay Area Thrash scene was IT as far as the scene/movement went, although that was a big influence on Metalm it spanned throughout the ENTIRE U.S.A. (e.g. prominent regional scenes/movements that come to mind specifically within the USA are:

• San Fransisco Bay/West Coast Thrash (pretty much the father of it all)
• North East/New York/New Jersey Thrash (the second in line, later to begin meshing with Hardcore, start of Hardcore-Heavy Metal/early Metalcore)
• Southern Thrash (Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia)

(third down the line, late 80's, inspired by the Hardcore-Heavy Metal movement, pretty much spawned Groove Metal & Post Thrash)

• Florida Thrash (seperate from Southern Thrash as Florida's Thrash evolved mostly into Death Metal)

DarrelClemmons (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change some stuff in this article. Since its debatable when it truly happened, I was wondering if I could remove the "mid 90's" part of this article, as I believe it started long before that. DarrelClemmons (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are welcome to expand the article. To prevent unnecessary mistakes, read

]

I might nominate this article for deletion, and it'll probably (hopefully) go through. I agree with you DarrelClemmons partly. IF there was a metal American movement, it was the thrash metal (and maybe glam metal) in the eighties, PERIOD. But what you both need to realize is there's no sources supporting that theory. Only a FEW critics talk about a "New Wave of American Heavy Metal," and they're not referring to thrash or shit from the eighties but newer bands (all metalcore, too). I'm not saying there isn't or hasn't been an American metal movement. Hell, there's metal "movements" all over the world. But there's no such thing as the "New Wave of American Heavy Metal." You both need to read what I recently wrote on the metalcore talk page. Follow my logic. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this

1

“

It still doesn't exist. It's pure neologism. Only a handful of critics have even mentioned it. Then there's the fact that Lykantrop hasn't been able to prove one huge thing. All the bands that he has reliable sources for as being part of this "NWOAHM" are metalcore, so it's the same thing. The one band he found a reliable source for as being part of this "NWOAHM" that was NOT metalcore was Mastodon. And guess what? In that same source it compares Mastodon's music to metalcore. Get it through your heads. NWOAHM does not exist. I understand that there are some people who REALLY want it to exist, due to patriotism and the fact that so many other countries have had metal movements. So some patriotic Americans want the same thing, as if to say, "Hey, you're not the only ones...American has a metal movement, too." But the thing is...we don't. IF (big if), if there ever was an American heavy metal movement, it was in the eighties. I mean, what are you people thinking? America had WAY WAY WAY more popular metal bands in the 80's (a good many of them that were ACTUALLY metal, too, and not punk crap like you guys suggest). Anyone can call something a movement. I mean, didn't America have a nu metal movment?? For a few years it was really popular. How come we don't call that a movement? Anyways, like I said, there is no American metal movement, and if there ever was, it was in the 80's with the likes of Slayer, Exodus, Metallica, Megadeth and all those other thrash bands and possibly glam bands. I mean, come on! In America, during the 80's there was a TON of popular thrash bands, yes? Well how many bands are in this "NWOAHM"??? A paltry FEW compared to how many thrash bands there were. I'm not even talking about how many glam metal bands there were. My point is, you have THIRTY TWO bands that you say were in the NWOAHM, right? Now compare that to the hundreds of popular glam and thrash metal bands during the 80's. Movement, my ass. It's like comparing a leaf to a whole tree. A goldfish to a shark. A shot glass to a pitcher. A piece of hay to hay bale. A sink to a fire hose. A scooter to a tank. You get my drift??? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

”

2

100% of your speech is an

]

3

It is not original research. It's called logic. Follow the logic. If you actually read what I say then you would know that NWOAHM is total crap. Those bands you listed, besides Mastodon all have metalcore elements (and it's easy to find sources for that) and the only source you have for most of those is that one book written by some dude that does not know what he is talking about. It's all still -core, which means it's related to metalcore. Deathcore is even a subgenre of metalcore. Well you had better care. It's not only a neologism but I would go so far as to call it a protologism. This "NWOAHM" does not exist and I'm sick of it being on wikipedia and giving people misinformation who don't know any better. They just take it all in. Feeding them lies just like the media does at time and they just eat it all up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4

You argument "It's called logic." explains clearly that you apply original research and do not know about it. Do not bother - it is a common mistake. I'll explain it: Cited from

WP:OR

: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." What you call "logic" is your "unpublished idea", about which you think it is logic. You used your logic to figure out something new (=unpublished). Unless you can provide enough reliable sources, it is an original research.

I must also repeat myslef that according to

WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms

, NWOAHM article can stay as it is even if it would be a neologism. Thanks.

The argument about misinformation is your opinion. That breaks

WP:POV. Thanks.--  LYKANTROP  10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

5

I've read the arguments above, and yet, I'm still confused. I never even heard of "NWOAHM" (and I'm American!) until I saw it on some random bands' page, and decided to follow the link. Aside from the vast majority of these bands being metalcore in some way, they really have nothing in common. Quite unlike NWOBHM, where Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and the like had similar sounds and could obviously be grouped together. In this case, couldn't we just rename metalcore "NWOAHM?"

The majority of bands on this list are also what regular people today would think of first when somebody asks them, "Hey, what's a metal band?" Perhaps we have NWOAHM confused with being either popular in the mainstream, Platinum sellers, or just plain recognizable by people who don't even like metal (all three of these describe Slipknot).

Pantera hasn't released any new studio albums in almost a decade (and they kinda can't now). How can they be a part of this movement? I'm really confused about that.

Call it POV, call it what you will, but I support the deletion of this page. Festering Rat Corpse (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I accept it as a self-disproved comment.--  LYKANTROP  18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of several bands from the list, if you want to listen; Atreyu, As I Lay Dying, Between the Buried and Me, and Killswitch Engage. As stated before, the bands listed lack a unifying sound (at all). If the page could be cleaned up, then it might be worth saving, but as also stated before, the whole term is based off of one guy's book, and it's not a ubiquitous term or a defining term at all, so deletion would also be acceptable. --George The Man (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Who says that the listed bands should have "unifying sound"? They all have totally different sound. Where did you read something about "unifying sound"? Sources are talking about "alternative metal, emocore, hardcore, math metal, metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands." and "crossing the spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between." Why should that be "unifying sound"? This is not a musical genre.

2. The article has 19 sources. 1 is the book, 2 are about the book. The rest is totally independent and includes references from sources such as

Decibel Magazine, PopMatters or Stylus Magazine (recommended by Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums) and also several long articles about the term such as this this and this

and also a whole book.

3. According to which policy would the deletion be acceptable?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 08:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel Magazine is a pretty noteworthy heavy metal magazine, just in case anyone slams you for that citation. I've seen them use the phrase quite a bit over the past 5 years or so. DarrelClemmons (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going for a movement, then the underlying factors leading to the definition of the movement must be considered. Calling Atreyu and Killswitch Engage "Heavy Metal" under this moniker is almost blasphemous to the real influential bands that bred the new wave of metal (which, regardless of what anyone says, is a new wave...Sacrament at #8 sure as hell isn't nothing), such as The Big Four of the 80s, Pantera, and Cannibal Corpse. Please remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.191.153 (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE LISTEN - New wave of american heavy metal was in the 80's lead by thrash greats. it was then called Bay area scene. You are all getting confussed with the past. What you have described in the article is metal core and nu-metal (partly) then going in to death metal and thrash. This is all metalcore. Read, learn, listen...Jesus americans....can't deal with the fact that europe made a genre for the first time since 1975! METALFREAK04 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding support for the deletion of this page. It's basically a list of some guys favourite bands. Useless self indulgence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zordon666 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it necessary to list all the albums by the bands in that list of NWOAHM artists bit? I don't know about the others (I'm not so familiar with those bands, and too lazy to check) but in the cases of Killswitch Engage and Trivium, you've listed all of their albums; whereas I thought the drop-down section was to point out which specific albums of theirs are NWOAHM as opposed to the ones that arn't. Again, I don't know about all the other bands, but we may as well remove the album list for KSE and Trivium. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I did that, I used the same method as it is in

NWOBHM. I've checked the sources and marked blue and bold the most important bands (as in NWOBHM). And I also included the studio albums for them. It is actually hard to find out which album is important for NWOAHM and which not. It was ment to pick out the bands. The albums were just a detail of the single bands. Some of the sources say that KSE and Trivium are important for NWOAHM, so I just marked them. It is actually a good idea to mark the most notable NWOAHM albums in general (independently on the band). If you can find some sources, which say that some concrete albums by KSE and Trivium are specially notable, you can do that. I am in favour of that. That would make the list even more informative... That is just good idea, but do we have enough sources? We can use the reviews of the albums for example...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, its just that I got the impression from listing the albums of certain bands that only the select albums were NWOAHM, whereas the others weren't - which is why I was confused when all of KSE's and Trivium's albums were listed; so I think that needs a tiny bit of clarification in the article.
Apart from that, I don't have any major problems - although I'd say yes, it does require as many sources as possible: although I'm not so much for deleting this article as other people, I'm not really much for keeping it either; I've very much on the fence, so I'd recommend that as many sources be provided justifying the article's existence as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you very well, but I do not want to say my real opinion about the article (and I also did not yet). I keep my opinion totally distanced all the time; I just reported what the collected sources say. At this moment, I do not really see any reason why the article could be deleted. There is just no policy that would be a reason for the deletion. Some sources about the NWOAHM are really long articles (3 or 4), so it also would be really easy to make it up to a GA. Navnlos tried to figure out some arguments, but they were all disproved. I mean, what do you think would be a reason for a deletion?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, I didn't mean anything by it; it's just that there's been a lot of discussion about whether this article should be deleted or not. On one hand, I do agree with Nav to an extent, as originally I did see it to defy

WP:NEO, but the more you've defended and sourced the article, the more I'm not so conviced it deserves deletion - but to ensure it doesn't get an AfD, I'd still continue to give it as much sourcing as possible :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

+++++++++++

I would also argue for deletion of this pseudo-genre. NWOAHM is not a coherent definition of a type of music and the argument could just as easily be made that thrash and stoner and doom metal bands from the 90's in the US were at least as influential as any listed here. From the NWOAHM Wiki article, "The movement encompasses a number of different styles including alternative metal, sub-Gothique emocore, hardcore, progressive metal, mathcore, melodic death metal, metalcore, neo-thrash and screamo bands.[1][2][4][3][6]."

In other words, it is all things to all people and is really not a defining genre in the slightest. 71.130.107.219 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) ++++++++++[reply]

Well, yeah. The wikipedia NWOAHM article "is really not a defining genre in the slightest". That is true. NWOAHM is not a genre. Nobody (and also not the article) have ever said that NWOAHM is a genre. So it also does not describe any genre, cause it is not one.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"not a defining genre in the slightest" - the same thing could be said about extreme metal. Want that deleted, as well? ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme metal is an umbrella term that covers sub-genres. Not comparable to a movement in music. NWOAHM is a supposed movement that's surprisingly vague, considering that metal has allways had a following and a "movement" in America, ever since it's creation by the likes of Black Sabbath (not American). I would argue that as home-grown metal in America (I think) started in the 70's, and the 80's, that a definable movement would be found then. What about metal in Scandanavia? Far more innovative in comparison to much of the American counterparts, much of which is metalcore garbage, save a few, and yet I never heard of a Europe metal movement. I support the deletion of this article when it's proposed. JackorKnave (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that just your own opinion, or do you have some acceptable arguments?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it's my opinion that metalcore, despite it's origins, is watered down death metal. It doesn't appeal to me, I just don't like it and I never will. That aside, I shouldn't have to bother providing arguements for metal bands from the late 70s onwards, also, extreme metal cannot be compared to a movement in metal. Aalso, It's common knowledge among most metalheads that Scandanavia has pioneered various genres and sub-genres of metal, most notably melodic death metal and black metal. Notice, however, that I am in know way stating that it is a movement. Also, to reiterate: Extreme metal is an umbrella term that covers sub-genres in metal. The NWOAHM is an umbrealla term which, from what I see, covers bands (mostly metalcore)from the late 90's to this day. I'd rather not get into an arguement, but I really don't see what makes these bands so special, in comparison to bands from the 80's to 90's? Not being offensive Lykanthrope, but please explain what seperates these (primarily) metalcore bands from any of the American thrash metal, death metal, etc bands from that era, in terms of importance to metal, in such a way as to be defined as a "Movement", especially consiodering that metalcore has existed for such a long time anyway. JackorKnave (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to clear, I am not attacking you Lykanthrope, I don't like to clash with people who only have good intentions. I've given my opinion on the article and stated what I at least believe to be facts elsewhere.JackorKnave (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear that you usually do not use such a kind of arguments to edit articles :)

NWOAHM, well, I do not intend to express my own opinion about that thing in general. What I understood from that sources in the article is that metal went very much to the mainstream in the last couple of years. It became much more accepted by the public, there are many more metalheads, many more bands, giant metal festivals and really "huge" (very successful) bands, etc. This is (in my opinion) true. Metal goes just total mainstream. Some music journalists call it "burgeoning metal movement" or "burgeoning scene", lots of them decided to call it NWOAHM. The same thing happened in late 70s and early 80s in the UK. Metal spread and became just totally mainstream, many new bands + fans = NWOBHM. That is the same story.

Metalcore is very popular metal-genre in the last few years compared to the others (pure thrash /death /prog) that is why many of the bands are involved in metalcore. But metal is still not only metalcore and that is why it is called NWOAHeavyMetal.

The Scandinavian metal: for example Gothenburg metal. MeloDeath is sometimes called Gothenburg metal because several bands from Gothenburg popularized the genre. This is a similar thing, but it is smaller (one city), and limited to one genre (MeloDeath). NWOAHM is whole US and every metal subgenre. There are things like Norwegian black metal. That is still one genre and one relatively small country. Yes, there could be an article about Norwegian black metal scene or Finnish melodeath scene, but do you find enough sources? Does anybody try to find them? I just found couple of pretty good sources about the US scene and it was not difficult, because the US scene is an extremely huge scene (huge country)... I do not think that it is an umbrella term. Why? How? It is just the name of today's US heavy metal scene, a term that music critics use to describe today's US metal secene.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this:
"The movement has its origins in a group of post-grunge acts such as Pantera, Biohazard, Slipknot and Machine Head...."
Who's the ignoramus who thinks those bands are post-grunge?
This is something that needs to be addressed.

It does not mean the genre post-grunge. Those bands formed shortly after the grunge era = post-grunge. Post- = after. Yes, it is confusing. You can formulate it better if you want.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol Pantera, Biohazard and Machine Head post grunge because they "...formed shortly after the grunge era...", Pantera formed in 1981, Biohazard in 1987 and Machine Head in 1991 and grunge ended in the mid 90's!? This page is a joke. 101.184.128.7 (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a lot of complaints about not enough sources. Unfortunately, the writer of this page went to the other extreme and included multi-line, clearly biased quotes that take up the majority of the text. I was reading the article (having been linked from

) and I was confused at first by the apparent bias towards the 'innovations' of NWOAHM. It was only after I reread the paragraph that I realised the entire paragraph was made up of 2 quotes. Hence the tag.

As far as the argument goes:

It's not really that uncommon to see bands labeled as multiple things, and often critics and fans label bands things very different than the band itself would claim its category. No, I don't have sources for that, but ask anyone who tries to keep track of genres.

That being said: I agree that most of these bands seem to be metalcore or at least have metalcore elements. No, I've not listened to all of them, but most of the shaded bands I've listened to, and I've listened to a good number of the metalcore bands. What's more, after reading the metalcore page, you can really apply most of the trends to the bands: heavy, downtuned guitars (who doesn't have those?), a lot of repetition and chord transfers (OK, not listed, but think about it), screamed vocals. Because of that, I support this page being merged into metalcore.

To address some of the other things said: Lykantrop seems to have a good point that these bands have changed the sound of metal, but I think at this point they've spawned a new genre: metalcore. I agree, some genres are defined by being innovative (see

), but they still have a unifying sound. You wouldn't call any of these band prog metal because they're pushing the boundaries of metal, prog metal typically has opratic or symphonic elements, occasionally has power-metal like riffs and song structure. This NWOAHM doesn't. And until such time as the boundary-pusher's sound becomes its own genre, it's lumped with other bands that sound similar. Hence, metalcore.

Micaelus (talk)

There is one thing to understand. NWOAHM is not a genre, the article does not say it is a genre and nobody here has ever said that it is a genre. There is no point why those bands should have anything like "a unifying sound". They do not have it. They have totally different sound. And the article also lists all the genres. NWOAHM is a term, which is used by music critics to describe today's American metal scene. Not any genre or something. It describes the whole American metal scene, which maybe "spawned a new genre: metalcore", but that does not make them being "metalcore".

Nobody is talking about a genre. It is a regional scene. And naming it as the critics do (=NWOAHM) is just following

original research

).

Except for that, there are even articles such as

WP:good article about NWOAHM very easily.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 07:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No need for long speel defence arguments to a complaint which said basically nil. The tag was wrong. This article is not written in a style any different that most science/history articles of the same size. It was a misuse of a template and it has been removed. Libs (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is complete rubbish. Almost all of these bands are metalcore, and are not even metal. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! how many sockpuppets do you have? Libs (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make something clear, I'm not accusing Lykantrop or saying "NWOAM is junk and I'm not going to listen to you", I'm trying to promote discussion. The tone you're taking seems to be pretty antagonistic. Lets go through the points raised.

1: NWAHM is a genre, not a scene. To tell the truth, I wasn't aware there was a difference. I take it you use genre to denote a unified sound like death metal having fast, rhythmic guitars and harsh vocals often about death, etc. Scene, on the other hand, you seem to use to just talk about a bunch of bands from the same area coming to prominence all at once. If that's the case, then this article should be no more than a footnote in a bigger article. The Florida heavy metal scene is widely known and acknowledged to be influential, but it gets no more than a mention in Heavy_metal_music#Death_metal - and what's more, it's in one section - death metal - because most of it is death metal or at least descended from it. What's more, look at the sources. Many of them seem (eg. reference 2) to regard NWOAM as a genre, which would again place it as an evolution of the metalcore genre.

2: The sources. Has anyone looked at them? Source 1 is basically a news post saying that a book that supports the NWOAHM scene came out. It doesn't support the scene itself. The link you posted above to prove that critics agree there's a NWOAM scene has two problems: one, it doesn't support that the scene exists. He says it's a metalcore movement with innovation and influences from things like punk: "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement ... the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk" This statement indicates the critic would support the article being merged with metalcore (eg: have a subsection under metalcore about its progressive element dubbed NWOAM). Two, even if you don't agree with my interpretation of the quote, you still can't use the critic since the only mention of the words "New Wave of" is in that parenthetical statement in which he says "dubbed by some wise-asses". Not only does he not support the decision, but the mention of NWOAM is with weasel words (see

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words

). But there's even more wrong with the sources: Source 2 says that the NWOAM scene is bogus. "I for one would state that those bands [NWOAM] are indeed pioneers to an extent simply because that particular style of music hasn't been established in the United States until now. Europe has been doing this sort of thing for years, which is one of the reasons I'm writing this article to begin with." Again, not supporting this article. Reference 2 (maxxxisgod) is the personal post of some guy about some bands he likes. Similar things can be found throughout most of the sources. At the very least, I think there needs to be more of a contrary voice in the article - something to the effect of that many doubt it's an actual scene/genre and it's in its infancy after spawning from metalcore.

3: about Libs's complaint, you're right, the main point of the Discussion post, that the article is a quotefarm, had little justification IN the actual post. It pretty much just mentioned that I did it. However, I disagree with the removal of the tag. It may be true that many other Start-quality articles are comprised mainly of quotes, but that doesn't mean that they SHOULD be in a quality article. An encyclopedia isn't simply a listing of references (although that's one of the functions), it's primarily a synthesis of them. When most of the text isn't even encyclopedia text but rather the opinions of sources, the article fails to be encyclopedic. Count up the number of lines in quotes an not in quotes. There's 3 lines of original synthesis in the summary and about 2 in the History section (which should be the meat of the article). The rest is about 5 lines of quotes. The exact numbers aren't important, the point is that the preponderance of text is in quotations. That definitely qualifies it for the Quotefarm template. In fact, that's what the quotefarm template is designed to designate! Look at the text: "This contains too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry." Don't you think nearly double the amount of encyclopedia text in the meat of the article is too much, or even the same amount as encyclopedia text if you count the summary is too much?

I'll refrain from re-tagging the article until I've heard some discussion. Micaelus (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that "XXMurderSoulXx" certainly isn't a sockpuppet of mine. Look at my writing style. Look at his. I use dialog, he uses demagogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micaelus (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the point 1: Your statement "NWOAHM is a genre, not a scene" can hardly be sourced. NWOAHM as an American heavy metal scene/movement has many sources. You can't use "Florida scene without its own article" as an argument. Florida scene can have an article as well. Is that my problem that nobody did that article? In the early days of Wikipedia, death metal was only a section in heavy metal article. And when somebody did an article about thrash metal, was there a point to delete (or fuse) the thrash metal just because death metal had no article? You can make an article about Florida death metal scene if you find enough sources. If you do not know whether something deserves its own article, you can read it very clearly on WP:Notability. But be sure that today's American heavy metal scene has very big commercial and mainstream success, publicity and worldwide attention. Also more than Florida's death metal. And this is decisive.

This article simply is notable = it can have article per wikipedia policies. You can't remove it just because other topics (which are also notable for its own article) do not have an article.

Answer to the point 2:I do not understand why do you pick up 1 source and say "It doesn't support the scene itself." Which policy says that every single source in every single article must support the main topic itself? Most of the sources on wikipedia are small pieces of infrmation which build up the articles. Why should that exact source support the scene? You can safe your time and not use useless such arguments.

This source I posted above does support the movement. You understood it wrong; let me explain it:

The source: After explaining that so called "burgeoning metal movement" includes all those genres and bands I cited above (and much more), he says: "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement, hybrid of muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive tendencies,(this is one thing: a metalcore movement) the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene (dubbed by some wise-asses "The New Wave of American Metal") has been, ironically, punk."(this is another thing. The burgeoning scene, which was influenced ironically by punk. Ironically because the metalcore movement is influenced by punk too - that is the irony.

While LOG spread their metalcore movement, the biggest influence of the burgeoning scene ((the scene with all the genres he talks about above) dubbed as NWOAHM) has been, ironically, punk. He clearly separates those two movements/scenes.

He agrees with the scene. The whole article is about the scene. And he describes the huge diversity of the scene. He only disagrees with calling it NWOAHM. He just calls it "the burgeoning scene" But that is obviously his own opinion:

WP:POV

.

Again, I am not saying that the article is a well written article (and I do not care which template do you put on top of it). The article is notable, that means it can have its own article. It includes very good sources. Somebody can pick them up and make the article better. To try to ruin it is just opinionated, non-neutral behaviour.

This short essay helps you to understand me. Thanks for reading--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Addable Bands to the list?

Im not sure but there are quite a few bands who I think are prominant in this movement, they would be

Underoath,

, Disturbed (Possibly not, more alternative influences), Sworn Enemy, (english, but constant American touring), Ligeia, The Acacia Strain, Bury Your Dead, Shadows Fall, Five Finger Death Punch, .

don't add anything its already freakishly long, but for the record. System of a down, posibly they are a prominet Nu-Metal band who have stuck a large commercial success. Underoath and shadows fall maybe aswell since they are part of the start of

Melodic Metalcore. But Bring me the Horizon? no. they are a good band but not genre breaking, no relation to the listed bands, and finally, they are British. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

NWOAHM=Recognition?

Well, looking over the list of this so-called NWOAHM...what links these bands together? If it is only "bringing metal back to the mainstream", should it not then be merged with the Metal article, specifically under "Current Trends" and say that NWOAHM is a term used to describe the metal revival in the U.S.?

As far as the list goes, I can see no common factor, other than most seem to be melodic Metalcore bands. But then there is Slipknot...Which is obviously not melodic Metalcore. True, they are all influenced by thrash, but then should Mudvayne not be added, along with Neo-Thrash bands? And if it is all based on an influence from Thrash, would not the origins begin with Thrash, and like that guy was saying, the real scene developed out of the experimentation following Thrash, and also include Death Metal? Then this would bring us back to just calling any form of popular Metal Sub-genre or band influenced by Thrash as NWOAHM, but that is so vague, it should not even exist.

The article is confusing, as, if it is all of these genres, then shouldn't it just be merged into the general "Heavy Metal" article?

D33PPURPLE (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE[reply]

Have you read this page at all? There is constant criticism of this term and has been put up for AFD before. It seems to be sourced as it is so we really can't do anything as much as I dislike this term. FireCrystal (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait that AFD doesn't do any justice. I'm not sure what happened to the other nominations... FireCrystal (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the problem? It is a well known global term. Here in the UK it has been around for over a decade and is the term used most often in the media to refer to the bands that are listed in the article. Most of the mainstream European press also use this term. Based on the edit history of the article and this talk page appears as though a single editor has been using several IPs and sockpuppet accounts to try and accelerate their own personal negative opinion against the term. But the fact remains it is a valid music terminology no different than 'New Wave of British Heavy Metal' or 'Arena Rock' or 'British Invasion'.

talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Er...okay, but look at this, the article refers to a bunch of styles...yet the list is solely comprised of metalcore artists, save for a few exceptions. The article says things like:

Melodic Death Metal, yet we don't see many american melodic death metal bands do we? We don't see many Neo-Thrash bands. So what's up with that? And the article also refers to "Screamo". This is UTTERLY confusing, as Screamo is a style of Post-Hardcore, not metal...which begs the question...why, oh WHY would we put and label a Post-Hardcore band under a movement that is explicitly about metal??? Anyway, like I stated before, if the NWOAHM just means all the mid-90's - late 2000's bands that were influenced by Thrash and Hardcore Punk, that is fine, but let's not make it into a full article.

Instead, I think it makes more sense to merge it together with the Heavy Metal article, and under "Recent Trends" mention that American bands that display influence from Thrash and Hardcore Punk are typically called NWOAHM.

IF NWOAHM is to be an article out of itself, I think it should have a more recognizable sound, rather than the wide spectrum made out of its current definition.

One final thought: if we keep it, I am going to add any prominentAmerican Melodic Death Metal Band...

D33PPURPLE (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE[reply]

"From there it gets really diverse, crossing the spectrum from melodic death metal to emocore and everything in between." What? The three main exponents of melodic death metal - In Flames, At the Gates and Dark Tranquility - are swedish! They have no relationship at all to the so-called "NWOAHM". Please remove this. Musicaindustrial (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This genre doesn't even exist. Its just a bunch of fans of horrible hard rock bands that want to somehow legitimize the shitty music they listen to.

Cool opinion about real methul, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.159.127 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus... OK, to the person who created this section, I just need to say something that's really fucking obvious anyway: melodic death metal is not restricted to the Swedish. To the second person to write in this section, the NWOAHM is not a genre, but a scene. Just like the NWOBHM. And they're all metal, with the exception of Hatebreed, who are a metallic hardcore band - none of them are hard rock, except maybe Atreyu, who are also metalcore, so they don't count. To the third person to write in this section, anyone who mentions "real metal", or "real methul" if you want to be retarded about it, is obviously not fit to edit a Wikipedia article about metal. Or its talk page. --LordNecronus (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unless somebody gives me a good reason not to, i will be nominating this article for deletion, with my reasons being:

1) This is not a legitimate movement, as bands on here range from nu-metal (slipknot) to groove metal (lamb of god) to post-hardcore (poison the well) to metalcore (as i lay dying) to melodic death metal (black dahlia murder) to hard rock (disturbed). The NWOBHM were all one genere: traditional heavy metal.

2) A lot of the bands on this list are not even metal, including avenged sevenfold, disturbed, poison the well, slipknot, and the dillinger escape plan.

3) it is full of original research, and faulty sources (for example, the genealogy chart on metal: a headbangers journey is full of mistakes, Sodom is listed as death metal on there, when they are thrash metal.

So go ahead. Fire away. zzz (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The movement has been covered by several sources (there's even a book on it, if I remember correctly). The NWOBHM straddled between different genres, too; you had the traditional heavy metal of Iron Maiden, the speed metal of Venom, etc. I'll admit the NWOAHM has more genres to it than the NWOBHM, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate movement. I think you're having a bit of trouble separating "genre" and "movement" - just because bands are part of the same movement doesn't make them part of the same genre, and vice versa.

2) You stating that those bands are not metal is original research, which is something you criticise in your third point. We have reliable sources stating those bands to be metal (on other articles), you'd be fighting a losing battle if you were to stop them from being classified as metal.

3) The chart on Metal: A Headbanger's Journey regarding the different subgenres (the chart on that page is what you're referring to, right?) does not state that Sodom are death metal, it lists them as thrash, which is not one of the several mistakes that are present on there (Judas Priest as power metal, Cradle of Filth as a Norwegian black metal band). I haven't checked to see if M:AHJ is used as a source on this article, or if it's considered a reliable source. The rest of the article is pretty reliably sourced. If you could give examples of which sources on the article are questionable according to you, then I'll take a look.

Really, though, nominating this article for deletion because you don't think its subject exists is quite petty. (Please don't take that as a personal attack; I mean no disrespect towards you personally with that comment, just the action you have taken here.) I don't see why I even need this rebuttle to your argument; if you do nominate this article for deletion, I doubt it would actually end up being deleted, it's a pretty good, well-sourced article compared to some of the genre articles here which haven't been nominated for deletion. --LordNecronus (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Speed metal hardly counts as a legitimate genre, as it's really just Trad. metal sped up. Venom has pretty much the same basic formula as Iron Maiden, and the rest of the NWOBHM bands. I never said that 'genre' and 'movement' were the same thing, but I was pointing out how this "movement" spans across many different genres, two of them (post-hardcore and nu-metal) which aren't even legit metal sub-genres, regardless of how many people MTV have brainwashed.

2) Just because more people who know how wikipedia works think nu-metal is metal than those who don't, doesn't make it metal. I also have no idea how allmusic became a "reliable source" about genres.

3) I remember seeing in the movie that they had Sodom listed as death metal, but regardless, you've even pointed out mistakes yourself. Can somethibng with proven mistakes really be used as a source? If so, then i fail to realize why you people shun metal-archives, as the userbase there ensures that there are no mistakes. I guess it's because they don't recognize nu-metal as metal, right? zzz (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it now. You want to enforce your POV over the article. Fair enough.

There's no point arguing with you at this point, because it's fairly obvious you just want to, like I said, enforce your POV. I'll point out some little things, though:

1. Speed metal is a legitimate subgenre.
2. Venom and Iron Maiden have totally different styles. Even people who aren't big metal fans would be able to tell the difference between the two bands.
3. You saying that nu metal isn't metal doesn't mean it isn't.
4. If you have issues with Allmusic being a reliable source, take it up with the others on the site.
5. "Can something with proven mistakes really be used as a source?" - yes, because it can still be correct about other things. The blatant mistakes are not used as a source (that little genre guide especially), because there are usually more sources stating otherwise.
6. Metal-archives is user-edited; it's as much a reliable source as Wikipedia itself. That is the exact reason it stopped being used as a reliable source.

Your whole "MTV HAVE BRAINWASHED US INTO THINKING NU METAL IS METAL" schtick is extremely opinionated, and not the type of thing you want to be throwing around on this site. Neutrality is king - remember that next time you want to get an article deleted because you don't like it. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • I 2nd the nomination for deletion just so you guys can go betch somewhere else on the net. - God —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.130.149 (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys...come on there is nothing like this thing "NWOAHM".You put some bands here from USA-no matter their genre but just to be metal-and you say that this scene exist?...It doesn't exist.Why not to create a NWOGHM "New Wave of Global Heavy Metal" rofl.It is ridiculus.NWOBHM had some different characteristics from the older metal bands but "NWOAHM" has nothing different it is just some bands from the USA of different metal genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.25.110 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Godshake" (reads better than "God shake") would be a good name for a band, what about you? --LordNecronus (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!Would you like to start it together?We will create a new scene you know we will create the NWOGHM and we will rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.35.2 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you don't learn how to type. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can teach me how to type...Oh wait I think I know.Do I have to speak ironicaly for everyone?...Pff anyway if you are talking about "bull****" I said before sorry mom I'm not gonna do that again and I'm gonna delete it from the previous paragraph.Can you answer now seriously about what I said at the first time?

You know how Wikipedia runs on reliable sources? Take a look at the article, notice how a large portion of it is sourced. If the page had no sources whatsoever, and was filled with original research, then maybe you'd have a point. But the sources present in the article (plus the amount of sources) indicate that there is a NWOAHM, and that it's not just Wikipedia taking the piss. Bottom line: if it's a good, well-sourced article, there's no need to delete it just because an anon thinks it's bullshit. --LordNecronus (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find sources claiming that there is no NWOAHM for the simple reason I told you before.Anyway do whatever you want but it is foolish for you to believe something becouse someone other ("reliable" source) told it.If you do you are a sheep because sources have nothing more than us,they are saying their opinion like we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.35.2 (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously not going to listen to reason (or learn how to fucking type - seriously, it makes your sentences hard to read), so I suggest you just quit arguing. You've got reliable, third-party sources saying there's no NWOAHM, show me them. (A couple more notes: I don't base my knowledge on what reliable sources say. Wikipedia runs on sources, not me; I have opinions about the various areas of metal, but I don't enforce them around here. And don't call me a "sheep" - it makes you look like an absolute moron.) --LordNecronus (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is are Nacionalist invent Because the Gringos are envidious people that want to have its own movements and standards ways of Magnificents Movements like the New British Wave of Heavy metal!!!

I agree with this guy above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.178.201 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there were two waves of NWOAHM. the first one was in the 80's with bands like Metallica, Megadeth, Testament, Anthrax and Dream Theater and so on. The second wave is the one that is included in the already written article. I'm going to add the first wave to the article, just to let everyone know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.152.137 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a long and very through argument I posted without realizing that the controversy I was trying to respond to was over a year old. Also I was trying to procrastinate on a paper. I removed it because it's really not necessary and inappropriately long and detailed, if you really want to see it you can go through the talk page history. Sorry for any inconveniences. 24.2.51.248 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this new wave of american heavy metal never existed it's just another term to describe groove metal aka post thrash metal bands. and if your gonna add a bunch of nu metal bands with no relation to groove metal whatsoever then you might as well add tool, rage against the machine, limp bizkit, mushroomhead and basically every other 90s nu metal/alternative metal band and pretend their part of this imaginary new wave — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 18:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 28 citations, not to mention two books written on the topic, proving this genre exists. You cannot declare that it should be deleted just because you don't believe in its existence. –

BB 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

well basically all the bands mentioned are groove metal and these bands were never part of a scene or anything, so it should just be merged into that article [which itself is sorely lacking information] — Preceding unsigned comment added by I call the big one bitey (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the citations prove the genre's existence as being different to groove metal. If you think it should be deleted, then, by all means,

BB 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Post-grunge

An IP editor has challenged the listing of post-grunge in the infobox. I hold that this genre should be listed because Garry-Sharpe Young wrote the following on page ix of New Wave of American Heavy Metal: "The origins of NWoAHM are focused on a crop of post-Grunge acts that truly redefined Heavy Metal, stripping it back to its core brutality and drawing not from the traditional Blues formula but from NYHC, Thrash Metal and Punk. Kick starting this genre would be groundbreaking bands such as Pantera, Biohazard, Slipknot and Machine Head."--¿3family6 _contribs 22:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The origins of NWoAHM are focused on a crop of post-Grunge acts that truly redefined Heavy Metal" which means they originated the same time as post-grunge or they were part of post-grunge therefore influenced by grunge.

another thing I think when Garry-Sharpe Young wrote post-Grunge, he meant the music that followed grunge, not the genre post-grunge. Green day is sometimes referred to as Post-punk (http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_22666914/green-day-el-paso-march-13-post-punk) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102617.htmlbecause) they came out after the emergence of punk in 1976, that doesn't mean they play Post-punk.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "they originated the same time as post-grunge or they were part of post-grunge therefore influenced by grunge." - That qualifies as

original research

and is totally unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Quote: "when Garry-Sharpe Young wrote post-Grunge, he meant the music that followed grunge, not the genre post-grunge." - Good point. It isn't our job to interpret what Young meant, but you are right - it's difficult to determine. I'll accept having post-grunge remain absent from the infobox.

Your Green Day mention was simply an illustration, but I would like to point out some fallacies in it, just so you have a better idea of how researching for Wikipedia works. The Washington Post article qualifies what they mean by calling the band post-punk: "So, Green Day: Definitely no longer a punk band...". The El Paso Times article makes no qualification for their use of the label. But note, neither source supports the statement that you made: "because they came out after the emergence of punk in 1976...". That is something that you inferred from the articles - neither one makes anything close to that claim.

Anyway, you make a good point that Young might just mean bands that became popular in the wake of grunge - I'll accept post-grunge remaining absent from the infobox.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't original research that is applied knowledge.Besides the

original research

only applies if you're making edits hence the statement(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages).

Well I'm glad you finally agree with me on something.

Once again that's applied logic. If they knew what post-punk was they would not have referred to green day as post-punk, therefore post-punk would mean after punk. It's like someone saying 1+1=5 they could not mean 1+1=5 in an arithmetic notation cause it's impossible for those two numbers to equal 5.

Now that we agree that post-grunge should not be listed as a stylistic origin we should get back to making constructive edits. --76.107.252.227 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the text, I noticed that Young wrote "post-Grunge" (with a small "p"), indicating that just Grunge is the genre label. Yes, your assumptions about what the articles meant by post-punk are original research: "if they knew what post-punk was they would not have referred to green day as post-punk, therefore post-punk would mean after punk." - Where is the reliable source (not your opinion) that made this analysis of those two sources? However, since the issue at hand is resolved, I won't go down this rabbit trail any further.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lede claims that emo is part of the NWOAHM. Given that emo is an offshoot of hardcore punk, without any direct metal lineage, I don't see how emo bands could be part of the NWOAHM.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I found the source in the article. The NWOAHM is a pretty vast category if it extends all the way to emo.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--72.251.108.41 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Breaking Benjamin & Chevelle are one of the biggest bands in this movement. Add them please. --72.251.108.41 (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not metal! MaggotSupremacy555 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on

|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061129065350/http://www.decibelmagazine.com:80/reviews/oct2004/shadows_fall.aspx to http://www.decibelmagazine.com/reviews/oct2004/shadows_fall.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061020231320/http://www.decibelmagazine.com/reviews/may2005/trivium.aspx to http://www.decibelmagazine.com/reviews/may2005/trivium.aspx

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.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—

]