Talk:Nu metal/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I see why the NPOV issues are such a pain in something like a nu-metal category. Why is there a huge section on bass guitar, a bigger section on regular guitar, and yet the drum section gets a two sentence tid bit about how the drumming in nu-metal sometimes goes above the standard tempo threshold. What is that all about? there are many nu-metal bands that use way different drum patterns than 4/4 time. Something tells me the creator of the drum section wasn't even a drummer, which goes back to the NPOV issue.

I agree... A Perfect Circle really have none of nu-metal's key qualities when you think about it, and Blindside need to go too. musikxpert

A Perfect Circle is absolutely, positively not nu-metal. They sound nothing like it.

Lyrically speaking; nu metal lacks the metal philosophy. Nu metal replaces the nihilism so inherent in early metal with its degenerate self-obsessive soliphism. its almost like the rallying unity of early punk compared to the self-pitying whinge punk of today.

Musically speaking; nu metal has some elements of true metal. primarily speaking the dissonance (distorted guitars) and loud obtrusiveness (screaming vocals & double kick drumming). what it lacks is tension and atmosphere. tension; which is so vital to complete a metal outfit. and atmosphere which defines metal (musically & lyrically speaking). most nu metal you hear is bombastic, loud, rebellious, rhythmically organised and just plain "hip". but true metal is not about being bombastic, its about theatricality, unrelenting tension, bleakness and disorganisation in regards to rhythm.

so in conclusion nu metal is a hideous mutation (not in a good way) of true metal. it captures some of the most "radio friendly" elements of true metal and goes from there. catchy hooks, flowing rhythms to "dance" to, and the dissonance.

To each his own. ~ Nu Metal Fanatic-san

Nu Metal is not metal. It is a perversion of the qualities of metal.

Maybe, for your *POV*.

Psychomel@di_(s)cussion

"In terms of timbre, nu-metal sounds much like any other metal sub-genre. Guitarists make liberal use of typical "metal" techniques such as palm-muting and often de-tune the strings (to drop-D or lower tunings) to create a thicker, heavier and more resonant tone."

I'm sure somebody can word it more delicately than I can, so there it is.

Phorque 12:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"The idea of matching up rappers with rockers is not entirely new," writes Rolling Stone. "Run-D.M.C. and Aerosmith did it in 1986 with `Walk This Way,' and Public Enemy joined up with Anthrax in 1991 for a version of `Bring The Noise.' But somehow the concept of musical miscegenation between the two most urgent forms of youth culture music has remained a largely unexploited source of creative exchange."

http://mantle.geop.itu.edu.tr/~onur/hiphop/judgment.html

LOAD and RELOAD represented a significant musical change for Metallica. The band's breakneck metal tempos and layered guitar compositions had largely been replaced by bluesy rock songs, full of bent notes, warm guitar tone, slide guitar, and shuffle and swing rhythms.

Metallica also reinvented their visual image with LOAD and RELOAD: the CD booklet for Load contained many controversial photographs of the band, taken by Anton Corbijn. The band members - who had recently cut their hair - were depicted wearing pimp suits, smoking cigars, and sipping brandy, sometimes wearing heavy makeup..

nevermind the napster thing which made them look like they were REALLY out of touch with new metallers.

these are things that should be considered adding to the article!!!!

what does metallica have to do with nu-metal? Xunflash 19:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Not much, imho. St. Anger could be classed as Nu Metal, but (Re)Load? No way.--

Talk | Email

) 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where the f**k is the reference to Mike Patton and Faith No More???? These guys really started the whole Rap+Metal thing back in the late 1980s. ok i'm blind. However I see no reference to Anthrax arguably the first rap meets metal tune was done by them. Alkivar 04:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that nu metal isn't merely the adding of rap to metal, but a range of instrumentation changes as well

MrHate

03:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anthrax began fusing rap & metal in the mid-1980's. John Lydon did some work with Afrika Bambaataa in the early-to-mid 80's as well, and punk seems to be an influence on many of these bands. Beat poetry mixed jazz and folk music with spoken word stream of consciousness.

As rap-metal, nu metal, or rapcore are not metal, they have no place in this article except to dispel the perception that they are part of the community.

Nu metal has no place in the nu metal article?! Chris 06:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Zeromancer industrial? -- Dysfunktion

Are

Somebody who knows more than me about Ministry, Fear Factory, and other industrial bands should edit this to include the connections between industrial and nu-metal, which have so far not been mentioned at all. leigh 05:45, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Who the (censored) wrote this ridiculous article? Numetal isn't metal, it's hard rock with a commercially profitable name. This person should turn off the radio, turn off MTV, grow back some brain cells they've lost, and put a career of journalism out of their mind. Holy ****, I 've never laughed this hard at anything in my life.

Lots of people contributed to the article. I haven't got a clue what is nu metal and what is auld metal myself so can't tell if you are right or they are.

But if you are confident you know what your talking about then please feel free to edit and improve the article yourself. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:37, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nu-"metal" is not metal.. In fact nobody should write it the way you wrote it in the article because nu and metal are words that cannot be connected. Metal is a reaction agaisnt commercializing music while nu is exactly the opposite. People who listen to that music are not metallers. Metallers have true personalities. People who listen to nu-shit are just posers who want to show off from the music they hear. That's pathetic and so not-metal..

I fear for those who don't understand the above.

There is so much wrong with this article. I tried fixing it, but the changes I made just got reverted again. If I try again will the same thing happen? Vim Fuego

I can't tell who reverted your edits from the article history, but I imagine it was because of NPOV, a policy that we maintain very strictly at Wikipedia. The opinion that nu metal is not a form of heavy metal and that nu metal guitarists are less skilled than other guitarists needs to be backed up by those who believe it. Tuf-Kat 05:04, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ask any person involved in the real metal community and they will tell you that nu metal is only metal in the name.

As this article has mentioned like a thousand times, "metal" is an extremely hard term to define. If, as you say, metal is against commercialization, then we'd have no metal bands to listen to (musicians have to make money too). Nu-metal is the name used for lack of a better term. Some nu-metal fans probably don't consider it metal either, seeing as some of the bands that people consider metal are totally ridiculous (

I personally think its a result of 3 competing influences, the need to categorize all music into a massive and counterintuitive set of genres and sub-genres in order to give the impression of knowledgeablility. The need to list all your favorite bands, and finally the overwhelming need to attribute all music to Kurt Cobain.--Pypex 17:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"People who listen to that music are not metallers. Metallers have true personalities. People who listen to nu-(censored) are just posers who want to show off from the music they hear."

(Censored) you. I don't listen to "nu-metal" to show off, nobody (censored) knows what I listen to anyway. I listen to it for the guitar hooks and rhythm. You say that metal is about anti-commercialism. Do you think that they just got on the radio or onto a CD because somebody else wanted them to? Hell no. They wanted to get their music and their message out to the world. Everyone seems to think that nu-metal is all about whining, but you metal fans seem to constantly be wining about how crappy nu-metal is. Shut the (censored) up. Even if the lyrics are angsty, who gives a shit? I don't listen to the music for lyrics. Metal's lyrics tend to have all of this anti-religion (censored) anyway. Anyway, some people just (censored) like a song, or a band, or a type of music. You don't have to criticize people's tastes. Are they going to change? Probably not. You can show them what you think better music is, but that doesn't mean it is better overall. 68.4.212.158

Now, now. No need to get profane. I censored your messages because we don't wanna scare anyone. Anyway, I'll sum up everything here in few words-- nu metal is like heavy metal, only never completely satanic and there's more to it than screaming and getting a soar throat and painting your face white (nothing against heavy metal). There's actual verses and choruses and somewhat of a sense of art. Plus, everything's better with a little hip hop added in. You can argue with that. ~ Shadow the Hedgehog

Please tell me that last one was a joke. Anyway, the knowledgeable among us understand that nu metal is not metal. What, do the nu metal fans come one here and are convinced that we just passed Korn and Slipknot up? That we weren't aware of them, so they HAD to contribute. Democracy fails again.

The fact that there are actually people on here who think real metal is "just screaming" shows how little most of you (not everyone) know about real metal. Nu-metal has absolutely nothing to do with metal, and they should never be mentioned alongside each other, other than to show how little they have in common. To the person three comments above me, of course metal bands are anti-commercial, that's why no-one's ever heard of more than five or six real ones. 95% of real metal is underground, they're making shit all money, getting no radio airtime, and they keep making music because of their fans and their love for music. The only reason metal heads complain about nu-metal is because it is grouped in with the music they love, for no reason other than some moronic record label who want to label it as such. Musically, nu metal lacks the guitar and instrumentally-driven musicality that all real metal has, and also lacks the musical skill that most metal bands would possess. I personally don't care what anyone likes, if you like nu-metal, good for you, but don't try to call it real metal because its just plain wrong, and damn insulting to be honest.

Nu-metal is called such be cause it is a way to associate it with its harder cousin. It borrowed a couple of ideas from metal and took it from there. They are related, yes, but not to the extent that some are making it out to be. Heavy metal tend to have faster, more discordant beats, along with more "dark" lyrics that tend to get religous activists all worked up. Nu-metal toned it down to make it marketable to a wider demographic. Linkin Park is an example of this, being the most succesfully selling band of the nu-metal genre. Well, that's my two cents.

"for no reason other than some moronic record label who want to label it as such" No record label labelled it metal, it was labelled metal because of the similarities to heavy metal music. Even if a record label labelled it metal and it wasn't metal then the name wouldn't have stuck. For example if a record label called Lady Gaga metal, the name wouldn't stick because Lady Gaga has nothing in common with metal.

"and also lacks the musical skill that most metal bands would possess" Not true, I have seen youtube videos with Wes Borland (guitarist of Limp Bizkit) playing guitar and he has just as much if not more skill at guitar playing than many pure metal guitarists. If you don't trust me than watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeUb4vITfnI Metalfan72 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Tool (band) because though they may have influenced nu-metal (this is mentioned at the top of the page), they really aren't nu-metal themselves. I've heard "alternative," "hard rock," "prog rock," and "psychedelic" thrown together in the attempt, though.

• I second that. I've heard "art rock/metal" and "math rock/metal" as well. In any case, nu metal is definitely not an appropriate genre. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tool is progressive rock. Not metal, but still enjoyable.

Is Evanescence really numetal? It sounds to me more like Rock or even Pop/Rock

Well, some people have criticized Evanescence for being "Linkin Park with a female singer" so I guess that's where the idea came from.

Evanescence had a definate nu metal hit with "Bring Me Back To Life" but their resulting material is indeed more comparable to pop rock. On an interesting note, I once read an interview with the vocalist who said that her record company forced them to use a guest vocalist and rapper in that first single, and it was intentionally done to sound like Linkin Park.

MrHate

03:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yea I'v always considered Evanscence to be a pop/rock band. But that might also be because I really don't understand what nu metal is. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should compare and categorized bands based only on intentions or by visual aspects. Instead, we shoud compare their public and the context of their sound. The fact that their guitar/bass/drums/keyboard sound sounds just a lot like most nu-metal bands (except the ballads) is and indicator that they belong to the genre, IMHO. --BlackLynx 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Nu Metal is a label that has been slung around excessively. Evanescence is simply a very poor quality rock band.

Evanescence is a modern, radio friendly version of what is known as

Well, Evanescence has been compared to Linkin Park and P.O.D. before, and the lead singer of 12 Stones apparently rapped in one of their songs (I really want to hear that), so I think they've earned their stay on the nu-metal band list. Of course, this is open to plenty debate, just like the age-old System of a Down issue. ^{|phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs|}

evanescence is not metal ot numetal. and they are nothing like Linkin Park.

I must agree with the user above. There is more to nu-metal than supposed lyrical themes, to be firmly categorized as such a band other elements must be notable, such as minor-key riffage, with are not present in the band's music.musikxpert

as for Lacuna coil, take away the female singer and not a single person would say that they're not Nu-metal, simply featuring a female vocalist and dressing in dark clothes and singing about bad love doesn't what you a different genre. And Evanescence are very Nu-metal, just listen to the riffs. Nothing new except for a girl singing and black clothes again.

This article is littered with obvious NPOV comments, most sided towards claims that Nu Metal is inheritantly unoriginal and commercialized. If someone better with NPOVizing skills than I would please correct this, it'd be great.--MardukZero 04:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Considering some of the comments above yours on this page, you can see the kind of sentiment that we have to deal with here. I agree that the article needs a lot of work (I'd swear it wasn't this bad last time I looked at it... you can't turn your back for a second!), but the POV problems seem to be all over the board. Sigh. It's a controversial subject, like abortion, only the debate seems to be populated largely by angry teenagers... Ah well. Onto my to-do list it goes.-leigh (φθόγγος) 09:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I have always though of Evenesance as Goth, not metal at all really.

See articles

Gothic Rock for how your 'thinking' is wrong. Leyasu

17:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

...I will be removing System of a Down, as it is not nu metal (to be more NPOV about it, people do not generally agree that it is nu metal (see the SOAD page), and it really doesn't fit the definition of nu metal given on this page). --gb 09:22, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

SOAD is actually one of the bands I would classify as essentially nu-metal. Guitars: extremely low-tuned, syncopated, and oriented more toward rhythm than pitch, combined with lots of "special effects" like harmonics and scratching. Drums: incredibly syncopated (influenced by hip-hop and eastern music), rarely playing a straightforward pattern for more than a second at a time. Vocals: combination of "clean" singing and frenzied emotional shrieking. Lyrically they are anomalous - the lyrics are often political or psychedelic rather than teenage angst - but aside from that, SOAD are textbook examples of nu-metal. Perhaps the most intelligent and sophisticated band in the genre, but part of the family all the same. -leigh (φθόγγος) 10:20, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you there. I personally don't hear much syncopation in their music. I can think of some examples where it is syncopated but not overly. The rest of the characteristics you mentioned are typical of most (if not all) heavy metal bands... especially the downtuned guitars. Most bands these days downtune, metal or not :P Text book nu metal:

MrHate

10:28, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a great idea to stereotype or 'text book,' but removing SOAD was a good idea. Not only is their content and style markedly different to how nu-metal is commonly portrayed, they fall more into the category of freak-metal due to the vocal techniques commonly employed by Serj & Daron. musikxpert May 8

Excuse me, but why this article's authors are absolutely convinced that Red Hot Chili Peppers have not to be considered nu metal inspirators? (unsigned)

• Because they're not. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's possible that they are inspirators, but since no nu metal bands (that I know of) have cited them as influences, it should be left off perhaps.

MrHate

03:34, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I believe Korn have cited them, but I can't back that up.--Undc23 09:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• RHCP is far from nu metal. They're alternative rock. Why they'd be listed in the nu metal page is beyond me. While they may have inspired some nu metal bands, they have none of the traits a band requires to be classified as nu metal. -D14BL0 06:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't mention Jews in an article on the Nazis. No-one is claiming RHCP are a nu metal band by citing them as an influence. Chris 06:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This name is given as a joke to poser bands preteending to be Heavy Metal. People don't refer to themselves as Nu Metal.

Of course they don't, it's intended as an insult. Unfortunately, nu metal is the name that stuck with these bands, and that's what they'll be called, even in Wikipedia

MrHate

00:27, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

- right, it is an insult, and maybe the articule should better reflect that. it's why it's inherently a biased derogatory term. a valid term, one i readily use myself, but, imho, better defined as the matter of opinion that it is. i think the least arguable bit is that nu-metal is more mainstream and commercial. it's a label fans of less commercial, less pop-mainstream metal sling around as a point of contention, though the specifics therein DO vary, from one self-proclaimed real metal fan to another.

Still not a sub-category though.

Nu metal is not metal, and has no place on the metal page except to clarify the fact that it is not actually related.

so start removing from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavy_metal_genres , because there are people that dones't know too much about metal and will go in the nu metal thinking that nu-metal is metal.

The name "heavy metal" was also started as an insult to the genre. Haters of the genre originally said "it sounds like heavy metal falling from the sky and making loud noises when it hits the ground" which was how it got the name "heavy metal". The name basically means it sounds bad but the name stuck just like "nu metal" did Metalfan72 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

nu-metal is not heavy metal it is rap with some distorted instruments

Obviously, you've never listened to nu metal -- Dysfunktion 23:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nu-metal is the name "purists" use as an insult for hard rock bands that use rap and dj-ing techniques. Xunflash 17:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the article's tone some. If there are substantial disagreements with my conception of nu metal, I'd welcome them. I'd like to see this article become more than just a flame war. -leigh (φθόγγος) 11:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have a question, why is it that Primus is always mentioned in this article. Sure they were definitly an influence on nu-metal, but critics and fans alike say they are Alternative Rock. Explain why the are mentioned besides the fact that they merly influenced these bands.

AFAICT, Primus is mentioned precisely once, as an influence on nu metal. Tuf-Kat

Sepultura's Roots (album) should be mentioned here. It was a big departure from their earlier thrash-based sound and even has Johnathan Davis sing on a track. From the Roots article itself Roots was a very influential album on the sound of nu metal bands who came later. Along with Jonathan Davis, Mike Patton of Faith No More and DJ Lethal, later of Limp Bizkit, also contributed to "Lookaway".Roots was a very influential album on the sound of nu metal bands who came later. Along with Jonathan Davis, Mike Patton of Faith No More and DJ Lethal, later of Limp Bizkit, also contributed to "Lookaway".

IF indeed the track "Look away" off Sepultura's album "Roots" was a seminal work for nu-metal bands (which remains to be seen), the song itself is NOT nu-metal, let alone the entire album. The suggestion that Roots is nu-metal is highly inaccurate. The reference to Jonathan Davis singing on this song is correct, however his vocals (or indeed any) on this album are not sung in a nu-metal fashion. None of the album fits into the category of nu-metal what-so-ever.

I've taken ScratchFace off the list of progenitors of nu metal. We don't have an article on them, and a quick search on the net didn't yield anything. Algae 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Nu Metal is not alternative rock! please change this! note: in the United States it may be considered alternative music(as much music is) but not Alternative rock

The phrase in the drumming section that alludes to nu-metal drumming reaching beyond traditional metal is misleading and derogatory. As per any expert on this peversion on metal, they seem to know nothing of the innovations and sophistication made by "traditional" metal that have reached precedents long before Nu-Metal did. Anyone who thinks that nu-metal bands were the first to incorporate middle eastern or jazz drumming (the latter of which I have yet to see at all in nu-metal) have obviously never heard the likes of Band Of Gypsies, Dream Theatre, Atheist or Cryptopsy.

Oh, and while we're discussing the matter of who introduced what drum rhythms, what nu-metal band has the Celtic rhythms of say, latter-day Blind Guardian or Finntroll?

"Nu metal is a controversial subgenre of music. It is sometimes considered a subgenre of metal, but this is a misnomer, as it is actually a highly commercialized form of alternative rock"

Controversy is a dispute where there is strong disagreement, every genre, and sub genre of music has it's fair share of haters. Now you could write that term Nu metal is controversial, but the actual music is strictly POV. And a highly commercialized form of alternative rock is just a negative way of saying popular alternative rock, now isn't it?--58.104.20.47 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Literally dozens of forgettable bands that never "make it" are produced and managed on a highly corporatized mandate every year. Not all commercialized bands hit their intended mark and become the popular sucess their label would like them to be.

'Highly Commercialized' isn't necessarily a negative. Also, nu metal is not metal, so this comment is accurate.

Highly commercialized is an inaccurate way to describe some nu-metal bands. As for the genre itself, it's a branch of metal, as you'll see if you look to it's true roots.musikxpert May 8, 2006

I was reading 2000s and it says that in 2003 Nu-Metal became "dated"...yet there is no information on this article about it? Flyerhell 06:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm going to sound stupid but oh well. What exactly is Nu Metal, as you guys put it.? I am so confused. Many people say a certain band is Nu Metal and then people argue it's not. I am just so confused and it would be of much help if someone could clear up this. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll help you out, if you still want to know. Nu-metal is a genre generally surrounded with controversy, but the true, basic elements of the genre are as thus: Down-tuned guitars (taken from metal, which explains why the word is in the genre's name, sometimes with 7-string guitars) Minor-key riffage Although it is far too frequently stereotyped, many of the bands also sing about angst or pain of life, sometimes in distorted vocals. It's fair to say KoRn invented nu-metal with their debut, although the genre was later influenced by Limp Bizkit, who brought rapping into it in 1997. musikxpert May 8, 2006

I have put in the for the article of Rap Metal to be merged into this one, as the Rap Metal article is essentially repeating information on this article with more detail. This should also help people such as 'TearAwayTheFunerealDress' who are struggling to understand exactly what is and isnt Nu Metal. ~~Leyasu

Disagree - Numetal has a "pronounced hip hop influence, and guitar technique which is often different from other metal genres." and rapmetal "institute(s) the vocal and lyrical form of rap.". Hip-hop is not rap, in the same way that numetal is not Rapcore. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 04:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - Agreed with Sampi, there are vital differences and Linkin Park are most certainly not Rap Metal, whilst they are often considered to be Nu-Metal (despite the ambiguities of whether any band is of said genre).

Agree - Rap metal and nu metal are the same things, and neither are proper metal genres. I defy anyone to name real differences between the two and definitive artists from each.

Disagree - Rap metal was influenced by bands such as Rage Against the Machine before nu-metal was 'invented,' plus nu-metal was invented before Limp Bizkit brought rapping into it's defining characteristics by KoRn, who made strong use of the melody over their metal guitars on their first album.musikxpert May 8, 2006

Once again, it appears that another nu-metal fan has attached the label of metal to this genre of music. I honestly cannot understand how this happens over and over again. Nu-metal began as an insult amongst metalheads against commercial hard rock bands that tried to pass themselves off as 'metal' to appear more brutal. They were labelled this way to show how little they had to do with metal (thus the nu prefix). Unfortunately, this caused the genre to be linked to metal by the reasoning: 'nu-metal has the word metal in it, thus it must be metal'. The word 'insecure' has the word 'secure' in it, however, it doesn't mean the same thing. Once again, I, like many of the other people on this site will draw everyone's attention to www.metal-archives.com. This is without a doubt the most extensive and best site for metal band information. Let's look at the listed genres: Black ~ Death ~ Doom ~ Electronic ~ Folk/Viking ~ Gothic ~ Heavy/Traditional ~ Orchestral/Symphonic ~ Power ~ Progressive ~ Speed/Thrash. No mention of nu-metal here. None of the bands listed on this page will appear on the site either. Odd. The majority of metal websites will not list nu-metal as a subgenre of metal and those that do will often post up that the genre has more in common with hard rock than it does metal, probably to simply stop the incessant waves of people wanting to label nu-metal as a metal genre. I think the biggest reason for the mistake, however, is that nu-metal, to mainstream listeners, sounds heavy. Heavy music is traditionally defined in our culture as being metal. The problem is that metal is not just about heavy music. Look at power metal. Sonata Arctica has much more in common with metal than Slipknot or Korn, but it is a much lighter music, for the most part. Personally, I like metal, rock and some nu-metal (some System Of A Down for example). I no longer see nu-metal as a necessarily derrogative term, but it is one that is different from metal and it should be treated as such. Not being metal doesn't take away from the music as so many people on this site seem to think, fighting desperately to keep the myth alive, to make their music sound more punishing or whatever. This needs to end already. Nu-metal is not metal. It takes one or two things from the genre (heavier music, downtuned guitars), but barely scratches the surface of anything else. Vocals are different. Drums are different. There are no palm-mutings, no riffs or solos in nu-metal. The vocals, drums and most of the guitarwork for nu-metal is obviously hard rock inspired (or, for the vocals, sometimes Rap/hip-hop). How does it become a metal genre from this small relation? It doesn't.

I, personally am not a fan of Nu Metal. Also, Metal-Archives openly refuses to list Nu Metal because the sites core creators dislike the genre, and thus dont want it listed. Fact remains it still originates from metal and as such is a fusion of metal and Hip Hop influences. Thus, wether you like the genre or not, neoglism, biased POV, and personal like/dislike, will not, and cannot, be allowed to dictate the factual accuracy of any of Wikipedia's articles. Thus you will have to accept that the genre is a form of Metal, as it is of Rock and Hip Hop music. Yesm the article could be made better. Yes, the article should point out the influence of mainstream rock and commercial hip hop in the genre. Yes, it should point out this is a fusion of two different forms of music. No, it should not be biased as to anyones opinions as can be seen at [this link]. I will look over the article and copyedit minorly (im not good with spelling, ta da) for anything i can see as being POV. ~~Leyasu

Incorrect. It is not listed at MA because it is not a form of metal. It draws it's primary influence from alternative rock, not metal, and this is why there's so much argument over it. People who know what it is don't like that it's being labeled as metal and people who like it refuse to admit that they don't listen to metal because it's "kool!" so they won't let it be argued as what it is, a form of rock. This is factual accuracy, not that nu-metal is a legitimate form of metal. Harvested Sorrow 16:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It is listed under Fusion Genres. As mentioned, the article should be edited to explain the influence of Alternative rock music within the genre, and as such should probally have the rock template added. The reason it is mentioned in the metal template in Fusion Genres is because it fuses basic, watered down elements of metallic songwriting. I agree with your view, but factual accuracy says otherwise. Thus it is listed under Fusion Genres because of its association with metal. Leyasu 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nu metal is not metal. MA refuses to admit it not because of dislike (though that may be) but due to the fact that it is not a form of metal. The term 'nu metal' was a way to achieve commercial success through making the music seem more dangerous through it's percieved relation to metal.

It was a branch of metal when it was created and was intended to be that way.musikxpert May 8, 2006

Well i listen to both and find both highly influencial (Some Nu-Metal bands suck though)

If it wasn't Metal then why is it called Nu-Metal not Nu-Rock

Noobs

As has been stated numerous times before, because it was an insult from metalheads, detracting some bands music as basically fake metal. That's where you get the name 'numetal'. Just like the word 'insecure'. It doesn't mean 'secure' just because the name is in it. That's why you have to look at the *whole* word...

Noob Ilyon 07:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply:

Most Nu-Metal i'd agree with you there

but not bands like Korn,Slipknot,Mudvanye (Why are they even on the list) are simply Metal not Nu-metal

btw sry if i suck at this..im new at Wikipedia

Steve_69

Ok ill try to summon this up in a nutshell. Nu metal is characterized by its usage of simple composition encompassing elements from various metal genres, hip hop, and alternative rock. Nu Metal mixes these in a varity of ways, leaving each band sounding highly different to the next. The one consistant within the genre is the Angst driven lyrics (From broken relationships, family values, schoolyard politics (try Teenage Issues)) and simplified use of synthezising genres.

Slipknot for instance, combine the guitaring and drumming of Thrash metal, with Rapping about 'Teenage Issues' and keep everything pretty simple.

Linkin Park use the same rapping technique, using light keyboard motifes like that in

Doom Metal

, with bass and drumming centering around 4/4 hip hop patterns, the guitaring being used as a rhythm.

Kittie, take much of their influence from Alternative Rock, the bands composition being the same as that of Alternative Rock, and incorperating 'Teenage Issues' lyrics, double bass kicks, an imittation of 'death vox' and other traits from metal genres, all of these in minor use.

This is three bands. The genre is quite the alchemy and is very loose in sound. It is one of the few genres that DOES have a loose sound, most notable by its fusion esque. As such, i suggest reading articles

Alternative Metal as these are both stubs of what belongs in the Nu Metal article. Leyasu

11:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What about Nu-Metal now? What do you guys consider Disturbed, Godsmack, Taproot, Trapt and bands like that? None of them have rap or "hip hop" in it. It's still considered nu-metal, so yea! Nu-metal does not require a hip hop influence. It's alternative rock with a small metal influence and influence from another random genre, so those are still nu-metal. Harvested Sorrow 02:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not nu-rock?

Ironically I would imagine the existence of New Rock footwear - so popular with some nu-metal fans, may have contributed to the choice of monicker. I'm sure we wouldn't like to call something DM-Ska or Burberry-dance or Rbk-rap, so steering away from any brand confusion seems like a possible, if questionable, factor.

And yes I know that some New Rock wearers hate nu-metal, and vice versa. Just a thought, OK? :) Skewer 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As i do the review, ill put it into the common misconceptions part im drawing up if its something that comes up sometimes. Leyasu 14:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The section headed "notable Nu-Metal groups" points at an (intended) list of all nu-metal groups. This really isn't the same thing. The section should either list notable groups or have it's name changed. 202.45.98.81 01:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted in kind and duely changed. Thank you for the contribution. Leyasu 03:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

why is everyone arguing over what this is? I am sorry but bands like Coal Chamber, Korn, Otep & Slipknot are not alternative, if you want to put that Nu Metal is somewhat a form of Alt Metal that is fine, but it is not alternative rock, and you are obviously not a true metalhead if you believe that. Look, I love Metal, Hair Metal, Glam Metal, Some Thrash Metal(I hate Death Metal & Black Metal though) and I am sorry, whether you want to admit it or not it is a form of Metal, just because you see yourself as a "metal purists" does not mean other people do, and I will continue reverting this back to Heavy Metal unless: It is merged with Alternative Metal(I do not believe it shoulld be merged with Rap Metal) or until you can admit, that, it, is in fact, Metal

Suggestion: Reverting things is not going to solve anything. The proposed merges have been suggested due to the names all being the names for the same thing. Let me also point out, the opinion of a user of Wikipedia as to wether im a 'metalhead' bears no importance to me, as i find such things infantile and dull. Im Ley Shade, i have vast knowledge in a handfull of subjects of intrest to me. That is all. If you have suggestions to improve the article, please make them in kind. If not, then please refrain from petty threats, abusive comments, and schoolyard politics. The spirit of Wikipedia is to make better articles all around, not further ones ego. Leyasu 16:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

A "metal" band is a band who has at least 8 out of this 10 properties: Remember. You can skip only one of this: and you are inside Metal

You can skip two, and you are in the border

1 - It has a "metal" sound (well, we all know that sound)
2 - It´s not mainstream. At least it doesn´t try desperately to be mainstream
3 - It´s aimed at a "Metal" audience (not to all people, like pop does)
4 - It has a "serious" attitude. Sometimes you can expect a bit of humour and happiness without falling in... er.... "fiesta, fiesta!". you know....
5 - They play (and record) for the sake of playing and recording music. Like: "Hey Í play the guitar. Are you a drummer? Fine! let´s start a band!
6 - Its music does not have lyrics with common topics you can found in radio (speaking of being happy, dancing, being sad) Most of the metal songs speak from Magic and Science fiction to Satanism and horrendous deaths. Any topic but the first ones, with few excepions.
7 - It´s traditional: I mean: A metal band is a Rock band. You can expect some little modifications (a choir, a violin, some orchestra) but no more.
8 - It´s extemporal. Its sound can change because of technology, but most of the time you can´t guess the release year of a song you don´t know. It doesn´t follow trends. Proof of this: Are you looking for a "yyy" band in a store? You find their 1st, 4th and last album all like new. Try this with a pop artist. Only the last sells. The rest are old.
9 - It has a strong live activity. Playing almost all weekends.
10 - It has, or tries to have, a stable formation and work like a team. It includes one-man projects: its musicians frequently do some lyrics and music. Non-metal music stars do all the "artistic" work and then hire some musicians before each big show.

So:
Some "ambient music" hasen't got any "metal" sound, but you can say it´s metal.
You can say Helloween is not serious enough but it´s still metal.
Apocalyptica does not sound "metal" and they aren´t a rock band, so they are in the border (it depends of your taste) Ayreon comes here too
He we go: Nu metal tries to be mainstream, follow tendences, mostly has common lyrics and plays to benefit from the media boom. It´s also aimed at the regular young people so, it isn´t metal.

I studied music for years darling. I studied the composition and creation of genres for two years. Also, there is no list that says 'you have to do this, this and this to be metal'. That doesnt work, as many bands regarded as metal, outside of Nu Metal, do less than half of the things listed above. So lets go through the list and each fault with it, for your education.

• 1 - It has a "metal" sound (well, we all know that sound)
  

Sound doesnt define genre. Sound of a genre is founded by the composition of that genre, which often results in a similar sound to bands. In some genres of music, a stereotypical sound is prescribed. Metal is catagorised in sound by the 'metallic' sound of its nature, in comparison to other genres. Your point is half right, however, it is a pretty foolish one, as all metal genres sound inheritantly different.

• 2 - It´s not mainstream. At least it doesn´t try desperately to be mainstream
  

This statement doesnt work, because many bands with the Heavy, Hair, Black, Gothic, Thrash and Symphonic genres of metal, are what is considered 'mainstream'. Popularity, has never, and will never, from any musical perspective, define a bands genre. Some Classical musicians are extremely well known, others arent. To say lesser known Classical musicians are not Classical musicians because they are not well known is folly, and the same principle applys here.

• 3 - It´s aimed at a "Metal" audience (not to all people, like pop does)
  

First, most metal bands aim at several audiences, including fans of metal, rock, and other music that the individual band may be influenced by. In other cases, bands dont target any influence at all, and play solely for their own enjoyment. Another misconception of yours, is that pop doesnt aim at a target audience of everyone, and a few months work in the music buisness would show you that.

• 4 - It has a "serious" attitude. Sometimes you can expect a bit of humour and happiness without falling in... er.... "fiesta, fiesta!". you know....
  

A) Green Jelly is a metal band. B) Green Jelly has no seriousness to them whatsoever. This is two points that flaw what you said here. Edenbridge, are a metal band. Edenbridge, are reknown for being highly upbeat in their music, and highly happy. Not all metal is downcast and miserable, a great amount of it is actually upbeat and and happy.

• 5 - They play (and record) for the sake of playing and recording music. Like: "Hey Í play the guitar. Are you a drummer? Fine! let´s start a band!
  

This contradicts the point you made in 3. If they are playing for a target audience, they are not playing for the sake of the music. Also, several metal bands, dont play solely for their enjoyment. Nightwish is a metal band, a very common one. Nightwish recently fired their vocalist, Tarja, because she didnt play music for any other reason than money. Metallica, also announced they were only intrested in money during the closing down of Napster. Not all metal bands play solely for the sake of playing. Remember: Human nature, and the nature of the individual, cannot be enslaved by ones own thoughts.

• 6 - Its music does not have lyrics with common topics you can found in radio (speaking of being happy, dancing, being sad) Most of the metal songs speak from Magic and Science fiction to Satanism and horrendous deaths. Any topic but the first ones, with few excepions.
  

Edenbridge make several refrences to being happy, as do the band Fairyland. Dancing is also heard of throughout metal bands, in various contexts. Morbidity, which includes being sad, is a lyrical prerequisite of the Doom Metal genre. Take note of the fact that all three are done in metal genres.

• 7 - It´s traditional: I mean: A metal band is a Rock band. You can expect some little modifications (a choir, a violin, some orchestra) but no more.
  

Again wrong. Fusion genres have happened for year. Metal bands are not rock bands, either. They use rock instruments, yes. Metal bands, are very different in style to each other. Black Metal is very different to Power Metal, as that is different to Hair Metal. Many genres change and merge over time. Many additions are made to bands, that keep a core basis in one genre. A fusion genre, of any two genres, is counted as being both of what it is fused from. Modifications in the worlds metal scene, and musical depictation of genres, has happened for over a century. It is foolish to say that their is little change. Your desires do not alter the past, and do not define the world.

• 8 - It´s extemporal. Its sound can change because of technology, but most of the time you can´t guess the release year of a song you don´t know. It doesn´t follow trends. Proof of this: Are you looking for a "yyy" band in a store? You find their 1st, 4th and last album all like new. Try this with a pop artist. Only the last sells. The rest are old.
  

This is nothing to do with trends. Many metal bands have trends, most commonly the oldest bands have the oldest material. Sometimes some artists are better stocked than others, depending on individual music stores. Also, you have to remember, is that Pop Music and Metal Music are marketed in very different ways, and their two musical worldwide scenes are extremely different. The metal community, all around the world, has been more established as musical collectors, who will collect and remember their favourite works. With bands making a lot less money, hence the need for continual sales of older works. Pop music is designed to make a big hit, make big money, and then be onto the next big thing. Pop music is marketed to be constantly changing, and is marketed for those people who arent devote musical collectors. The marketing however, still doesnt define the genre of a band. Nu Metal may follow a very pop marketing scheme, but that doesnt change what it is.

• 9 - It has a strong live activity. Playing almost all weekends.
  

Most well known and established bands, do not pay almost all weekends. If they did, they would not have time to travel for tours, or to record albums, or spend time with their respective familys. This is again a foolish statement, and is no way an actually fact about bands.

• 10 - It has, or tries to have, a stable formation and work like a team. It includes one-man projects: its musicians frequently do some lyrics and music. Non-metal music stars do all the "artistic" work and then hire some musicians before each big show.

The Beatles, a non metal band. Did they hire musicians before their shows? No. Did they only do the artistic work? No. Pop bands, orchestras, rock bands, punk bands. Bands of all genres, work as teams. Many non metal musicans write their own music, with a case in point being young star James Blunt. Pop music also features one man projects.

Fact: Genres are defined by their musical properties, not by their audience or a given persons like or dislike of a band. What you have said reeks of infantile nonsense. It has no literary, or musical value. To be honest, without trying to sound offensive or mean, you do sound like a teenager, with very little knowledge about music and its definations. As such, i suggest you take some music courses and intergrate yourself into the metal community for a few years, so you better understand things, before making a hate spree against a genre you dislike. Leyasu 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am a teenager, but I did copy that from a friend because I agreed with it. Whilst some may think Nu-metal is actual metal I tend to disagree, based on the fact that this genre tries to be mainstream, I am a fan of Metal and I believe Hair metal shouldn't be Metal either, just hard rock. Nu-metal bands main concern are money for the most part, Metallica is no longer a metal band as of recently, they have become a modern rock band after the past few years. But no matter what I think, it really is a matter of opinon, not fact. Yourself an "expert" on music as you said, seems to think Nu-metal is metal, fine I respect that. But myself and countless other metalheads tend to disagree with you, since it basically goes against everything we believe metal is to stand for. The lack of guitar solos also help in our opinon, but if you listen to various genres of Metal, Folk/Viking/Death/Black/Neo-Classical etc, you will hear a similar sound, you really don't get this with Nu-metal, well from all of it I have heard, but you are the music expert here listening to music for two years, and I have only been listening to heavy metal almost all of my life, so I expect you will disagree with this, do you find it fun to flaunt around your whimsical musical intelligence to teenagers often? Regardless, Nu-metal does have loud guitars and yelling vocals, and to the mainstream media that is metal, so I guess in a media sense Nu-metal is metal. I however, do not and will never consider it metal, How can bands like Korn be put in the same genre of bands like Morbid Angel? But I am one of those believers, and I don't believe it's all a matter of fact it's opinon, if you are a casual listener of music you might consider Nu-metal, metal. If you are an actual Metalhead you don't. Different Strokes for different folks, good points however. You say Tomato, I say Tomahto. Cliches all around, and apolgies for my rambling and my repitition. I am offically indifferent on Nu-metal, I hate it, I don't listen to it and that's all that matters. Just wanted to see what responses that would receive.

Darling, let me clarify what i said. "I studied the composition and creation of genres for two years." I have been working in the metal community a lot longer than that. I have worked with several bands from several genres, and come into conflict with many. I personally, have no love for Nu Metal. However, this is an encylcopedia, not a place to show off ones personal view on something. Also dear, to point something out, if your indifferent to something, you cant hate it. Korn is Nu Metal, Morbid Angel is whatever form of Metal they are. It is mentioned in the article, how Nu Metal got its name, its origins, and other such related topics. Also realise what i said about what genres are defined by. As the articles states, as i have pasted below, i think applys to you.

• Some heavy metal fans do not consider nu metal a form of heavy metal music at all, arguing the genre is too diluted from what they consider "true" heavy metal. Nu metal guitarists, for example, typically forsake traditional metal guitar technique, such as soloing and often use riffs quite different from those most commonly associated with what is expected of metal bands.

• It is also not commonly accepted as metal because of the lyrics that usually deal with what teenagers face because some metal fans feel that metal is about strength, not weakness. Other heavy metal fans reject these arguments, citing
  musical genres, or both. Moreover, little objection has historically been raised to doom metal (a genre which lacks high-speed guitar pyrotechnics) or power metal (whose high fantasy
  image is often less threatening than nu-metal angst). It is possible that some of the anti-nu-metal backlash might be due to the genre's significant success as a popular music genre. In general, the rise of nu metal, as with most genres fusing other metal genres, has helped to cause severe divisions in the worlds metal communitys and remains a source of much animosity and debate among heavy metal fans.

Ok lets not lie, i did chalk that up from a template im going to be posting for something else in short time. But the point remains the same. Please realise that, altrough you may dislike something, it holds musical charecterstics that define it as such, and as so, it is that. It holds defining qualities of metal, defining qualities of Alternative Rock, and defining qualities of Hip Hop. Thus, it is a fusion genre. It is not a direct form of metal, but a fusion of metal + x. As such, it is a form of metal, as much as it is a form of something else. Leyasu 03:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I whipped up a quick draft of an article that merges Alternative Metal and Nu Metal. Its by no means, perfect. By no means, brilliant. But it is the best i can do in 20 mins of rushed time. The link is Here. I tried my hardest to keep as much of the original wording of both articles, which included a bit of chopping, hacking, and mix and matching (it says pretty much the same thing, but with as much as the original wording as i can keep). Its not the best thing ever, but it sevres its purpose as a rough draft. For any comments, please post them here. Please make editiation as is seen fit by people, as to make the article the best it can be, rather than making it seem like im seemingly lording over Wikipedia. Leyasu 03:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The main issue I have is that very few alt-metal bands before the late 90s (alt-metal and nu-metal do overlap a great deal from that point forward, but are not mutually exclusive) actually can be considered "nu-metal" (namely Korn). It certainly is the direct predecessor, much like

Protopunk is to Punk rock

, and in that case, there are still separate pages. The terms overlap, but are not synonymous. In particular, the section "Sounds constructs and lyrics" and other references to musical conventions still only refer to nu-metal conventions which are drawn primarily from only a few alt-metal bands (Helmet, Korn, RATM, and a few others).

A case can be made that nu-metal and alternative metal should share the same page, but I feel such a page would have to involve heavy reworking. I know this is just a rough draft just to give everyone an idea of the merged page, but the current structure of both pages does not lend them to easy merger right now. WesleyDodds 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Scanning over the

Nu-metal page still existing to explain the usage and controversy behind the term (as well as possibly containing the "Sounds constructs and lyrics" section, since it does apply to that particular brand of music). A notice would be placed at the top or bottom of the smaller nu-metal article directing the reader to click on Alternative metal

for more detailed information.

While I still think they should be two different entries, I think this approach would be workable and appropriate. Thoughts? WesleyDodds 06:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts, as i see them:

• If you have information like Woodstock and MTV Dominance, get editing, and put it in the article.
• Alternative Metal is not a reknown name, that you can say to near anybody, and they will know. Say Nu Metal, almost everybody knows what it is. Nu Metal is the name used by most everyone, Alternative Metal being a pet name used by 'some' people, like yourself. Would it be viable to create a 3 paragraph article simply to say Goth Metal is an abbreviated version of Gothic Metal, that bands and heavy fans in the Gothic Metal scene dislike?
• The rough draft was made by simply adding in what little was in the Alternative Metal page, into the Nu Metal page. If there was more in the Alt Metal page, there would of been more to merge in on the draft.
• Bands you claim are Alt Metal have no influence from Alternative Rock most of the time, and are openly listed and named as Nu Metal bands, all around the world. Korn is already mentioned in the Nu Metal article as being proto-typical of a Nu Metal band. Most of the worl regards Korn as one of the best Nu Metal bands there is. The same with RATM, SOAD, and countless other bands you claim are Alt Metal. SOAD even said themselfs they are a Nu Metal band.
• (Edit) Ive just seen what youve done with the Alt Metal page. Thats good, very good. Influences, dont define genres, at all, period. Soundgarden is also listed on the grunge article. Now what ur putting, sounds like a case of bands that combine rock genres, with nothing to do with metal. This isnt a good case for your argument, as if Alt Metal was an actuall genre, it would be comprised of bands not in other genres, and bands that are actually metal.

Thats my points and views on what youve said. Leyasu 07:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

On Soundgarden, their classification as alternative metal is based on metal traits, while present in all grunge bands, that are deeply more pronounced than say Nirvana or Mudhoney. In fact, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were marketed as metal bands before grunge entered the mainstream (both were also nominated in the metal category in the Grammy Awards). Musical genres aren't rigid, and often overlap (for example, a band like Hüsker Dü can be classified as hardcore punk, alternative rock, college rock, and indie rock), and there is nothing that says a band cannot physically play more than one style or fit under one heading.

Additionally, I must apologize as I am editing the Alternative metal page very gradually and not in one fell swoop as I intended, as I am currently working on more important projects right now. I keep adding bits and rewriting text as I review the page every time I see it, so I'm trying to address all the concerns with the page to the best of my current ability. WesleyDodds 08:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing the article slowly is fine. But its still vague, and undescriptive. Your basically just filling out the history for Nu Metal, on a different article. One contains the history, one contains the defination, hence why they appear as one article split in two. Thus in the end, what u finish editing, will probally only be merged anyways. Leyasu 11:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't "alternative metal" any heavily metal-influenced genre with other (non-rock/blues/jazz/classical) influences? If alternative metal is the polar opposite of "true metal", that's what is implied. Are Fear Factory, Primus and Body Count nu-metal? They're certainly alternative metal, but not necessarily nu-metal.

I think mister anomynous user, your as lost as i am. Im also unsure of what the description of Alternative Metal is. And im also waiting on it. As such, at the minute, ive started prepares to merge the two articles, leaving Alt Metal alone as an article due to WesleyDodds working on it. If you wish to see what i have done to this article, see both the Revision section on this talk page, and the Page History for the Nu Metal article. Leyasu 09:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Above: I was reading 2000s and it says that in 2003 Nu-Metal became "dated"...yet there is no information on this article about it? Flyerhell 06:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no source, but that is about the time numetal lost ground to

It's no longer cool to like Limp Bizkit, regardless of what people say. Their 2005 album tanked and nobody gave a darn about it. Even System of a Down are less popular.

That is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. Trend here in England still has many teenagers as hooked into Emo and Pop Punk as they are Nu Metal and Alternative Rock. Its surge of popularity might of died, and yes it might no longer be the most fashionable form of music on the planet. But, it is by no means 'dated'. And as such, the article is going under major revisions both by Aj Ramierz and Myself. As such, your comment has been noted, and we will look into including this in the article come a full revision of it. Leyasu 02:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I still stand to my assertion though: numetal is dated, as in no longer trendy. Just like hair metal was during the Grunge era, despite not being totally dead.

To my knowledge there were only like five big numetal bands in the late 1990s. The early and even mid 2000s, up to about 2004 and even today to a lesser extent are FULL of numetal.

I don't really remember it being huge until 2000/'01 with Linkin Park, Papa Roach, and Disturbed.

   linkin park formed in 94 or something?

Linkin Park was founded in 1998 when Chester Bennington joined Xero. They were not a commercial sucsess untill 2000.

"After Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain's death in 1994, the viability of other bands in the grunge scene would follow". What the heck is that supposed to mean? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I said the same thing why bring Kurt into this?

Why on Earth does 'pop metal' redirect to here? Pop metal is stuff like Def Leppard and Scorpions and between heavy metal and glam metal. I have never, ever heard anyone refer to nu metal as 'pop metal'.

Pop metal should redirect to glam metal. Or, better yet, glam metal should be a section under a pop metal page... but that is a discussion for another time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.28.67 (talk • contribs) 24 Dec 2005

Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter either way. "Pop metal" is an idiotic made-up term, a neologism which we were able to eliminate from the Wikipedia and which was being used to define bands such as

Sn0wflake

05:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Pop Metal is used to define 'any' metal band of 'any' form that is considered large, popular, or otherwise well known. This the 'redirect' should say this, and and have the Metal Genre Footer on it for easy access of the genres. Then it can rot, while being poked with sticks. Leyasu 09:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't change VfD consensus unless you promote a new consensus by means of an AfD or in this case maybe a RfD... or promote wide consensus on the article's Talk page... something along those lines. The center of the discussion is quite simple: "pop metal" does not exist. It's a junction of the terms

Sn0wflake

21:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What i meant is the article, or stub as the case would be, should simply point out that the term isnt a form of metal, and is simply used to mean 'any' metal band of 'any' form that is considered large, popular, or otherwise well known. Leyasu 02:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Pop metal is a form of heavy metal music already established, most well known in acts like Queen. Calling nu-metal "pop metal" is just reactionary to its mainstream popularity. Nu-metal, while popular, rarely has elements of pop music in it.

Ok, so basically Nu-Metal= Rap vocals? Thats ridiuclous. The bass player is the hero? U can't even hear the bass riffs most of them play as they are only playing the roots along with the rhythm guitarist.

You call Korn Nu-Metal? Slipknot? Mudvayne? Rapped vocals? This is a ridiculous article that gives a totally ridiculous analysis of the genre as a whole.

Read article

Alternative Metal and you will see why this article needs serious editing, and serious merger with Alternative Metal. Leyasu

07:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Have to disagree. Alternative metal was being influenced by key bands long before nu-metal was around. musikxpert May 8, 2006

As is clearly noticeable, i have made several changes to the article. I am performing a complete revision of this article of its current state, in preperation for what seems is going to be a merge with the Alternative Metal article. This edit so far is the first step in several, majorly refining edits to this article. As such it is by no means complete or inclusive of the work that needs to be done. Below is a list of pressing issues i found while editing what ive done today.

• Removed Slaps Style From Bass: Is there a way of describing what this is? I myself didnt have any idea what the fuck it was. Can the editor who contributed this, please explain what it is, so it can be in the article and clearly understandable?

Thats it. Any help would be appreciated, on things that need to be worked on for the article, as editers such as myself and WesleyDodds sometimes do need to have the problems pointed out, for us to be able to commend them. Leyasu 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I still object to a merger, due to reasons previously stated. Anyone who has an opinion either way should voice their opinions. WesleyDodds 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So it turns out you can search for keywords in books through Amazon.com. Consequently, it turns out that Ian Christe's [Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal uses "nu metal" and "alternative metal" as two distinct terms. Now we have a published reference that says they are two separate things, which stands against a merger. WesleyDodds 09:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now we have a book that ues both terms. However we have a book we dont know the contents of to say what it says. We also still dont have a defination of what Alternative Metal is, other than the first Nu Metal bands, that are not referred to as derogetoraly (ok i spelled that wrong, deal with it). Leyasu 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll pick it up when I can; it looks like a worthwhile purchase anyway. And the definition for Alternative metal is in the first few paragraphs of the article; not all genres/labels are defined so specifically. WesleyDodds 10:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ok this is how i assume things to work, bearing in mind im stoned right now so my writing ability is zero.

• Subgenre = A form of music, defined by several traits unique to itself. Often a subgenre is a division of something else. Bands in a subgenre are unique specifically to that subgenre, by containing all the defined elements of that subgenre. As such, all bands will have a clear link by the defination of traits that makes the subgenre, a subgenre.

• Pet Name/Grouping Name = A name given to group several bands from across genres together, due to a common trait. This can range from odd tempos, to lyrical themes, or even record label. Bands often have little in common musically, but have a key trait that is not found in any of the subgenres they are from.

If Alternative Metal is a pet name for any Alternative Rock/Metal bands that take influence from Alternative Rock and Metal, then i can understand and accept it. But that means its a Pet Name, not a subgenre, and would have to be removed from the heavy metal template, unless a 'Common Groupings' would be listed.

If Alternative Metal is a subgenre, then it needs to have its key traits defined, and explained. Again, gothic metal/symphonic metal are good for templates. This then, would have a list of bands and history associated with it, and would remain on the heavy metal template.

I hope you understood what i meant, coz im too stoned to talk very coherently at the moment. Leyasu 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a simplistic dichotomy you have set up. Subgenres aren't particularly unique, since they dont't exist in vaccuums; musical influence affects musicians in varifying and hard-to-quantfy degrees. Music isn't an exact science, since classificaion largely is a subjective experience. Additionally, many genres are described as movements or overrarching labels rather than concrete aesthetic formats, for example

New Wave music

and so on. Musical classification has as much to due with public perception as it does with structural guidelines, scales, and instrumentation. That may not be the best way to do things, but that's how things really are. The fact is that such groupings are common in music history, and by your insistence on combining Nu metal, alternative metal, and rapcore into one article without acknowledging the distinction, you are subscribing to the same mindset you claim you are against.

Unless you can find others who will agree to you on a merge, I see no better option than to remove the merge proposal tags once I integrate the available sources. However, you should any sources (published/professional sources take precedence over fan sources unless they are unavailable) that say otherwise so we can integrate them into the articles in order to reference any debate that may exist. WesleyDodds 09:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To that, i suggest an RFC. Also the point was to combine the articles into one article, not to claim they are all the exact same thing. Much like Opera Metal should be merged into Symphonic Metal, and mentioned as a variant of it. As Gothic-Doom was merged into the Gothic Metal article, and is mentioned as a variant of Gothic Metal and Doom Metal. That is the general purpose. To do the same thing with these three, has as been done with those articles. Also, again, by Wikipedia's rules, the article Alternative Metal must designate something as something, that doesnt repeat other articles. At the minute, i have heard argument that its Nu Metal and Progressive Metal. And also argument that its neither, and is the acclaimed 'Avantgarde Metal'. As i said, i kept the descriptions of each thing pretty simple. The merge tag stays until the RFC is done, and a consensus is reach on the best course of action. If the articles arent merged, im cool with that, but that means that Alternative Metal needs to define something, and 'Rap Metal' needs to have a sudden boom of bands, because at the minute it consists of about 10.

(Edit) I forgot to mention it. I studied genres for two years in my music training. Genres are defined by musical charecterstics, not what people wish things were. A genre is a name given to a paticular way of doing music, not a movement. NWOBHM = Movement. Thrash Metal = Genre. There is a difference. Leyasu 09:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've studied music too. Still, the definitions used in music theory do not necessarily apply to everyday life. People name things and group things depending on their own viewpoitns and opinions, and then other people pick up on them. Really, do Britpop bands have all that much in common with each other, especially prior to 1995? And what kind of name is Britpop anyway? You have neo-glam bands, the New Wave of New Wave, arty pop acts, and anthemic bloke-rock like Oasis, and pretty much the only connections they have is that they are defiantly British and generally came from the indie scene. But such classification are used, and Wikipedia exists to provide information on these topics, whether or not they can be considered "real" musical genres.

Both the terms alternative metal and nu metal are used, and there's information on both of them. Unless you're willing to write out an explanation as to why they are similar to the point that the articles need to be merged that can be inserted into an article (which might even be irrelevant depending on if the resulting article is too long, and it would have to be split anyway) as well as provide sources, consensus leans on my side on the issue.

I welcome sources and thorough additions you may have to add to these articles, but please consider the issue from the opposing viewpoint in order to further strengthen your own argument. Please list your sources now, and let's try to end this issue satisfactory once and for all. I know you have things you'd rather edit, and I'd much rather devote more time to filling out Timeline of alternative rock, myself. WesleyDodds 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually these pair are two of my more keen articles. Consensus also doesnt lean in your favour.

You want an explanation? You got it, ill keep it relativly simple and blunt:

• Alternative Metal is two coined name.

• One usage of the term refers to bands within the Nu Metal genre, that forsake large quantities of Hip Hop influence and instead draw influence from Metal Genres and Alternative Rock Genres. A similar name to define between Nu Metal bands that use heavy hip hop influence is 'Rap Metal'.

• The second usage of the term is relative to metal bands that do unorthodox things in their music, normally not akin to metal genres. These bands are also known as Avantgarde metal bands.

Actually, in writing that, i came up with a better soloution. Merge the Alternative Metal page's contents into the Nu Metal page. Then on the Alternative Metal page, write what i just put, in a more descriptive and defined manner. That actually solves the problem for the most part.

As for sources, then you would that the general metal community doesnt use the genre Alternative Metal. As seen, it is used to refer to bands across genres. Similar usage of these names are

So i still agree with the idea of merging. But slightly changed, to merge the page's contents into the article, and then explain what the term endoes, as i mentioned above. Leyasu 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick Notes:

1. By "consensus" I mean the two other people who disagreed against a merge on the Alternative metal talk page. That's not much of a consensus (as I have stated before, people really aren't talking about this), but if we push the issue, that's what we have.

2. The metal community does not determine whether or not genre pages are merged. The metal community has its prejudices, after all, and certainly people from outside of metal (and even outside of music) have their own observations that need to be factored in

3. We could also argue that "nu metal" is a coined name,; it mainly came into usage to group together bands considered to be revitalizing metal in the late 90's. And if we were to view alternative metal and nu metal as the same thing, alternative metal seems more prevalent a term in commercial and classification circles. WesleyDodds 12:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok let me give you a sample lay out for my idea.

• Nu Metal (Header)(Overview)(Explain what it is)(Explain usage of terms Rap Metal and Alternative Metal)

• Rap Metal (Subsection)(Explain the sounds and constructs and stuff)(Explain about it being Nu Metal with Rap elements)

• Alternative Metal (Subesection)(Do the same as above)(Explain about it being Nu Metal with no rap elements, and influence from genres of metal and rock)

• History (Beginnings)

• History (Split Alternative Metal and Rap Metal historys (See gothic metal for example of Gothic Metal and Gothic-Doom split))

• Common Misconceptions/Trivia

• External Links/Etc

Thats generally what i mean to do. Then leave a redirect of Alternative Metal and Rap Metal to it. That way your not changing either of the terms, simply grouping them all to be accurate, fair, and stop confusion, appearance of neoglism and dissassociation.

I hope u get what i mean to do now, with the example format. Leyasu 13:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd say nu-metal is a subgenre of alternative metal, not vice versa. Alternatve metal means the following to me:

• Metal bands that do unorthodox things in their music, normally not akin to metal genres. Including genres like nu-metal,
  noise metal, folk metal
  , etc.

That means, its not a genre. And genres of metal are not genres of Alternative Metal. It means its a term used to group Nu Metal bands that use minimum to no Hip Hop influence, and bands from various other genres that do things that are not typically standard of the genre they are in. It also makes reference to Alternative Rock bands whom use a lot of metal influence in their music. Thus, a near complete rewrite of the page is needed, unless it is in fact my original assertion, and that is a name used by fans of Nu Metal bands, to differentiate between Nu Metal bands with hip-hop influence, and those without. Leyasu 04:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, Faith No More and Rage Against the Machine have a notable hip-hop influence. I've never read anywhere that alternative metal is simply Nu metal bands without hip-hop influence. And please stop inferring that it's just a title concoted by Nu Metal fans. Actually, the mroe I look at it, the less Nu Metal is actually a set genre. WesleyDodds 05:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then what exactly 'is' Alternative Metal? Im still waiting on an answer, and this is after almost a month. And so far, the more ive looked into it, the only people ive found using at are those who distinguish one form of Nu Metal from another over some very minor conspicercy, or those that group Alternative Rock bands with a lot of metal influence into one place. Again, see above as to my view. Leyasu 06:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Leyasu, I'm concerned. I imagine that many people who edit on WP believe themselves to have a deep grasp of their chosen topics. I also imagine that this belief comes from study, experience and one's surroundings. You have repeatedly shouted down eager Wikipedians, accusing some of being like teenagers and basically telling them they are wrong.

From what I can see, your penchant for working on articles about the most intricate doom/gothic/black/pagan/other metal genre varieties is not necessary for the debates on Nu and Alternative Metal, because these disputed areas are hard to pin down (since they lack overtly specific features, such as lyrics about trolls/lords/etc).

My concern is that your work on the darker end of metal implies you would hate to hear people voice the attitude "it's all gothic, innit". Similarly, it is a bad idea in some people's eyes to say "Helmet, Primus and Slipknot, they're all Nu Metal". Your understanding of genres cannot be presumed to be any better than mine, an anonymous newbie's or whoever, so please stop using it as a weapon.

As you said above, "Genres are defined by musical characterstics, not what people wish things were." Primus and Linkin Park share few, if any, musical characteristics. Nu Metal does indeed have characteristics, but the characteristic of Alternative Metal would appear to be music containing a unique stylistic deviation from other Metal music of its era, to create a style which may or may not have been popularised since its conception. Some people seem to like rap & metal combos, almost 15 years after RATM (arguably) cemented the style in place. Nobody copied Primus...! Alternative Metal should be treated and defined as the disparate scatterings from around the fringes of Metal as a whole, by definition without a similarity in sound, because their differences are what make these bands comparable to one another - the one thing RATM & Primus share is the fact that they pretty much broke the mould at the time.

I admit I find the whole debate a little pointless, since I too would rather see some things become merged information for easy access, but in this case I see a glaring difference and you are the most vocal campaigner for the merge and associated rewrites. If you feel the need to contribute to these specific sections (as is your right), please refrain from such hostility towards other posts. If you can't or won't be calm, civil, and constructive, perhaps this topic should be left to others for a while to see if it improves without the current heckling. - Skewer 12:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if i come across as to be using my own study as a weapon, as that wasnt my intention and i do feel bad that ive come across that way, regardless, thank you for telling me i come across that way, ill try to bear that in mind in future.

Alls im asking is that a defination is given, that draws a distinction. Its like someone saying 'A Male pig is not a Pig, but i dont know how'. I explained this already, and i believe that Wesley is working on it, so im waiting for his revision of that part at the minute. Leyasu 18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm new, and I probably shouldn't start out telling you all that, but I wanted to let you all know exactly how this looks to a "new reader" who doesn't care much for this "heated" debate and thinks it's highly if not entirely political.

You are trying to group together a bunch of artists which shouldn't really be grouped together, except as follows.

Basically you are taking alternative metal artists which also mesh well into other genre's and calling them all 'nu-metal' and trying to seperate them from the 'straight' alternative metal artists.

My suggestion would be to make this article one which says just that - that it isn't really a genre so much as a term used to describe alternative metal artists who also fall or lean slightly towards other genres as well, such as rapcore or grunge or hard or funk rock or punk.

I studied genres for 2 years. I know a bit more about what a genre is. If you need to see what genres are and are not when it comes to metal, see this

article Leyasu

13:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Megadeth
• Blind Guardian
• Sonata Arctica
• Gamma Ray
• Machinae Supremacy
• Iced Earth
• Apocalyptica (An example of how senselessly thrashing a guitar isn't required to be metal)
• Etc...

Apocalyptica isn't a metal band - it's a cello quartet playing metal songs. --BlackLynx 22:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

They're very metal, indeed. "Metal" isn't defined by the instruments you play, but how you play it. Apocalyptica keeps true to the fundamentals of metal. -D14BL0 08:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bands that are not metal:

• Adema
• Crossfade
• Korn
• Mudvayne
• Slipknot
• Thousand Foot Krutch
• Etc...

Listen to all of these bands, and you will definately notice very distince differences between them. -D14BL0 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

By your assertion, Gothic Metal, Doom Metal, Symphonic Metal, and many other such forms of metal wouldnt be metal either. Again, neoglism isnt excepted on Wikipedia. Your argument is represented in the article, but musical fact overides personal neoglism. Leyasu 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I didn't say anything of the sort. How my original comment would claim that the genre examples you listed aren't metal is beyond me.

Then again, metal is a complex genre. I can't think of a single person who could possibly know a definite definition of the genre, that could give a point balnk "hit or miss" response to band examples. To understand metal requires developing a feel for the power behind the lyrics and music. This trait isn't shown in most nu metal bands, which is why they're not considered metal. -D14BL0 08:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Genres are defined by their characteristics, not how much dedication, personal merit/energy or feeling their is in the lyrics or music. As long as a band meets the characterstics of something, then it is that. Nu Metal uses elements of varying metal genres with various pop/rock genres. Thus its a fusion-genre. It is not wholey metal, nor wholey anything else. Discriminating against it because it doesnt fit wholey into something you like, doesnt agree with your view, or plainly just because you dont like it, is called Neoglism. Ley Shade 08:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What he's saying is that nu metal doesn't descend from the same stock as true heavy metal. Dysfunktion 22:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a fair comment, however true is a neoglism i dont accept. I will however agree, that it did indeed not start from the same score of origins as most of the cumulative metal scene, which reflects in its very different and easily accesable nature. Leyasu 01:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I see on this discussion is a lot of biased comments towards the terminology of the name. IMO, Heavy Metal fans should learn that it is or isn't "Metal" just because they like it or not. What about

Funk Metal? It's a perfectly acceptable music style, as well as Nu-Metal. However, both genres have far less elements of "true metal" than Power/Gothic/Doom/Black Metal is because it has other influences than metal. Calling Limp Bizkit "Metal" would be a HUVE mistake, on the other hand, calling it "Nu Metal", wouldn't, because they WERE, directly or indirectly, influeced by the "true metal" bands. And I said "directly or indirectly". They are borrowing Metal elements, they're not taking the entire concept or misleading metal fans by considering thenselves or being considered "nu metal". THX :D --BlackLynx

22:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I second BlackLynx who couldnt of really put it anymore simply. Leyasu 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

D14BL0, please stop trying to "rebel" this is an encylopedia. Saying "Unless you want to change the rules of metal, yourselves, please stop classifying nu metal as such.".. is ironic and then saying Megadeth is a metal band, Thrash is influenced by Hardcore punk which the first metal bands were not, just as Nu-metal was influenced by hip-hop which the first metal bands were not.

If nu-metal isn't metal, neither is Megadeth or Thrash. They are both

Good points... this is an encyclopedia and metal has many branches, nu-metal definitely included in one of them. KoRn's debut album, which is credited with creating the genre, clearly makes use of many metal techniques, hence it also being listed in one of the 50 'heaviest albums of all time.' musikxpert May 8, 2006

D14BL0, TFK is metal now. Listen to their new stuff.

I tried to condense the article a bit, the "definition" section was pretty redundent with the "history" an "musical" traits sections, so I moved a bit of it into the history section, and renamed that section "overview".

I also tried to trim down the multiple references to the controversy over whether or not it is "metal", I feel that it makes the article more neutral. If someone can find good sources, the controversy might deserve it's own article. maxcap 02:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A very proficient and well done edit. Perhaps you could do the same with the instrumental definations as well? Leyasu 02:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can do about that section. maxcap 02:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please change to Megadeth. I think it would be fair enough to add, also, that a lot (most?) of True Metal fans do not like and/or consider this genre to be Metal at all.

The article isn't a soapbox, and wikipedia isn't written for "true metal" fans, it's written for everyone.It's mentioned a few times that peolple try to distance themselves from the term. A seperate article regarding the controversy would be nice if it can remain neutral. maxcap 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The idea for all these articles is to try and write them from a general objective perspective. These arguments about "true metal" are usually ridiculous. And everytime someone uses the phrases, I can't help but think of a cheesy Manowar album cover (people familiar with bad album covers probably know which one I am referring to). I can understand the usage of "conventional heavy metal", "traditional metal" or even plain old "heavy metal" in relation to other forms of metal, but the construction of true metal largely strikes me as being used in order to render what is not "true metal" as somehow "not right". I'm no fan of nu metal (I stopped listening to Korn around 2000) but here I am putting aside my distaste and trying to improve the article. WesleyDodds 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

They might be ridiculous, but the fact is that "True Metal" is a term widely used by many fans of the Metal genre, with the purpose of disagreeing with what "is not right" to them, namely rap and alternative fusions with Metal.

Stating that a lot (maybe not *all*) of "Traditional" Metal bands and listeners don't consider the nu-metal genre to be Metal is not a subjective matter, it is just a fact. A researcher of the Metal genre would probably would like to know this kind of information. There is a clear distinction between what is considered "True/Traditional/whatever" Metal and nu-metal. The label "True" Metal (in the original post) was just a way to distinguish between both genres which are clearly different. Call it "Traditional" or whatever you like, it is only a way to make the difference clear. It also true that a lot of Metal listeners *do* believe in the term "True Metal" and that it IS used, and that doesn't either compromise the article at all... it is just something that it is true, whether you like it or not or find it ridiculous. I don't ask that the article talks thrash about the nu-metal genre (that's not the point at all) nor that it says that "True" Metal rules the planet; but perhaps it would be nice for someone interested in the Metal culture to know about the general opinion of the "Traditional" Metal audience and musicians. That would favor "everyone" not just the "True Metal fans". Perhaps gathering a few resources (quotes) from band members from bands like Opeth, Death, etc. about the subject would help? Again, the objective is not to insult the nu-metal genre, but to make clear a general point of view from many musicians/fans of the "other" Metal genre.

There is no claim in the article that nu metal is true metal, or that it's fans and artists claim it. And it is listed in the fusion genre section of the genre box, which should be enough to set it apart as being "impure". I really think the "controversy" deserves it's own article, if someone can dig up reputable sources.maxcap 02:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ill bring this up to Wesley, as he is working with several users on the general Metal article, and this 'True Metal' argument is one that ostracizes many forms of metal, not just Nu Metal. Ill speak to him about it sometime in the next few days. Leyasu 03:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do Korn and Deftones continue to be considered nu metal inspirators if Jonathan Davis and Chino Moreno don't rap? And, more important, why do I find Mike Shinoda the most unpleasant frontman in the history of rock (GO TO SLEEP, FORT MINOR!) ?

The problem is that there is a common perception that Nu metal = hip-hop influence. Surely a lot of Nu metal bands have it, but the term is more to describe a new wave of metal bands rather than specifically those with hip-hop influence, so it's not an absolute.

Anyways, Korn clearly bases their rhythms on hip-hop grooves, and have had guest appearances by Fred Durst and Ice Cube on their records. WesleyDodds 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Soulfly weren't Nu-Metal just because Fred Durst rapped on a track for their debut, it was their sound. I think the "hip hop influenced rhythm" argument is just plain wrong, since bands like American Head Charge (released a single, Just So You Know, with 13/8 timing!) really don't stick to this.

I think a better summing up, which I'd like to see integrated if anyone can be bothered, is that Nu Metal bands tend to have little mid range in their sound, using artificial harmonics and pitch shifting guitar effects to create a discordant, often extremely high pitched top end. The low end of the sound tends to involve playing minor-key melodies based on a sequence of individual notes, transposed into "power chords" (5th chords), often at high speeds enabled by a 1-step-downtuned bottom guitar string. This makes seemingly intricate chord work no more difficult than barring 3 strings with one finger at a time (Comparable to Keith Richards et. al. using open E tuning etc., especially for slide guitar use).

This sound is often juxtaposed by one or 2 slower, more peaceful & melodic tracks on an album (see Fear Factory, Mudvayne etc.). Feel free to call this wrong, then listen to a few seconds of Korn (Good God), Mudvayne (Death Blooms), American Head Charge (A Violent Reaction), Adema (Shoot the Arrows), and so on and so on... It's a common thread.

It's no secret that I dislike seeing Mudvayne and A.H.C. grouped in with this field due to my perception of their musical complexity, but as ever, WP isn't a soapbox, I know... It's just a shame that so many non-rap-metal acts get persumed to be just that, because of staccato vocals and a certain invented genre tag. I blame the kids ;) - "Hmmm, how can I sum up all my CDs for quick text-generation conversation? I know, I like 'nu metal and emo', that should cover it." Bleh. Skewer 09:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to staighten out that guitar section a bit, I'm not unfamiliar with the terminology. In regards to tuning and tone (i.e. scooped mids) I think your pretty much right on, except for the "minor-key" bit which wouldn't give you more low end, but make the tonality more somber, alot of metal is minor keyed though. I don't neccessarily know if the use of multiple guitar tracks and artificial harmonics, are defining though, it's not exactly unique to nu metal. The pitch shifting thing (Digitech whammy?) maybe. Of course, I'm in no expert here because I'm no fan of the genre maxcap 13:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for the guitar stuff, plus some good interviews; gotta love amazon.com's search inside feature. I added the source to the article maxcap 19:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Most nu-metal I listen to is devoid of any hip-hop influences, aside from samples(which are present in many other types of music.) Frankly, the worst types of nu-metal are the ones which have (or continue to have) rapping, especially Linkin Park. 68.4.212.158 20:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

They would be alternative metal or in other genres.

Nu Metal is not a real genre.

You may continue arguing pointlessly over all of this or you could stop trying to combine a bunch of unrelated bands together in a fake genre.

Fact; Nu Metal is a genre.

Fact; Genres are not defined by wether you dislike bands or disagree with the genre's existance << oh the irony!

Fact; This article shall remain.

Fact; These facts were made by the following user on the following date. Leyasu 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nu metal may be a genre, but it is not a genre of metal.

Correct. Nu-metal is not a genre of metal, but a sidebranch that has become lumped too heavily in stereotype for many blinded metal fans to perceive it as such.musikxpert May 8, 2006

correction. ignorance there is obvious. it's drop-tuned-post grunge/alt rock with hip hop and funk elements. so, no metal elements at all.

I disagree with Korn as the article's main picture. They aren't as representative of the nu-metal sound as some other bands. I propose Papa Roach.68.4.212.158 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think the article needs a "main picture" (I certianly didn't add the image), but if there's going to be a representaive image for nu metal, it should be Korn or Limp Bizkit. They started the whole thing and have been its biggest bands and influences. WesleyDodds 10:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for POD, but that's juss me ;) ~ A Rappa

Korn is one of the most popular nu-metal bands out there, but all the same, there could perhaps be a more sensible choice. Rage Against the Machine and Red Hot Chili Peppers were two of the first popular nu-metal bands, and Linkin Park and Limp Bizkit are (to my knowledge) the two best-selling acts. In response to the previous ideas, I'd like to see Papa Roach or P.O.D. with a pic on this article, but most consider them both to be one-hit wonders (or, perhaps ten-hit wonders). The only band that would be a more sensible choice to display than Korn would probably be the Bizkits, since they seem to be the two most influential nu-metal acts. Any thoughts? ^{|phantasy phanatik|talk|contribs}

|

Uh, who the hell was that? But anyway, yes, while RHCP were an influence on many nu metal bands, they aren't considered nu metal (first time I've heard them called that, actually), and we have agreed that RATM aren't (you can look at other places in the discussion). Korn or Limp Bizkit are the two best choices. The most popular nu metal band? Or the "definitive"? --Switch 06:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're only talking about record sales and mainstream popularity, yes. But many nu metal fans (get this:) derided them as sellouts (I thought it was funny) for reaching commercial success so quickly. Limp Bizkit are more popular to the nu metal crowd, as far as I know. Then again, Korn and Slipknot are more popular still. Unfortunately for this article, all the nu metal kids I know are going emo, so I can't use them as resources any more. I still say Korn (the definitive nu metal band) should stay there. --Switch 03:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--203.208.72.234 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not ask me! By the way, what do you think about Limp Bizkit's "Significant Other"?

man, metal sucks...

Who have said "man, metal sucks..."? A woman?

I remvoed this from the article because it seems rather questionable.

The first actual use of the name "Nu-Metal" was a sub-genre category first seen at Rasputin Records in Berkeley, CA during the 1990s, a well respected music store where many bands we know today, have become famous from. Rasputin's was one of the first major record store chains to actively seek hardcore and rare Metal music from around the world (even as far as selling indie demos at retail). When their collection jumped from 1 small shelf with about 2 dozen bands, to 12 shelf long isles with hundreds of bands (both labels and indie), they began to separate the styles of metal they had in stock. From Black, Death, Grind, Thrash, Folk, Power, Industrial and a lot more. As a joke, one of the now ex-employees came up with the "Nu-Metal" sub-genre name that was supposed to stand for "Neutered-Metal", as she said "It's like Metal that had it's balls cut off." because it didn't have all the sounds that would have made it real Metal, thus they used it. Rasputin also did a lot of work on the live scene with many bands (local and afar), getting them known, putting on shows, making record deals become reality and getting them signed on with the store for promotional deals. When local bands that played the the style similar to "Nu", they adopted the sub-genre name and put on "Nu-Metal" shows around the Bay. And thanks to the rising popularity of the fast growing internet at the time, the sub-genre name traveled fast and became used quite liberally throughout the music scene. Since then the "Nu-Metal" moniker officially stuck on with the industry. Very few people back then actually knew where the "Nu" came from or what it was supposed to mean. Most figured it was just a rebellious way of saying "New Metal" as in a new sub-genre. WesleyDodds 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

True, I'm glad you removed it... the whole thing seemed kind of dubious, more like an urban legend than anything else.--Nargos 17:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nu metal article is horribly POV. The last sentence of the intro's negativity introduces the subject as bad. Instead, the criticisms should be left to only the criticisms section, which should also be moved further down the page. Additionally, the article makes Korn and Limp Bizkit seem much more important in the genre than they are. The definition of nu metal should be expanded more, and we should define alternative metal, rap metal, and nu metal better to make the articles more cohesive.Theunknown42 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the Criticisms section needs to be retitled, simply because when I wrote the bulk of the article it was meant to be a straight history and not a separate section. What parts are POV to you? WesleyDodds 03:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Strange that Leyasu, who herself admits that she dislikes death metal, would insist that there is any influence of death metal on nu-metal. Whne you don't like a genre, chances are you know very little about it. I hate punk rock and hip-hop, myself, but I will also admit that I have limited to no kn owledge about them due to my dislike. That being said, I can tell you that there is absolutely *NO* relation between nu metal and death metal. I have changed it to "hardcore punk", as I feel that it is the most appropriate. If anyone disagrees please state your opinion here: which genere, according to you, would have sonic smililarities with nu metal? --Nargos 03:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted it. The genre doesnt have similarities in scene. It has sonic similarities musically, in the way the guitar is often played. Also, just becaue i dislike something, doesnt mean i know nothing about it. Such a claim is a 'straw man attack', so please refrain from making them outside of open POV comments. Also while i remember to do so, WesleyDodds also cited a source for the claim, which means your not allowed to delete it without provided a contradicting source, as without doing so your violating

WP:CITE.Ley Shade

08:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC

If you message the user WesleyDodds and ask him for it, he should be able to give it to you first hand. Dont worry about the attack, it happens when people are in less than angelic temperments. As i said, ask WesleyDodds for it, if he cant provide yew directly with it, ill go dig it up from the serial vandalism that this page has naturally attracted. Ley Shade 17:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Found the reference. However, I think I just might add a little citation mark to it, so that it may show people that this is not merely Wikipedian inbterpretation. I still disagree that there are sonic similarities with death metal, therefore I say that a citation actually added right next to that statement should be in order. --Nargos 18:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation was there, it was probally knocked off when Deathrocker and Danteferno tag teamed to POV push on the article. Ley Shade 18:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fear Factory are a major influence on Nu-Metal. So are Sepultura. Slayer are often credited as an influence, although I'm not certain of the veracity of those particular claims. So yes, death metal is definitely an influence. --Switch 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nargos' snivelling about genres he does not have knowledge of aside. On Headbanger’s Ball, Jonathan Davis (vocalist of Korn) claimed that he was influenced by Cannibal Corpse, and I think he was actually wearing a CC t-shirt at the time. -

Ok, once this article is unlocked someone needs to update the Meteora link to "Meteora (album)". Thiseye 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot that needs to be done. I need to become a sysop so that I can unlock it. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

jesus christ... what's wrong with you.. i listen to tool maybe a year and everywhere i read: "tool is nu-metal" this is the first time i heard that tool is, well, rock... listen to someone who knows about music... ...

Well, there you go ladies and gentlemen. You can't argue those facts. maxcap 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

come on guys who says you get to decide what is and isnt 'metal' your opinions dont matter you are probably all pimply faced teenagers like me with no background in music (unlike me). nu metal is metal otherwise it would not have the word metal in its name! not to mention ... come on its totally metal! metal is in the ear of the beholder! rock on \,,/

And sometimes you wonder why you ever even tried... marnues 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The first should be Rap Metal which would include bands like Anthrax, Rage Against the Machine, KoRn, and Limp Bizkit. And yes, it does seem like an insult to some good bands by being put in the same pot as Limp Bizkit, but there's not really a way around that. Every genre has its bad apples. Anyway, Rap Metal would be defined by down-tuned guitars, heavy basslines, common usage of a DJ, songs having a 4/4 time signature, a common lack of guitar solos, and of course harsh Rap vocals.

The second should be Nu Metal which would include bands like Disturbed, System of a Down, Mudvayne, and very recent Metallica. This would be characterized by the use of down-tuned guitars, a somewhat common lack of guitar solos, and vocals that usually have similarities to the vocals used in Heavy Metal.

The subgenres would have their similarities, but would not be synonymous.

Problem: Korn are considered the definitive nu-metal band, and are the only band to consistently have the term applied to them. In fact, Korn and Limp Bizkit are far more widely considered nu-metal than SOAD or Mudvayne. --Switch 11:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Alright then, Rap Metal and Nu Metal can be synonymous so that Korn and Limp Bizkit can still have that title.

If this is made the case, then bands like SOAD and Mudvayne can go under the name Modern Metal (or something to that extent). Or perhaps you could just put them into the Alternative Metal subgenre.

You can't just decide to "make" 2 separate terms synonymous. It's still the "Nu" that is causing the problem as far as I can see - Rap Metal could include much of Nu (I'd argue that Adema, Mudvayne etc. are too far from "rap") and Alternative Metal could feasibly include some Nu- acts. Just look at the history pages and see how many bands get edited in and out of "list of alternative metal artists".

Maybe it's time this article became something like "Nu Metal was a term coined by the press in the late 90s to describe the resurgent popularity in heavy rock music, whilst distancing it from the "metal" stereotypes of the 80s and early 90s. It encompasses some rap metal, some alternative metal, and some acts that are essentially manufactured pop using guitars and turntables to appeal to a certain demographic."

Then we can just stop arguing about whether it's an insult to call Mudvayne Nu Metal, or whether obvious bands such as Korn deserve the title, or if Metallica became nu metal in the late 90s. Or we could just slash and burn some WP pages, and stop trying to constantly granulate a genre (rock, subgenre metal) that is already "alternative" and is constantly evolving. I'm not suggesting people shouldn't find the terms Rapcore or Doom Drone on WP, just that detailed agonising over individual bands is working backwards. Most bands do not conform to a single genre, even throughout a single album. By defining its characteristic sounds and methods people can understand a genre without having to go "Oh, Slipknot, now I get it... but they sound nothing like Limp Bizkit?" Skewer 07:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So basically, since the music industry made the term up and since there is no *real* distinctive sound (Slipknot vs. Limp Bizkit), then a band can only be considered Nu-Metal if that's how their promoted? And Nu-Metal is nothing more than a term made up by the music industry and is not actually a subgenre a metal? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I just want to know if that's what you were saying or if I put some words in your mouth.

I'm not sure. It seems that nu-metal is easy to find in a small branch of a music chain store such as HMV (UK), but does that mean it's simply popular? I think it became easy about 10 years ago to promote heavy music in the peak Marilyn Manson era, but I can't see the chicken & egg solution here. Either the bands were popular, so the media grouped them, or the media & PR people invented the idea, and the bands were either guided into it (by record labels) or conveniently suited the description. The crux of my point is that the constant inane disputes over who fits each pigeonhole could be averted by stating that nu-metal is not a single style, describing some characteristics, and leaving it at that. Skewer 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SOAD are already considered alternative metal and not nu-metal. For example, they are far more removed from both Slipknot and Limp Bizkit than the two are from each other. In short:

Alternative metal is a fusion genre between alternative rock and heavy metal. It came about in te eighties and peaked alongside grunge.

Nu metal is a derivative form of alt. metal, a genre primarily based on alt. metal bands, in particular Tool (band), Rage Against the Machine, Fear Factory, Marilyn Manson and a few others, that produced a much more standardised sound.

Most alternative metal bands were a somewhat original fusion of alternative rock and heavy metal and formed in the eighties or early nineties; most nu metal bands were more generic bands inspired by the alternative metal that preceded them and formed in the mid- to late-nineties. --203.208.72.234 12:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a new subject for this as I couldn't really find an appropriate subject to place this under:

This is an argument that is going to go on for a long time. For quite a while I was on the "Not Metal" side of the argument. However, I've come to realise that it was merely elitism on my part (I hate 90% of nu-metal bands). I believe that this is the case in most people arguing that it isn't metal. As it stands Nu-metal has been used as an umbrella term to encompass many different styles and sounds (much like "emo", "metal", "alternative rock/metal" though I'd like to add that Alternative isn't a genre description as much as a description of popularity, which in most cases isn't even accurate anymore as "alternative rock" is quite popular now.)

I would argue that bands like 3 Doors Down, Taproot, Trapt, Godsmack etc. are not Nu-metal as they lack any sort of hip-hop influence, they're more victims of the umbrella term, (it should be noted that I hate them.)

Actual Nu-metal bands would inclue Slipknot, Rage Against the Machine, Linkin Park, Disturbed et all. For those wondering about Disturbed, I haven't listened to them since their first album, however their first album had unmistakeable hip hop influence.

For bands that actually fit into the Nu-metal genre: Realistically the metal or not metal would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. As much as it pains me to admit it, Slipknot is definitely a metal band, but I would argue that Rage Against the Machine and Linkin Park are more Hard Rock bands. Since this is an unrealistic idea for Wikipedia to do, I recommend leaving it within the metal genre, but putting a section describing the controversy around the Metal vs Not Metal question, providing valid arguments from both sides and let the reader decide on his own.

Regarding the question of why it's called Nu-METAL. If I remember correctly, that name was coined by Jonathan Davis, who isn't exactly the greatest authority on genres, so using that argument isn't the best argument in the world.

Something I just noticed, who the hell, can I say hell? I haven't read the rules completely, calls it aggro metal? (oops, forgot to sign it, edited on May 25 at 9:40 Mountain Time) Devolved 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree - note again that Slipknot have just been added to the list of Alt metal artists (will inevitably get removed soon... and so it goes...) - but I would still maintain that Alt metal is typically the fringe who don't sound much like the rest (hence "alternative") rather than something to do with popularity.

More specifically, I see Lat as bands (yes, like Tool, like Primus) who constantly push just outside what we are used to, and who have a fairly recogniseable sound. I know you can listen to A Perfect Circle, Ultraspank and others, thinking "sounds like Tool here", but these bands (despite their connection to Tool via performers or producers) came later. Hence I would see them as Nu-Metal (or Emo if you must use that term :) ).

I have tried before to suggest the vital balance of the 80s-90s-00s timeline, the soundalike vs. fringe-sounding acts, the mainstream promotion etc. as a comprehensive way to ID nu-metal when it seems to be applicable, but the tendency to label bands based on debut or breakthrough albums is hard to get past. I've even heard NIN labelled Nu Metal, but then again we're in an age where people have MP3s and don't know the song titles or even who the songs are by... One could go mad worrying about the state of it all (!) Skewer 07:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you that alt. could be used in order to describe a band of that sort, however, much like "progressive" and "experimental" it stops actually meaning that and starts being applied to every band that even remotely sounds like that. For example, Alternative Rock/Metal isn't fringe anymore and most of them sound like each other, couple that with extreme mainstream success (which I have nothing against, some of my favourite bands are huge mainstream successes), then you no longer have an "Alternative" genre.

Regarding Tool and Primus, I would classify them as progressive rock. They may not sound like Pink Floyd, Porcupine Tree, Rush, et all. However, by the very definition of the word they progress towards something new more than most "Progressive" bands after the 1980s.

I agree that the whole system needs to be revamped, the only problem is that before that can happen, people are actually going to have to reach an agreement, which is an unfortunately hard thing to do.Devolved 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused about that prog and experimental statement. I don't think I know of any bands that aren't prog or experimental that are labeled as such. Alternative (rock too, not just metal) is used far too often for bands that don't really fit the definition. Its just marketing. If a band doesn't have a sound that is different from the standard, then don't consider them alternative. Other bands will come along and copy the sound, but its still alternative since its the sound thats alternative, not necessarily the band or its popularity. marnues 01:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to say - Alternative acts actually sound alternative, nu-metal is marketed as alternative. Either you buy into a crafted subculture, with dozens of acts to choose from, or you find yourself liking Primus and, well, that's the only choice you have if you want to hear that sound... Skewer 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Prog statement, it's become more a catchall for bands that change keys and time signatures. Even though most of them (Dream Theatre, Queensryche, et all, sound the same and don't actually progress

Anyway, about the Alternative, that's all well and good, but then you get into the issue of what actually makes the genre Alternative, just saying that it's a fringe band that doesn't really fit into a set genre leaves far too much room for speculation based on personal opinion and such. IMO, if the term Alternative is going to be used, there needs to be a stricter definition, otherwise we'll wind up right back where we are now. Devolved 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'A Perfect circle is nu-metal?! who wrote this!?

Of all the bands listed in the article, A.P.C is the worst reference for a nu-metal band, they have never rapped, their music never have used hip hop based rhytms or samplers, their lyrics are very complex,romantic, and with a sound that incorporates certain elements like the use of strings, acoustic guitars, or psychedelic sounds that make A.P.C very, very distant from bands like linkin park,korn,limp bizkit,adema,disturbed,papa roach,etc. Damn, thell me just ONE song of any of these bands that can be compared with "3 libras" , naming just one example.

He's right, APC display none of the characteristics assoiated with nu metal other than being somewhat heavy and fairly popular.--Switch 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

== for just once it would be nice to read arguments to why Nu-metal isn't metal instead of people just shouting out things like "they don't have the right philosophy" or "they're sellouts" or evern more comman they just say "they're not because...", Nu-metal IS metal. that's the way it is. Too bad "true metal" fans. But hey, at least it isn't true metal? so you can keep lording over other people and pretend that you are better. Nu-metal may not be your favourite metal-genre, hell you can hate it for all I care, it may not stay as closely to "classic" metal techniques as the other genres do, but it is as much metal as Slayer or Pantera is. Hell sometimes when I listen to Pantera and Slayer I think of the nu-metal bands that they sound like in that particular song. Don't like Nu-metal, I don't even want you too, but please, act your age and just leave it at a disagreement between you and those who do like it. Don't pretend that it's not metal simply so you can look down on those who listen to it.

How about that the prime focus in heavy metal music is often musicianship and solos, both of which are noticeably lacking in nu metal? Or that nu metal's only conceivable relationship to metal is that it's heavy, while not all heavy music is metal, and not all metal is heavy? The fact that the term itself is used mostly as an insult to non-metal bands posing as metal? --Switch 16:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

saying that a prime focus in a music genre is musicianship is sort of, well redundant as ALL genres feature musicianship, even hiphop which I consider a simple form of music takes certain skills that, for example, a heavy metal musician would not posess, Nu-metal also takes skill, just listen to LD 50 with Mudvayne or 40 Below Summer, mudvayne feature odd time signatures and complex song arrangements while 40BS are skilled at making emotionalt song,s (in my opinion), so that's not really a valid argument.

As for solos, there are plenty of death metal/black metal/heavy metal songs that don't have solos, but are those less metal than the other songs of the same artists that do have solos. And there are several nu metal songs with solos, Stricken with Disturbed, Stand For Nothing with DeadSun and quite a few I don't have time to mention.

And have you even listened to any nu-metal? like I said before, I listen to plenty of Slayer and Pantera and even Iron Maiden and find myself wondering if it's a nu-metal album, admittedly it only takes me a few seconds to realize it's not, specially with Iron Maiden. the fact that nu-metal mostly is heavy is because it uses metal techniques to become heavy, distorted guitars is just a small part of it. and consider the fact that many metal bands such as Metallica, In Flames and Soilwork play metal music and of late have been "accused" of being Nu-metal simply because they progressed in that direction? they play music similar to their old style with parts that some say sound like nu-metal, therefor the relationship between the two genres has to be realtively close.

Lastly, the fact that nu-metal is an insult is that there are a lot of snobbish metal listeners who listen to it only to put others down, they think they're some kind of rebells, so any style that doesn't follow the unwritten rules(such as featuring solos and whatnot) are considered sellouts or whatever. Also Nu-metal became very popular during the 90s and yearly 2000 and everything that is popular has to be sellout according to some who listen to metal. It's simply a way for people who like to think of themselves as better than others to look down on something and for those who honestly dislike nu-metal to hop on a "hate-bandwagon". I am bad at english so I hope what I just wrote makes sense. Thanks for reading

-what does that have to do with apc though? you went off into some dumb pro-nu metal rant for no reason. it wasn't even on top! you just got picked on by some metal heads so you decided to bitch? is that?

It's been a month, and I don't even know why it was protected in the first place. WesleyDodds 10:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, im not saying linkin park are a bad band, but as aposed to KoRn, their nothing, korn started it all, both the band and the album, korn are the godfathers, long live korn.

another fan

Dear fan, Linkin Park are NOT godfathers, everyone knows it (in fact, Korn was formed in 1993, LP in 1996). Read well, they have sold much more records (35 million) than Korn themselves (25 million), as so as written in the related articles. However, I personally find the comparison between the two bands extremely shallow. Has someone ever heard Jonathan Davis rapping? Probably Korn is believed to have mixed hip hop and metal only due to these three reasons: they have discovered Limp Bizkit, the latter tend continuously to be panned, and hip hop detractors attribute their musical hybrid to their Bakersfield mentors (in order to make people forgetting LB, perhaps?). Egr, 8/6/2006

Maybe people think Korn are influenced by hip-hop because of their frequent collaboration with rappers, their syncopated, hip-hop influenced bass and Jon Davis' occasional rapping. That, and the fact they themselves acknowledge they use elements of hip-hop in their music. --Switch 06:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Switch, you say the right thing (especially about Korn's rhythmic section). But sincerely, can the singing style of their debut album be called "rapping"? User:85.18.14.4, 9/6/2006

On their debut? No. A little bit of Davis' rap-influenced vocal style can be heard on Issues and Follow the Leader (If I remember - that's the one featuring Fred Durst?) though. Then again, he also scats, growls and screams. --Switch 11:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

All that you say is true, Switch. The problem is that I'm too used listening to actually rap-driven nu metal. Egr, 21/6/2006

At the little box at the top it says teh Intruments, then "(occasionally) Keyboard - Rapping - Vocals" This is missleading. I don't know if it's only saying that Nu Metal bands occasionally have keyboards, or occasionally have keyboards, rapping OR vocals.

The order should be changed if it is meant to say that only keyboards are occasional, it looks like it's saying that rapping and vocals are occasional too, which is wrong. I don't think there is a single Nu Metal band that has no vocals/rapping at all (entirely instrumental)

Please somebody change it if you agree with me, I'm not entirely sure if I should change it or not.

It took me a bit of an effort to reach this article, given that I can actually spell properly.

Grunge is perhaps the most recognizable ancestor of nu metal; the quick jolts of distorted guitar chords, tortured vocals and lyrics of angst associated with grunge have found clear public display in signature nu metal artists, including those with a reputation for integrating hip hop into their sound.

I have massive problems with this statement. Even though I hate Kurt Cobain with a passion, I'm not prepared to concede that insult. If we were to use the same inclusive factors as a marker of influence, we could come to the ridiculous conclusion that an art-rock band like Mogwai, or Achers Of Loaf are influences and are also nu-metal acts themselves. Mogwai has the typical 20 layers of distortion thing happening, but it does not make them nu-metal. As to the lyrics of angst, why not say that shoegazer bands are nu-metal, or an influence?

We all know that Nirvana were a second rate Pixies rip off, and I can see nothing that can link either of these bands with this genre. My guess would be that they are just listed as a generic influence, as with 99% of bands, but I can see nothing of note that would definitively link Grunge as the overriding influence of this genre. Chops_a_must --218.215.195.246 07:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

the band Limp Bizkit inspired the name nu metal. Limp Bizkit is practically dead and so should this term be dead. This connotation was applied unfairly to bands like Sevendust and Disturbed who do not rap as Nu metal is defined as.

The funny thing is I have an aticle where Sevendust says they're a nu metal band. WesleyDodds 11:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

How come a genre dies if its first band dies?

I think we would all agree the first writers of, let's say, Classical music, are not only no longer performing, but dead, correct? So, does that mean that Classical music cannot exist anymore? No, anyone can make music of the same style, if they so desire.

Plenty of articles suffer from weasel words, but this one is excessive and it's already too POV without the weasel words. I added the tag. -Unknownwarrior33 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the instances. WesleyDodds 07:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't have the time, energy, or reason to list all of them (I'd be here for weeks), but here are some examples. Look at the lead in paragraph:

"Nu metal (also called aggro metal, or nü metal using the traditional heavy metal umlaut) is a musical genre that has origins in the mid 1990s. It typically fuses influences from the grunge[1] and alternative metal of the early 1990s with hip hop, electronic music and other metal genres, most often thrash metal and groove metal. The popularity and perceived vast commercialisation of such music in the late 1990s and early 2000s led to widespread negative associations with the term nu metal, which in turn led to many fans and artists rejecting it. [citation needed]"

First of all, that paragraph is filled with meaningless quantifiers. "Many", "most", "vast", "widespread", and "typically" don't really mean anything because they don't tell us actual numbers or what those numbers mean. For example, "vast commercialization" can mean different amounds to different people. "Many" fans can be 3. "Most often" is only valid if you have a verifiable percentage or ratio. Similarly, what's the source of these quantities? The source listed is just as weasily as this article, and it doesn't say that the most common influences are thrash and groove metal. Each and every one of these quantifiers needs to be changed or removed. For example, not only do we need a good, verifiable idea of how many artists are rejecting the term, we also need to know what kind of artists. The guy who does charicatures at the state fair is an artist, after all. Nobody said anything about famous musicians, and even if they did, that would require proof too. "Many artists" can mean a charicaturist, a church organ player, and a fingerpainting 5-year-old. Because there's no defined value for these terms, they don't give any real information. Even if we assume good faith and understand that the article is referring to famous musicians, it still needs to say who and how many and list a source proving that claim. It's impossible to find a statistic for EVERYTHING, but there's absolutely no support offered for these claims.

The word "popularity" on its own as it is in that passage can mean anything, any number of supporters from 0 to infinite. "Popularity" doesn't always mean high popularity. Now, in some cases that's nitpicking, but I really have no idea what this article means by "popularity" And "commercialization" in this context is not an encyclopedic term because it has no set definition and it's not a classification used by major people and groups in the industry. The article on Wikipedia to which you're redirected from the word "commercialization" doesn't mention this context of the term at all. Furthermore, even if that was a valid term with a single definition, the article still doesn't give good information on who believes it, how many people, and why it's important.

Then we have the part about "negative associations". That barely means anything. In addition to what I said before about quantifiers, it's about as vague as possible. "Negative" can mean anything, and what's being associated? What kind of association? And what significance does this have?

Taking all that into account, this is the only content from that paragraph that really belongs on Wikipedia until more sources come in:

""Nu metal (also called aggro metal, or nü metal using the traditional heavy metal umlaut) is a musical genre that has origins in the mid 1990s. It typically fuses influences from the grunge and alternative metal of the early 1990s with hip hop, electronic music and other metal genres."

Also, look at the next section. Of that long paragraph, the only verified factual information is that Staind is not a numetal band and that Korn's newest album has a "funky" sound. Since the sound of a specific album doesn't belong in a section about rejecting the name of the genre, and Staind not being numetal can be addressed much more appropriately by simply taking it off the list of bands. Assuming it's already off the list, that entire section should be deleted. I'm not saying every piece of information in every article needs a source, but a lot of these things are debateable and some are completely misleading (a link to information about Staind used as evidence for a point about the entire genre?) And weasel words are not the only problem. What about this:

"People who consider themselves "metal purists" refer to fans of nu metal as "mallgoths," "mini-moshers," or "angsters" in a derogatory way, claiming that nu-metal fans are subversive "rebels without a cause" (whose rebellious attitude is questionable because of their allegiance to corporate vehicles). Some people believe that the entire nu-metal genre was invented by record executives (similar claims have been made about Post-Grunge). The postmodern art design of nu-metal albums and music videos has come under criticism for attempting to appear raw and gritty in spite of the multimillion dollar production teams behind such designs."

The first part of it is an example of the way some people make fun of other people, and the second part is as far away from verifiable information as possible.

It would be quick and easy to fix this article, and so I'm going to do it. I'm not planning to change anything that doesn't go against Wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge. If I have (or you want) reasoning for any of my changes that isn't the same as my reasoning for these examples, I'll give it to you here. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to say I have more authority to choose what's here than anyone else, but the fact is that if I make a change and someone who disagrees immediately changes it back, we're going to have an edit war instead of the consensus that the rules require us to have. -Unknownwarrior33 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That was harder than I thought, because even though a good chunk of the article is weasel words that can be deleted, there are exceptions to that rule and it didn't seem right to me to delete a lot of that stuff. So even though I did some basic stuff, it's far from perfect. There are still way too many weasel words, but a certain number is ok and I didn't feel comfortable simply getting rid of a lot of them because they are potentially provable and I believe they'll be valuable if they get evidence. Again, I did my best only to change things that clearly went against wikipedia's policies regarding POV and verifiability as far as I know them; my goal wasn't to change everything that needs to be changed. For example, the section about common traits is very complicated. Weasel words are necessary for that kind of thing, but is that kind of thing necessary? I don't know, so I just changed some of the more glaring POV things I found. Now, as I've said before, I don't claim to be an authority on the subjects of nu metal or wikipedia policy, I just happen to be the person who made the changes. I can't promise I didn't make any errors in judgement. In fact, I'd be surprised if I didn't make at least one. Again, the only reason I'm writing about the stuff I changed is so that there isn't an edit war that can be solved by comparing information. -67.163.21.39 03:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • That was me; I didn't realize I had logged off. -Unknownwarrior33 03:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A reference is an outside source that verifies the respective claim. I deleted the reference "Limp Bizkit, for example, have used the same marketing firm, M80, as pop music artists Backstreet Boys" because not only does it not even come close to proving the point (that the majority of the world's 6 billion people believe nu metal is commercialized), but it's not even valid to the article. To prove a majority, you need a number of people. There are dictionaries to explain the definition of "proof" and they can set straight people who believe an outside piece of information proves that a majority holds one opinion about something not even mentioned in that outside piece of information. Furthermore, for the reasons I stated in the previous topic of this page, "commercialized" in this context is not an encyclopedic term. However, somebody changed it back immediately saying that I should let people choose whether to accept believe that the opinion about commercialisation is true. Ignoring the glaring hypocrasy of this statement coming from someone who lists an opinion as a fact in a Wikipedia article, I deleted it again and put my reasoning here. If you want to argue this, go ahead. Just please don't tell me that the band Linkin Park sharing the name of a place where Sesame Street Live once performed is irrefutable proof that "most people" (for that term to be proven as written you'd have to verify information from over 3 billion people) think the reference should stay in the article. -Unknownwarrior33 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't so much footnoting the whole statement; more so trying to address commercialization (selling out) itself. That being said I think your points are valid and the intro is better without the sentence.maxcap 12:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we could reach an agreement. Looking at the edit history of the article can give anyone a pretty good idea of how this might have turned out differently (not pleasant stuff) -67.163.21.39 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me; again I forgot to log in. -Unknownwarrior33 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I want to add that I apologize if any of the stuff I wrote on this page (the talk page) yesterday was offensive to anyone. I've been feeling really weird lately and it's come out in my talk page posts, among other places, in the form of me being too tired and messed-up-feeling to make sure I'm saying things the way i mean to, as well as being unable to think of what I'm trying to say (for example, last night I spent about 4 hours editing a single sentence of a different Wikipedia article, drifting between degrees of consciousness as I was doing it). -Unknownwarrior33 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Over the course of several months, several edits have either deleted, downplayed, or added an extremely out of place "counter-argument" to the influence the band "Tool (band)" has on the nu metal genre. Why?

Granted, this is a very controversial, polarized "subgenre" of music, and other bands have been removed by editors for similar reasons (i.e., not having the musical traits of the genre, or "being around" before the nu-metal era began.) However, nothing is more solid than a nu-metal band or musician claiming (a said band) to be one of their influences - with a source to back this up.

I like Slayer. I don't consider them nu-metal, but their more commercial albums (i.e., God Hates Us All) have had an influence on the nu-metal genre. I may not like the connection - but does that give me any excuse to rid their name from the article, simply for that reason? Absolutely not. --Danteferno 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize; I wasn't attempting to make any band-specific or opinion-specific changes. Believe me, I left a lot of stuff in there with which I don't agree. I was just trying to de-weasel-ize it and take out some of the things that were extremely unencyclopedic. The fact that mention of Tool was in a place I edited was coincidental. I promise I won't revert anything if you put it back; I wasn't paying too much attention to who was where, and I apologize for that. -Unknownwarrior33 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here's my opinion. I have noticed that the

66.68.210.69 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add nu-metal to the list of genres listed in the box to the right, (can't give the technical name for it, sorry) but I won't add it myself since many consider Mudvayne Nu-metal yet the label isn't there. I draw the conclusion that there has been a discussion about the subject and it's been decided to not label them even part Nu-metal. If however this is just an oversight or an inconclusive discussion I just wanted to revitalise it, 'cause I love Mudvayne but no matter how great they are, an artist doesn't decide what to call the music he plays unless it's 100% original. I use the terms Nu-metal and Alt. Metal as synonyms since most people don't have a clear idea of what either means so it's easier, so I don't know if it's necessery, perhaps I'm just splitting hairs here.

I've heard that

Well, if there's no other source verifying the use of the term, I'd say nothing is relevant and nothing should be added or mentioned. -Unknownwarrior33 19:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a band like Incubus or Linkin Park really all that aggressive? The bands aren't metal either for the most part, most of them are just hard rock.Theunknown42 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Linkin Park is aggressive vocally, along with having LOUD PARTS, and is Incubus even nu-metal?

I'd say Incubus are nu metal, and I like them. They thank Korn in the liner notes for Afungus Amongus and S.C.I.E.N.C.E., so I think that's a fair indication they're nu metal. Certainly a little more on the progressive/creative side, and with some clear ska/skate-punk/funkcore influences, but definitely nu metal on their early work. As for being aggressive, no, not really. And Linkin Park is angsty most of the time, not really aggressive. --Switch 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, Linkin Park's music features also RAP VOCALS (umpf!)! -- Egr (talk), 10/20/2006

Nu-metal can't be correctly described as Aggressive rock since it's metal and not rock. Many bands are being described as nu-metal when they're really just not metal but heavier than rock music is traditionally. Real Nu-metal has metal influences, though a lot of people would probably argue that not even they do 'cause of this and that and "true metal" here and there. What the fuck ever, all in all, Nu-metal as a genre is unreliable 'cause it leaves too much to be intepreted by the individual, hell we have enough controversy over death and heavy and more "easily described" genres. But one thing I can say for certain, if it's labeled "Nu-metal" it's Metal of some kind, not "Aggressive Rock". That's a term slapped on by people who like to say Nu-metal isn't Metal 'cause it makes their music better...or something. If there is such a thing as Aggressive Rock it's rock-based and aggressive, that's all we can say for certain right now.

JUST WANT TO DROP A couple of pennies in here - I am heavily influenced by Smashing Pumpkins and Pixies. My music winds up sounding bluesy/folksy. An artist cited as an influence DOES NOT equal the citing artist being in the same, or even similar, genre. Chino Moreno has cited Weezer as one of his influences (not to mention The Cure, Duran Duran, and Depeche Mode) *[see http://www.mysticgames.com/famouspeople/ChinoMoreno.htm, at least, but I've heard it/read it in other places too]. Listen to Wilco, they have a song in which the lyrics reminisce about "playing Kiss covers..." [Heavy Metal Drummer, from "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot"]. Kiss is also cited as one of Weezer's infuences at http://www.albany.edu/~nk2352/zine/Noelle.htm (and in their song lyrics on the "Blue Album" - I forget which song). Cheap Trick is mentioned on that same site as a Weezer influence. Does that put Weezer, Cheap Trick, Wilco, Kiss, and the Deftones in the same genre - or any of the same genres, for that matter? Na-ah...

Agressive Rock is the stupidest sub-genre I have ever heard & it does not need its own page, nor should it be said that its the "technical" term for nu-metal. Angst Rock I could understand if it was used in a derogatory way but the idea that there is a style of rock or metal agressive enough to call agressive metal that does not fit into another metal sub-genre is completely absurd.--Fukhed666 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

corrections on agrresive rock

Heavy Metal is aggresive rock music.

Nu Metal is a sub genre of Alternative metal. No other band that doesn not have that genre can be Nu metal. SO if it is rap/nu metal. then it's rappign in Alternative metal. Red (band) is a Nnu Metal band. They have Alternative metal styles because the are Alternative metal. Slipknot (band) coudnlt be Nu metal.

it is a combo of grunge, and hip-hop. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources to back that up? And get a real discussion going before you change big things like that. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen to any song from this genre. That should be proof enough, unless you are mentally retarded. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to listen to this music all the time. But that doesn't matter. You're providing no arguments or sources to back up your statements. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 16:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't metal. I get the feeling you don't know anything about music theory, which is why you can't back up your statements. In any case, the burden of the proof is on you, so telling us to "listen to any song from the genre" is not proof. --BennyD (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course nu-metal is not metal, that is why it is called nu-metal. It is a fusion genre. Historically, it takes influences from metal, grunge, funk, and hip-hop, although most bands have only a partial mix of these. Linkin Park, for example, certainly takes a heavy influence from hip-hop, and might fall into the sort of classification you speak of. Disturbed, however, does not, and takes much greater influence from traditional metal and syncopated/funk styles. With that said, the definition of "metal" is not something which you can fix. At this time, nu-metal is considered to be a fusion/split with metal, so that is what it is. Next think you know, you'll be saying Beethoven is not Romantic because he isn't Brahms, and not classical because he isn't Mozart. As to the person below, as far as I can tell only you and the original poster deserve your epithets if anyone here does. Mad2Physicist (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

In his defense, he is right, nu-metal is not metal. I'm not going to take the time to provide sources to back that up, I'm just coming here to say that it's nothing to do with whether or not he likes metal (I certainly can think of many metal bands I cannot stand). This post, if you're not looking at it from the I-know-music-theory-so-you-are-wrong wikipedia point of view, is obviously just a venting of frustration with yet another highly-praised supposedly informative website once again getting it all wrong. Give him a break and don't be an asshole. 76.121.91.3 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal isn't metal, but, at the same, it isn't "not metal" either. It's a fusion genre. I think it's even listed as such. Excuse my bad english btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

this is a very long talk page... and btw, there's alot of side comments on nu metal which have nothing to do with this article... if we want to include views and opinions on nu metal, we should be finding magazine articles and artist quotes that give solid proof that some people think this, or others think that. just scanning thru this talk page, i dont theres much productivity... Blueaster 02:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Archived to prevent the unnessecary chatter down to a minimum. — Moe Epsilon 04:16 September 13 '06

Totally untrue, POV, and vague statement.... Death metal consists of double bass/blastbeats, extremely fast rhythm guitar and bass, death grunt/growled vocals. Nu-metal (as the article states) consists of 4/4 drumbeats or synthetic beats, guitar and bass with influences from rap, funk, or grunge, and usually rapped, screamed, or monotone vocals. Fans and bands of both genres usually want nothing to do with one another. The article thus contradicts itself big time with any mention of death metal. Each time this obviously questionable bit is removed, it is put back in. Why? Would someone mind explaining? Or is the comparison just an "inside joke"? --Danteferno 18:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I must agree, Korn have said, I seem to remember, in some interview that they tried to mix hiphop with Death Metal. If you listen to Korn you sure as hell don't hear Hiphop as it is in it's pure form. Neither do you hear anything close to Death, it's a mix. Two things thrown together usually end up in something that's alike neither. Yes many Nu-metal bands have death-INFLUENCES but that's not the same as playing the same thing. Then we might as well keep on talking about how Death bands listened to Black Sabbath when they were young.

Copied from your talk page:

As this has been discussed already, I'll try to be simple:

• As the link shows, a citation has been made by WesleyDodds.
• Fear Factory are a death metal band often labelled as nu metal, and are a major influence on nu metal. Other death metal bands, such as Sepultura and Slayer, have been cited as influences on nu metal by nu metal bands or musical commentators.

Fear Factory were only briefly death metal, as were Sepultura; Slayer are thrash, not death metal, and none of above explains how the nu-metal genre has "sonic similarity" to death metal.

• Static-X are a nu metal band often labelled as death metal.

Cite your sources, please.

• Korn cite Cannibal Corpse, a death metal band, as an influence.

Again, cite your sources, please.

• Apart from these links, the sonic similarity between guitar styles (if not musicianship) of nu metal and death metal is very prevalent.

This is not the first time you have tried to remove any mention of "death metal" from the nu metal article, and when one attempt is stopped, you convert to another reason to make the same edit. Your clear bias has no place in the article. --Switch 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proved anything. You stated that Fear Factory started as death metal, you made an unsourced claim of a nu-metal band being called death metal, and then another unsourced claim of a nu-metal band citing a death metal band as an influence. Whether these are true or not, you have not explained the "death metal" sonic similarity nu-metal has. This: "the sonic similarity between guitar styles (if not musicianship) of nu metal and death metal is very prevalent." explains nothing and is obviously POV. I'm not pushing "bias" in the article, only defending fact. And death metal having sonic similarity with nu-metal is not fact. BTW, the only persons who kept the "death metal sonic similarity" connection in were you and WesleyDodds (who never answered the points made). The previous user who reverted the edit did so only because he didn't agree with the edit summary [1], and an earlier user who reverted this edit is now perm. banned from Wikipedia. (Ironically, the banned user did not cite any sources to the edits he made.) --Danteferno 22:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

According to most critics, Fear Factory's music is still based firmly in death metal, apart from their last two albums, but with industrial elements. They still tour mostly with death bands supporting. You can check their own article, or their official website, or their reviews on Amazon, or their MTV area, or thei Allmusic biography. All describe the band as fusing electronic/industrial influences with death metal. Sepultura, similarly, started infusing alternate influences, but for most of their career, kept their music rooted in death metal. Slayer, while not technically death, are considered the starting point for the genre.

Static-X are called "death metal", or described as a fusion between death and some form of electronic music, mostly disco, on Amazon (Wisconsin death trip), RateYourMusic, this, and the frontman himself has said their current sound is a "culmination of every type of genre I have ever done", "from acoustic songs to speed metal/death metal stuff".

Korn cited Cannibal Corpse as an influence on the episode of Rage they guest programmed, and played one of their videos. It has been reported by other users that they did the same on Headbanger's Ball, though I wouldn't know personally.

Anyway, I don't know where that citation went, but there was a citation up there at one point. I'll try to dig it up, but that stuff isn't easy.

Please note that Korn's song "Ball Tongue" (

Ball Tongue (song) main riff is directly ripped from a death metal song Korn (album)

{please view the links wich contain this info}

I fail to see how Fear Factory having once been death metal, or touring with death metal bands has any bearing on nu metal being related to death metal (which it is obviously not). If you actually listened to real death metal, i'm pretty sure you would see that Static-X is most certainly in no way affiliated with the genre. --75.73.204.83 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually think he made it pretty clear. Death Metal has very strong influence in nu metal. I don't see how it isn't clear XXLegendXx 12:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet , you have no source to back up your claim. This is so retarded... Nu metal bands are the perfect example, that death metal is slightly more than downtuned guitars and syncopated rhythms. but anyway, as long as you have no proof, nu metal doesn't bear as much similarities to death metal as heavy metal is the modern day descendant of classical music. That's the rules. again, excuse my bad english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tool does not belong on this page. Tool and many of their fans take serious offense to being grouped into this category. It is not appropriate.

The article doesn't say they're nu metal. It says they influenced nu metal, which they did. --Switch 11:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to indicate this while maintaining the influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.98.138.53 (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They pioneered this fuckin genre when everyone else was still in nappies!

I've never heard of them. Are they nu metal? Or od they more properly belong in the alternative metal category? Nu metal isn't generally thought to have started until the early-mid nineties with Korn and Deftones. I have never heard them, but maybe someone else here has. --Switch 11:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, Stuck Mojo are

rapcore, not nu metal. They were among the first acts to fuse rap and metal, but can't jump into nu metal because they have come way before. --Egr

20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon. user with IP 69.141.3.45 keeps removing any references to Deftones from the article. As they were one of the earliest formed bands (forming in 1992) to become one of the bigger nu metal groups, and are almost universally considered nu metal (at least their early work) - stop it.

Deftones were a nu metal band. A very prominent one, almost synonymous with the genre, and as far as I know, the earliest. Either the anon loves them and wants them to be distanced from the term "nu metal" or hates them and wants them removed from any and all articles, but I don't care. Stop adding your bias to the article.

If you persist, action can be taken to have you banned from editing this article. --Switch 10:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone do something about this guy. He is also deleting the Deftones references to the

He is also removing the statement that Deftones helped instigate nu metal from the alternative metal article. If anyone has a book on nu metal, that would be a big help. I thought it wouldn't be an issue, but he's claiming POV for associating Deftones with nu metal in any way at all. We're going to have to find a credible source - probably a book - and give proper citations. --Switch 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon, though. Nu-metal is obviously some loose, derisive term/label, not an actually genre. It is not even included in Allmusic.com as a genre. Just look at the guidelines for "nu metal." Right at the beginning, it basically states that there ARE NO guidelines. Your so-called "Nu metal" includes everything from Limp Bizkit to Disturbed to Static-X, but really, none of these bands sound alike. And obviously hip hop influences are not a defining factor, since plenty of supposed "nu metal" bands have no hip hop influences (not to mention the fact that there is already a genre called rapcore.) So what is nu metal? Can anyone tell me? I'm NOT a fan of any of the bands that are on this page, but I am a fan of the Deftones. And I must say, you have to be some one who has never heard the Deftones and goes only on vague assumptions to even associate them with most of the bands cited as "nu metal." Limp Bizkit? Linkin Park? No way, they sound NOTHING like any of these bands. The Deftones started in 1988, experimenting with different sounds before even such "esteemed" bands as Rage Against the Machine were formed (Who, by the way, are never referred to as nu metal, but sounded similar to many artists you term as "nu metal" and had great influences on the supposed "genre") So if RATM can get away with simply being mentioned as an influence, why can't the Deftones. Just because they were touring friends with Korn does not make a band "nu metal." Look at most real reviews by real critics, and they will most likely state that Deftones are "experimental," "not nu metal", or "above nu metal." But yes, they should indeed be mention as an influence on "nu metal," since they have influenced many of the bands you label "nu-metal." Oh, and what the hell is mallcore? People need to get a life and stop making up stupid genres with which they clump bands they have never even heard. How are the Deftones (or even Tool) mallcore? Tool is a little cliche at times, but hardly for little teenage girls and mallrats. And I have never even heard of a mallgoth listening to the Deftones. Linkin Park and Evanescence, yes, but not the Deftones. Regardless, this is all opinion and observation, but it is also the opinion of countless music critics. "Mallcore." Ha! I'm not defending any of the bands on the mallcore page, because I am not a fan of any of them. But seriously, what makes you think your "fav band" is any better? You think you're "alternative?" You think you're "hardcore?" No, you are an elitist. - Callmarcus 31 October 2006

"Nu-metal is obviously some loose, derisive term/label, not an actually genre. It is not even included in Allmusic.com as a genre."

Actually, it is a genre. It was obviously not derisive back in the late nineties when bands were calling themselves "nu metal", and when the term was being used to hype acts by record labels. It became derisive because it was a trend, in much the same way as "emo" is now derisive and no-one wants their favourite bands to be called that either. "Nu metal" is also considered a small subgenre on allmusic (Which by the way is not a good source); read their page on "Alternative metal". While you're at it, read the Wikipedia article on it too; it makes clear what nu metal is.

"The Deftones started in 1988, experimenting with different sounds before even such "esteemed" bands as Rage Against the Machine were formed..."

Rage were part of the LA alternative scene that largely influenced nu metal, including

RHCP, et cetera. Those bands were alternative rock and alternative metal

, not nu metal. Deftones were one of the bands influenced by that scene that started making heavy alternative music with a combination of those influences - hey, that's what nu metal is.

"Just because they were touring friends with Korn does not make a band "nu metal." Look at most real reviews by real critics, and they will most likely state that Deftones are "experimental," "not nu metal", or "above nu metal.""

You a young one? Nu metal was not a derisive term when Deftones started getting mainstream attention. All this bollocks about "above nu metal" is revisionism; a lot of nu metal releases won critical acclaim (including those by Deftones). If you remember back to the late nineties, a lot of bands were "nu metal" and didn't reject the term; some openly embraced it. I remember Deftones being placed cleanly in the nu metal category without any difficulty. There are also plenty of nu metal bands with experimental, talented music;

(həd) pe in their early days, Slipknot, Mudvayne and others, though I don't like them, are talented, original musicians. Are they "above" nu metal too? What about Korn

? They were certainly innovative, so does that make them "above" nu metal?

"And I have never even heard of a mallgoth listening to the Deftones."

I have. I wouldn't call them "mallcore", whatever that exactly means, but they were certainly trendy enough to have everyone listening to them a while ago. So were Tool, who are also not "mallcore". I don't love the Deftones a whole lot, but they're in no way a bad band and I quite like some of their work.

"You think you're "alternative?" You think you're "hardcore?" No, you are an elitist."

Well, I do listen to a lot of

not to make any personal attacks

.

The point is, nu metal has become a derisive term and people will retaliate when a band they like is labelled with it. You admit it yourself; you don't like nu metal bands, but you like Deftones. That's your personal bias affecting the article. You've also said you've never heard a critic call Rage nu metal. Well, I have heard critics refer to Deftones as nu metal (even if they do say things like "by far one of the better nu metal bands"), very often back in the day. Deftones are very widely considered a nu metal band, but their fans will retaliate and exclude them, just like Slipknot, həd (pe), Mudvayne, Disturbed and countless others. Despite what their fans say (usually that the bands are "better than nu metal", "talented so they're not nu metal" etc. - shock!), these bands were almost universally considered nu metal before the term became an insult. --Switch 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you need more evidence, I googled Deftones "nu metal". The results are kind of in favour of Deftones being nu metal. See here: Deftones are considered nu metal above Limp Bizkit. Deftones and White Pony are tagged as nu metal above some of Korn's albums. The list isn't perfect, with a lot of alt. metal making the list, but they tend to be a lot lower. here a critic says "There are also a couple Nu-Metal bands that really aren't that bad, namely, Deftones" - a statement typical of critics' views of the band. Here we get "Deftones are nu-metal, they're just *shock, horror* good nu-metal". This site has Defs listed under "nu metal" even as a commercial site! "Bands that can be categorized under the guise of nu metal include Korn, Deftones, Slipknot, Incubus, Linkin Park, Limp Bizkit..." comes from this page, where they're listed as prime examples. Another commercial site also lists Defs as nu metal. In fact, apart from Wikipedia (which says that a certain critic says other critics "reserve a special place for Deftones above or at least away from the rest of the turn-of-the-century nu metal", implying they are nu metal but people don't like to admit it), ALL the sites on the first page describe Defs as a nu metal band. If that's anything to go by, seeing as there are 233,000 pages, they are nu metal. We haven't had a single "not nu metal" or "above nu metal" yet.

Further, A specific search for Deftones "not nu metal" yielded under 300 Ghits. Deftones "above nu metal", Deftones "superior to nu metal" and Deftones "better than nu metal" got only 15 hits between them, most not even referring to Deftones when they said the specific phrase, but saying efs are nu metal once again. (eg. "Nu-metal isnt that bad ,I actually like the deftones first 2 albums, I also like... ... ...metal is in fact 99.9999999% superior to nu metal."). Your claim that Deftones are not mu netal instigators is not supported by the facts. --Switch 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not personally attacking you. Sorry if you took it that way. I was addressing anyone who felt the need to lump bands in derisive genres, such as mallcore. I agree with some of the things you say. However, how is something on amazon.com created by a user and NOT a critic more important than something on Allmusic.com created by a critic (or Rolling Stone for that matter, who have also stated that the Deftones are unlike most turn-of-the-century metal bands. I'm not a big fan of Rolling Stone, but that's not the point)? I am not insane enough to deny that they have a significant influence on what people consider "nu metal," but I don't really think they should be labeled as "instigators." Regardless of what some kids on the internet say (or what you and I think), the Deftones have been making music before the nu metal boom, and most of this music sounds very little like anything a stereotypical "nu metal" band creates. - Callmarcus 5 November

I was going to say that no, I wasn't offended, but sometimes you have to be careful on Wikipedia, and I think a music fan's opinion is as valid as a critic's, sometimes more so, but I've tried to type this several times over the past few days, so I'm not going into much detail now. I'm just going to point out, Cleveland scene, SeattlePi, Sputnik music, Ringsurf and Silver Dragon records cite Defs as "nu metal" in just the first two pages of a Google search. As far as I can see, the vast majority of sources are describing Deftones as a nu metal (or nu-metal, or numetal, or nü metal, etc.) band, whether you want stringent criteria for reliability or not. Either way, they belong on the list of bands who instigated the genre. Some people don't want them to be called nu metal, but the same can be said for almost every other band that has ever been called nu metal. They should be mentioned in the list of instigators as much as the others should. --Switch 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Deftones were as much an inspiration for "Nu metal" bands that they can be lumped with Korn, RAtM, Tool, and Fear Factory as "Nu Metal Inspirators." While I don't think nu metal is metal or a genre at all, I also don't think it is "mallcore." Mallcore came about as an insult name for nu metal because metalheads don't think its metal. In recent times however, some of them believe it to be the "true" name for nu metal with no explanation other than the fact that there isn't anything better to call it. The Deftones are heavy alternative rock like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Mudvayne, Slipknot, Disturbed, Static-X, Sevendust, and P.O.D. This heavy alternative rock gained popularity and was mislabed "Nu Metal" by the mainstream. In recent times metalheads want nothing to do with the genre and neither do alternative rock fans. If you have seen the mallcore talk page I don't think the band list should be there, but since it will remain, there are people who think the Deftones are "mallcore" along with bands like Fear Factory, Tool, Limp Bizkit, and P.O.D.(Bands that shouldn't even be on that list).Outlaw-Viper 01:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the music described as almost always containing rap elements, but System of a down is a front leader in the genre? They have no such element, but are some of the best known as Nu Metal.

Well, many people do not consider SOAD nu metal, and most nu metal bands do have rap elements. -Switch ^t 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nu-Metal doesn't mean rap+metal/rock. If that were the case the only nu-metal bands would be Limp Bizkit, POD, Linkin Park and Crazy Town. Most Nu-Metal is groove oriented and rhythmic, and outside of some bands not very technical. The reason SOAD is considered nu-metal is because in the metal community they're not considered "metal" enough and nu-metal is the "best" label.Outlaw-Viper 11:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Even if it isn't integral to the genre, most nu metal bands do have hip hop elements. Including Korn, Mudvayne, (hed) PE, and others, not just "Limp Bizkit, POD, Linkin Park and Crazy Town." More, if nu metal only meant "rap+metal/rock", the Beastie Boys, Anthrax, Everlast and many, many other bands would be "nu metal" though they aren't. SOAD are widely not considered nu metal, and what the metal community thinks is largely irrelevant. They don't play traditional metal, so I don't see why the metal community would be the best judge of their genre. Most music critics have them pegged as hard rock, alternative metal, experimental rock, even progressive rock and various other things. Regardless of whether SOAD are nu metal, most bands do have rap elements, just as the article says. -Switch ^t 12:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I consider SOAD a nu metal band not because of what the metal community thinks, but due to the fact there is not a lot of cohesion in the genre, it almost as if anything goes. Also, "rap elements" needs to be defined more. Most Limp Bizkit songs do not sound like hip-hop so an explanation of these "elements" needs to be done. It also needs to be said that funk is more vital to the genre rather than rap. A nu-metal bands success rides on the talents of the bassist and drummer, although there are exceptions to this rule. Also I don't give a damn what the metal community thinks because outside of metal they know very little of other music genres. It seems nowadays the term nu-metal means almost anything anybody wants it to mean within reason.Outlaw-Viper 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a part of the metal community, and to me, SOAD is alternative metal (which is a fusion genre, btw. so you can't say they're not metal and you can't say that they are, either) I'm not a fan of them at all, but I don't hate them or call them posers or anything. and i'm not the only one who thinks like this. I obviously can't proof this, I just liked to change your oppinions on the metal community. And we DO have much more knowledge of other musical genres, metal wouldn't be what it is if we hadn't. I'm talking about other music genres such as punk, techno alternative rock, progrock and classical music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the criticism section should have a little more to it, since this is one of music's most ridiculed genres in recent years, yet there are just a few sentences in the article.Adamravenscroft 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree personally, but almost as soon as nu metal stopped beeing 'cool', people stopped writing about it. I think if we can find some sources, it should be fleshed out a lot more, but there's not much on it we can use apart from the MTV article already in there. -Switch ^t 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the reason this particular genre has come under such scrutiny is mainly to do with the enormous cultural differences, which is a huge factor in today's society. While you could say the majority of people may like Hip-hop and Pop, there is still that everlasting rock fan group, regardless of the "ridicule", that has been given only from people who are interested in different music genres.

Wouldn't it be more useful to figure out why the genre is ridiculed and who exactly is ridiculing it? Is it the mix of genres and influences drawing more critics than would normally pay attention? It "seems" to be universally ridiculed but different groups probably have different reasons for ridiculing the genre. The genre is not exactly a "purists paradise" so that might be one reason.Outlaw-Viper 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

people make fun of the genre because it sucks and it gives a bad name to real metal. most of the people who listen to nu metal are mall goths. isn't that common knowledge? TightKid 06:43 pm, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Saying something "sucks" and it gives a bad name to "real metal" and mainly mallgoths listen to it needs proof, no? The genre has mostly died out with the "true metal revival" and the prominence of other genres. If you were to seriously think about this you would see your assumptions are for the most part incorrect, seeing as a mallgoth would probably be more apt to listen to Dimmu Borgir, Cradle of Filth, or any number of "true metal" bands before they would listen to Limp Bizkit or POD.Outlaw-Viper 10:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

first of all, dimmu and cradle are seen as very mainstream and frowned upon in the metal community, cradle of filth more so than dimmu borgir. while there has been a bit of a true metal revival, it hasn't been big enough to hit mtv. i think that nu metal's huge popularity has been replaced by metalcore. when you start seeing faggoths wearing trivium shirts instead of korn shirts, you know that's happened. TightKid 03:36 pm, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.70.95 (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've placed both tags on the criticism section, as right now, it reads like OR, and a slanted OR at that. To wit, the following statements lack any verification:

• The mix of styles led to some criticism that nu metal was no longer related to traditional metal.
• Rap is often used in nu metal, and fans of mainstream rap didn't always respond well to it.
• In recent times the genre has received increasing derision from the metal community for various reasons
• and the term "mallcore" is used by many as a term for insult and as well as a synonym by some for the genre, believing it to be the "true" name for the genre.
• The term "False Metal" is also used with the slogan "Death to False Metal" as a type of battlecry.
• Categorization of specific artists as "nu metal" is difficult, an issue made more prevalent in the online community by traditional metal fans who take offense to the term.

The frequent use of "some" and reference to unspecified critics is classic

I'm not an official editor or anything, but hopefully I can offer some advice to make it more neutral. For one thing, metal-archives.com, the massive on-line catalog of all metal bands, past and present, does not contain any entries for any nu-metal bands. And, in the section where they outline what types of bands should not be submitted, refers to the genre as "mallcore." As for the general criticism and the idea that it's not related to actual metal, these ideas are sort of "common knowledge" among metal fans, so I'm not sure there's a single source that you can refer to citing this, but there are tons of articles on other web pages and message boards that show that this attitude and criticism exists (for example, the "mallcore" entry on urbandictionary.com or http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/junkyard/131_ways_to_tell_if_you_are_a_mallcore_kid.html). I don't mean to say these sorts of things should be used as de facto proof that the criticisms are true, just that they, and the "increasing derision," exist. As far as facts to actually back up the clains, the aforementioned absence of any of these bands from the metal archives is actually pretty strong evidence. In addition, there's the fact that the nu-metal sound emphasizes attitude while anything considered to be true metal emphasizes musicianship and technicality (admittedly, I can't think of any way to cite this). 69.204.98.242 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree slightly with your last statement - doom metal, for example, and a lot of early bands like Led Zep and Sabbath put a lot of emphasis on mood and atmosphere as well as musicianship. But it is true that nu metal is probably more musically akin to hip hop and punk than "metal" in the traditional and more accurate sense. Nu metal generally is very simple to play and the vocals play a large part, even in the more experimental bands of the genre. But citations for this kind of thing are hard to find, because no one writes it, because everyone knows it. But Wikipedia won't accept that. ~Switch ^t 15:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Despite the subjectivity of the topic, I think it's worth mentioning that the genre has received a lot of criticism from within the metal genre itself. Many other metal bands actually ARE very outspoken against nu-metal, saying it's "fake" or that the bands "cashed in" to the popularity of the sound and that they all sound the same. Just because the people who say it aren't being objective, doesn't mean we can't be objective about putting it into the entry. 74.70.171.36 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When I was reading the article, I thought that everything between the second paragraph and the contents box should be given its own "Origins" paragraph right after the contents. Looking at the history section this was the case at one time and was changed for some reason. I quite like the in house Wikipedia format style of: introduction, contents, main article. I just wondered why it was decided against in this article. ClarenceAtomkraft 17:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this edit war between Inhumer and some annonymous guy in the paragraph that talks about Korn. The sentece is constantly modified with "death and thrash metal bands" and then with "thrash metal bands" and on and on... --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is fairly straight-forward: ban him. He does nothing but vandalize and has no place on Wikipedia. Until he's planned, I think there should be some sort of unofficial group that reverts every one of his edits. I'll join, Inhumer's pretty much in there by default.

I don't know the procedure for banning someone, if anyone has any pointers I'll gladly nominate him. He's vandalized my user page before. Ours18 20:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of wording, but it is considered a part of the Hip-Hop family as well as the Metal, so why not throw it in there for good measure? Qubeh 12:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Every time rapcore has been added to

Isn't this a bit off topic? I really don't see much slamming in this article. I think that is what you're implying is the problem. Could you point out the areas which are problematic? --Wildnox(talk) 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact you just slammed death metal. I understand why you are upset, but i also understand why they call you a poser, seeing that you just offended the death metal scene on purpose. There will always be people who make fun of a genre, be it death metal, nu metal, metalcore or pop. But you shouldn't be one of them. There are no bad genres, only bad musicians. Some genres appeal to a wider audience, but that's about it. Just because you don't uderstand somethng, it doesn't have to be bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Soulfly Website. Scroll down to the news item titled "AFTER THE SLAUGHTER" AVAILABLE MAY 1st! . Marking Dark Ages sound like a pop rock record seems pretty thrashy too me :) I hope the lyrics don't deterioriate to mega-negativity (Schizophrenia / Beneath the Remains) or even passive-satanism (Bestial Devestation / Morbid Visions) --GreatInca 19:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i thought these bits could apply to any genre so should be deleted. Anyone agree? Nu metal bands, because their style was not clearly defined, were often considered within multiple other genres. For example, Korn crosses into alternative metal and funk, Linkin Park into rapcore and Disturbed into heavy metal. Defining the term Categorization of specific artists as "nu metal" is difficult, an issue made more prevalent in the online community by traditional metal fans who take offense to the term. Nu metal began as a mix of different genres, so the definition is not solid. Linkin Park's Meteora, for example, is listed as nu metal on Wikipedia, "Rock/Pop" on MP3.com[5], "Alternative" on AOL Music Now[6], and three different genres (Rock, Metal, and Alternative) on Metacritic[7] Munci 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Linkin Park Greatest Seller In Genre ? I'm Not Gonna Touch the page i dont reallt care cuz nu metal is dumb and im glad Kid Rock got out of it,but Kid Rock has outsold Likin Park sorry to inform you.Don't know what his worldwide sales r but he's sold 24 million roughly in the U.S. alone to Linkin Park's 17 million so I figure he's outsold them worldwide as well.I think Limp Bizkit has outsold them has well.

Linkin Park sold more than 17 million - 20 million just with Hybrid Theory. Kid Rock was never nu metal anyway. He was Rap rock which is different. There is often overlap between the 2 but they are not the same. Munci 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Meteora and Hybrid Theory are both nu metal. I listen to Linkin Park more than any other band and I can tell that both those albums are nu metal. I saw something on this page talking about Minutes to Midnight so I'll remove that. Also, Hybrid Theory has sold over 24 million, and Meteora has got over 21 million sales.

By no means am I a musical "expert" of any order, though I do listen to some bands considered "nu metal" - Korn, Slipknot, and the Deftones. I have heard, in none of the above, rap-inspired percussion in most songs. I must state that, in addition to "nu metal," I listen to heavy, thrash, industrial, and alternative metals, along with other genres of Rock, and have noted the beats and drumming to be far more similar to those aforementioned than rap. —The preceding

I always say the same thing when it comes to situations like this, i say "fuck the haters". The truth is i dont care if limp bizkit are low iq, you know what? because most likely im low iq! in the sense that im working class, just like fred durst, i can relate to alot of his lyrics, and i dont care if "true metal" fans (whatever that means exactly) care. Listen if you like numetal, dont listen if you dont like it Portillo 04:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a lot of text that seemed to serve no purpose other than to promote a laymans casual observations of nu-metal while trying to seem unbiased when it was in fact not. There are many bands referenced on this page that have little to do with nu-metal such as lostprophets and chevelle. the whole page needs a good clean-up Alex 16:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't we have criticism on all music pages? Like a section on pop that says "Some Metal and Hiphop fans and fans of other sorts of music sometimes think pop sucks because it's sissy music. They say things like "that sucks" and "I hate pop" which indicates that pop sucks and that they hate it." I mean, come on, it's obvious some biased person put up the criticism section to weaselword in their dislike of being associated with Nu. I'm gonna remove the whole thing until somebody can start citing magazine articles, press releases or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.127.181 (talk)

-- removed text -- "Abstract or obscure lyrics are nearly non-existent in nu metal songs, which is a major deviation from the earlier alternative and grunge lyrical styles. Similarly, nu metal lyrics normally lack the aggression of those of most metal genres." This is what I commonly refer to as "bullsh't". For the aggression part just look at Primer 55 (for example "the big fuck you"), Spineshank(pretty much every song), Mudvayne(under my skin), korn(right now, all my hate) and those are just examples from a relatively diverse group of nu metal bands. as for abstract lyrics there are many sections in songs or entire songs from many bands that make little to no sense unless you understand the context. Some one is trying to put down nu-metal over the lyrics. POV

I almost certainly remember reading somewhere that the term "Nu Metal" came from an abbreviation of "Neutered Metal" - This was in a magazine or something, a source that seemed reliable. I'm definetely looking for a citation for that before editing, as I figure all hell would break loose if I didn't - Can anybody help me on this?--KWaal 06:04, 01 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel this should have already been placed up on here. But referring to the vocals section of Nu-Metal; Mike Patton of Faith No More, Mr. Bungle, etc. has been cited as a definite influence by System Of A Down, KoRn and SlipKnot's Shawn Crahan. All these bands have a certain FNM influence, as I know does Ill Nino and deftones, and many others who I can't off-handly name. Would it be possible to add him to the vocal influences of Nu-Metal?

It is closer to rock music than true heavy metal. Go to any good heavy metal message board and the experts there will say so. Most nu-metal bands know not to say they're metal because they get flak for it; most will correctly identify themselves as hard rock. The simplistic musical structures and commercial ideology inherent to nu-metal make it a subcategory of rock music, unlike orthodox heavy metal.

• I agree. (68.153.178.5 17:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

What are you talking about? Nu Metal is definatly metal. It may not be metal most metal fans like but it's metal. What experts post on heavy metal message boards? Dudes who sit in their bedrooms talking about their favorite bands? Orthodox heavy metal started out and alot still to this day have very simple musical structures. Just cause they have commercial ideology also flaws your argument... metallica?????? XXLegendXx 12:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Congrats; you've definatly just proved the point of alot of metal fans who object to nu-metal. What credentials do you have which place you above the status of "dudes who sit in their bedrooms talking about their favourite bands"? Kflester 11:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (oh, and I don't have any xXxXxs in my name)

The way I see it, its a band-by-band case. Some bands like Slipknot (a lot of it), Deftones, and System of a Down, they are metal (except maybe SoaD, more hard rock). But some bands, like Limp Bizkit and Korn arent metal at all. Oh yeah, NEVER use Linkin Park and metal in the same sentence. Please. And yes, I am a metalhead.Prepare to be Mezmerized! 01:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally like nu metal and I agree that it (or at least most of it) is not metal but just because they don't do solos so I'd say System of a Down and Slipknot's Subliminal Verses are metal but Slipknot's self-titled and Iowa and KoRn are not. It has nothing to do with this crap about "an inherently commercial ideology". Sure, some nu metal bands are quite popular and considerably more so than bands of extreme metal genres but just because of that in itself is no reason to say they do not belong to the same genre. Would you say Chamillionaire is not a rapper but the Flatlinerz are rappers just because Chamillionaire sells more cds? Munci 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a good point, but I would say that Chamillionare is a rapper, because rap has that "inherently commercial ideology". Prepare to be Mezmerized! 02:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, Emcee Lynx is bigtime commercial. Look, no genre is defined by whether or not it has an "inherently commercial ideology". Crass and the Buzzcocks are both punk, Metallica and Poison are both metal, Promoe and 50 Cent are both rappers, Melvins and Silverchair were both grunge, Ednaswap and Britney Spears are both pop, and so on. Some fiercely independent nu metal band from Liverpool are still nu metal. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 09:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I never said that rap (or nu-metal) was "defined" by a commercial ideology. I just said that rap tries to be popular (w/ Emcee Lynx failing, and Chamillionare succeding).

But back to the point, some nu metal is "metal" (Slipknot, Deftones, SoaD), and some isnt (Limp Bizkit, Korn, Linkin Park (actually, Linkin Park is pop)).

You guys can edit or add anything you want. I just added it because I thought it was missing the theme for the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon-Knight3 (talk • contribs)

I simply cannot say based on what i have read in the past 20 minutes. Korn and SoaD are so different. Some of these bands i never thought to be mu metal actully i only thought SoaD was. I presumed that all the others where mid to heavy metal. Apparently i was wrong. nu metal could be broken into many catogories. i thought that what Soad did was nu metal it self. you knw strongly political, somewhat high pitched voices, songs so catchy you could play them over and over for or even days on end, they are still like that on their solo tours(serj and scars on broad way, i havent anything from shavos thing yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.175.210 (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why see also coldwave? What has coldwave to do with nu 'metal'? Slowgaze 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only is Nu-metal more related to hard rock (and rap for that matter), it's just plain gay. Not that I wanna step on anyone's toes here, since I know how other Wikipedians feel about reporting offensive stuff, and I don't want to be offensive, or reported for that matter, but nu-metal has got to be one of the worst types of music ever. The article should at least say, as it once did (I believe), how much people look down on this genre of music. I have a helathy respect for most types of music, but not this. Hell, I'm a fan of black metal, so there you go. Nu-metal is annoying and almost all metalheads believe so. Mallcore is an abomination. The members of the bands try to act so goddamn cool, partly because of their label companies pushing their mainstream status, and they try to act like they're badass or "evil" or something, when they are absolutely not. Now I know I'm showing serious bias here, but all of the metal world (except the fans of nu-metal)looks down upon nu-metal, hence "mallcore," and I believe this article should reflect that to some degree.Navnløs 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye you've got nothin better to do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.207.65 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well who cares? George W. Bush is plain stupid too, but should his article be written in a derogatory matter? No. Wikipedia is about information, not POV opinions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You addition to the article was pure

OR, so i have reverted your edit. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont

| 23:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the article should be written in a derogatory manner. It should state the controversy or criticism about it, seeing as what I was saying is a belief held by many. Perhaps, you also didn't notice that I had references for what I said. Yet you chose to revert my edit and claim it was original research. In other articles on wikipedia, such as heavy metal, it states to a lesser degree about what I said, that nu metal was not embraced by traditional metal fans and how their success was short-lived. Never mind the fact that I HAD references. There's a reason why Encylopaedia Metallum, which is used for many references of metal bands on wikipedia, and happens to be the MOST expansive encylopedia of metal bands, REFUSES to allow people to post any nu-metal band to their site. They state that is in fact, NOT metal in their submission guidelines here. The fact is that nu metal is looked down upon by other metal fans (much the way pop is looked down upon, by say, rock fans). Metal fans detest the label of nu metal, suggesting that this music has something to do with metal. This article once stated a little something about this criticism, as I believe it should. Perhaps my edit needed to be rephrased to better state the criicism, but what I had to say in the edit was a valid point.Navnløs 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The HMM article states this as a note on the side, just like it should be. Your added section on the other hand cut the article here in two halves, one that describes what nu metal is, one that explains "how much it sucks". While we both know the importance of the MA within the community, it is not a reliable source and fails WP:RS, and is therefore not usable to make a point like that within this article. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 19:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there should be a section of how much nu metal sucks, even if it does, but I do think there should be a section not just about the music, but how it is widely viewed. In the HMM article and many other articles about genres of music it not only talks about the music itself, but how people view the music. All music genres here on Wikipedia have a section about their history, yet this article has none. This article should have a section about its history, which includes how people have viewed this style of music over the years.Navnløs 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, i had to revert your edit. The sentence you added is completely biased

reliable source. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont

| 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I did have reliable sources when you originally reverted my edit. I sourced Encylopaedia Metallum and Ian Christe's book, Sound of the Beast, which is sourced many times over in the heavy metal article here on wikipedia, yet you decided that it was somehow original research and I didn't have sources, when I obviously did.Navnløs 22:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

- "Nu-metal is annoying and almost all metalheads believe so." I know what you mean but many artist put in the nu-metal category are highly respected by many metalheads who actually sell millions of records instead of typing millions of ranting comments on Blabbermouth.net and such. Some bands noticed on here like Korn, Deftones and System Of A Down have actually some really musical intellectual approach to some of their works you obviously don't know about. So don't try to come off as a smart ass, you only bring down yourself if you need to judge others to feel better.86.80.121.33 05:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In this is article are alltogether mentinoed about 5 bands all along. This is not good... There are much more important Nu Metal acts.. as form for examle Cavalera's "Roots" and later Soulfly up to for example Machinehead' Nu Metal experiments (as lots of Nu Metal bands are). Actually Nu Metal is a big thing, but this article is very small...--Lycantrophe 11:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tend to agree. The article sort of makes an impression as it presents a small number of newer acts (actually, those who made the genre much more famous by entering or starting at mainstream media, which has nothing to do with the behinnings of the musical genre) as the perfect definition of what nu metal is. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mallcore has never had many bands of its genre. There are about 50 nu metal bands in all...which is pitiful considering any other genre of metal (though mallcore isn't) has hundreds (if not thousands) of bands. Even rapcore and hardcore rap have a ton more bands of their genre. I don't get what people see in Aluminum. Their style of playing is never elaborate and extremely repetitive. And nu metal was never a "big thing," except to its small number of fans. It had its popularity, like glam metal, and now its done...sad, considering glam metal was much more popular and it lasted for much longer, but then again it was much better compared to nu metal.Navnløs 17:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have no intention of contributing to this discussion, please stay out of it. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 18:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a recent quote to what Korn has often said about being called nu metal. I also did that because the former passage about that needed citation, but that one dated back too around 1996 and no one's gonna find a quote for that one so removed it with this new passage about a quote I did find. (its from Korn's Wikipedia where I also put it)86.80.121.33 05:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys obviously don't know what you're talking about, certainly you don't know much about metal. No offense, its just that pretty much only 7th graders listen to this kind of music, its something you mature out of (hopefully) just like most little kids like pop when they're young (not that all pop is bad, though after the 80's that seems to be the case). And twsx or w/e, stop trying to be so almighty. You keep saying I didn't have sources, when each time I DID have sources to support my edits, even if the edits weren't perfect. I really should report you actually. I don't care enough about this subject to go on, though, and most metalheads feel the same. They don't acknowledge nu metal as part of the metal "family," just as they don't really acknowledge metalcore as really metal. But none of them cares enough to correct the people who think those genres are metal, becuase usually those people aren't gonna change, or they'll eventually go away, and in the end only true metal will be left, just like always (i.e. glam metal and to some degree funk metal, see Ian Christe's book Sound of the Beast) not to mention most of us could care less because we're too busy enjoying our good music and laughing at those "goth" kids who are pretty much just emos with louder music. w00t.Navnløs 22:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If I do come across as a little belligerent, I apologize, but it is a little upsetting that I had some great edits, which may have showed a little bias, which someone could have changed, and I had sources and some people don't think that counts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navnløs (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(1. I am not a Nu Metal fan)

2. I exactly know what are you talking about. Well, as I see, you also know that after some time, nobody will know about all this non-quality, non-intelligent bands - "in the end only true metal will be left". So why don´t you just let it happen? There is nothing constructive about what you do in here. It is just wasting time...

I don´t think Nu Metal is a big problem for Heavy Metal at all. Most of "for Heavy Metal problematic Nu Metal" are just some small boys in XXL clothing like limp bizkit (maybe limb pizkit or whatever) or just a mainstream-mass-money-maker linkin park. Ok I agree these boys are quite funny, but who knows them in ten years? Do you think some of these fans read Wikipedia? They will never know how funny they are. However there are really lame bands in every of this "big" metal subgenres. You may defend black metal, but there is just shit too. Nu Metal has just the unluck to be easier missused for commercial than others.

I am not gonna tell you my opinion about metal you like cause discussions about this would have no sense. Some bands are just experiments, progression of new metal, but you just say it is a shit just because it is described as nu metal. Most of "true" metal fans have no problems with this. But what do you think - what does Venom, Bathory, Mayhem, Morbid Angel, Slayer, Sepultura, I don´t know what ever ... what do they have to do when they listen to Nightwish - Manowar - Sonata Arctica - Dimmu Borgir - Cradle Of Filth - Children Of Bodom and all this melodic orchestral symphonic medieval KITSCHY macho "beautiful-but-so-heavy" arranged COMMERCIAL pseudo metal? I dont´t know if they just laugh or cry or want to die or want to kill em' or what.. This is reality but who cares that 10% of all Heavy Metal fans listen to Power metal or whatever and 90% of Heavy Metal fans are getting paroxysm of laughter when the listen to power metal? Who is so bored to write it down to power metal discussion? Where is intelligence of macho-culture or sadomasonecroblackmetal?--Lycantrophe 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Relax. Let the mallgoths listen to whatever they want while us true metal fans sit in our rooms and listen to Black Sabbath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.217.47 (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a bit town long. What do you say we archive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamanadam (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the sign for controversy here, because nu metal has often been degraded and the article vandalized by some of the extreme metal fans. If you wish to remove it, do so and leave a reason for removing it under this topic. Prepare to be Mezmerized! :D 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we include a section on how and/or why nu metal had decline in popularity and also more about its peak?

--- that's what I did but someone took it out. Basically Nu Metal is declining because it is failing to evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.2.65 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On Encyclopaedia Metallum (which is linked to on a large number of Wikipedia articles), it refers to nu metal as mallcore. Should this be noted as a term also used for it? -Allhailtuna (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can write it in an encyclopedic manner and reference it well, please do. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

no you cant. mallcore is a term used by condescending fans of original and extreme metal to show hate for bands they dont like,sometimes even hating amongst themselves. because of the MANY genres that fall outside of original metal and extreme metal, this makes "mallcore" impossible to define. also, common sense would tell you that just by the name "mallcore", its should be obvious that this is a mock term,not a real one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.2.69 (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the origins of nu-metal in this article is a little sketchy. I dont think kurt cobain has anything to do with nu-metal. anyway, i have always felt that the Antrax/Public enemy colarberation "Bring the noise" was the starting point of nu-metal as it was the first mainstream song to fuse rap with metal. And it was quoted in a interview in a doco about metal with anthrax that they claim it gave birth to nu-metal. I forget which doco it was tho. what do you think 124.197.5.165 (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.21 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First, listen to real alternative metal (

Like Funk metal, Rapping is common but is NOT IMPORTANT in nu metal, examples:Coal Chamber and Korn, they make use of turntables and/or rapping???? NO. They´re alternative metal??? NO (see above). They´re Nu metal??? YES! Think about it...................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

this means that Beasty Boys are almost new metal and that Red Hot Chili Peppers are very slow ass nu metal as well as Kid Rock too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.175.210 (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not going to bash nu metal here, despite my thoughts about it. However, I do think that a criticism section should be added back in. Not as a bashing thing, but in an encyclopedic way. I'm sure it can be sourced. Do you all even realize that since this article's beginnings it talked about the fact that the genre was critized by other metal fans? In the very first edit, when this article was created, it had a single sentence (even then) about the genre's criticism. You can see that edit here. So the person who created this article even realized, all the way back then, years ago, that the genre did have some criticism from other metal fans. I admit that it will be hard to add this in, in an encyclopedic fashion, but I think it can be done. It could be kept brief. Something stating that since the genre's beginnings it has been criticized by many other metal fans due to its nature (additions of hip hop, etc.) and its commerical nature and marketing to a generally teenage audience (what with its lyrics of teenage angst, etc.) or something. I mean, the article did use to have a section about it and I'm still not quite sure why it was removed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, as afterall, this fact can not be denied. The problem (and this is also the reason why previous attempts have failed, as i remember) is, that such a conflicting statement needs to be well-referenced. If you can do so, please do. I would however recommend that you propose your exact change here first, as i would imagine reverts would take place if you don't. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 19:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just added a brief criticism section and referenced it to a credible source and, lo and behold, you deleted it. Why? If you'd like I can cite the whole article I used at the beginning of the criticism, not just the exact quote I used, but I'd appreciate it if I can revert back to it without you deleting it again, Twsx.--BRain524 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Your section was pure

original research, and the source you gave 404'd. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont

 | ~ 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the source link. Sorry about that. Now leave it alone.--BRain524 (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Negative. The section still fails

WP:WEASEL. Not only is the quotation from in the second paragraph not made by the editor of the reference (it is a further quotation to some professor), i also challenge the professionalism of that critic, as there is no evidence for any. I have removed the section again. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont

 | ~ 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE SORELY NEEDS A CRITICISM SECTION!!!!!--BRain524 (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Many fans give credit to Nu Metal and Alt Metal also for all that matter as a transition/gate way to other forms of heavier metal. Should this be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.135.215 (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What happen was that nu metal allowed a whole new generation of kids to get into heavy metal again, particularly older bands like iron maiden and judas priest, while more newer bands like pantera and metallica were very famous Portillo (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, just another style than the one preferred by the people that buy the music mags. Are Korn, Limp Bizkit, Deftones, RATM, etc. loud, heavy, guitar driven bands with loud, heavy, guitar driven sounds? Yes. Then they're Metal.

There is no other "true" defintion of Metal music, it seems, as bands from G'N'R (eclectic blend of pop, blues-rock, and punk influences) to Black Sabbath (slow and grinding, dirge-like sound) to Metallica and Megadeth (extremely fast, technical sound) have all been considered Metal in the past despite having little more in common than heavy (-ier than classic rock or pop), loud, guitar-driven sounds. When Van Halen and that Scandanavian death crap share the hyphenated designation of "-metal", the genre is big enough and varied enough for Korn, etc.

-Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.187.114 (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Theres plenty of loud, heavy, guitar driven music that isn't metal. Inhumer (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt, but: Who gives a crap anyway? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't, I was just saying.Inhumer (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Limp Bizkit/Deftones/Korn/etc. may be loud, but they're not heavy, and they're definitely not guitar-driven. Just because a band includes guitars in their music doesn't automatically mean they're "guitar-driven." 159.153.4.51 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm... Yeah of course Deftones and Limp Bizkit are heavily guitar-driven just listen to their songs. Korn is more rhythm-driven. If Nu Metal wasn't metal, maybe Nu Metal bands wouldn't be invited to Ozzfest so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Its definitely Metal. People are just bitchy about the fact that it isn't conformist metal like all the other bands. Creativity is a bad things in the eyes of a lot of people. I don't know what causes people to bitch about this genre so much, jealousy? Somebody give me an answer cuz I got nothin. In my opinion, NU Metal is one of the best things to ever happen to music.--75.139.103.133 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've add the information about some bands who are slowly migrating from nu metal scene to an Alternative/Hard/Post-grunge music performance, such as Staind, Linkin Park and P.O.D., whose nu metal songs are being as less usual as the time passes. Robfbms (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

How is Nu Metal Dead when Limp Bizkit, Crazy Town and Slipknot still have rap in their metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.88.114 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Limp Bizkit hasn't released anything since 03

Crazy Town raps but isn't Nu Metal

Have you heard Slipknot's new material? That's not Nu Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.222.97 (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

pf course it isnt.koRn,disturbed,staind,and slipknot are still making huge hits.im aware slipknot's new stuff isnt nu metal,but they're still a nu metal band in at least the genre sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.30.43 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me some proof that Nu Metal exists as a legitimate genre rather than a vague, undefined term being used by every major critic to describe a random slapshot of completely unrelated bands in various genres ranging from

Take a look at

WP:RS for us, please. This kind of argument has been made before, dozens of times, and you're not going to change anything. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye

12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems you didn't even read the article or you would have seen which traits are given in the article to be common to many nu metal bands. Do you think a bombay duck is a duck? Do you think that, when people call it that, they think it is a duck? I think not. So why do you and many other people assume the same with nu metal and metal? What would make a genre real if not being "vague, undefined term being used by every major critic to describe a random slapshot of completely unrelated bands"? Munci (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Having these sections often helps to settle a lot of disputes, many pages have them too. We would just need to make sure it stays objective. I'm no fan of Nu Metal, but wikipedia doesn't need anyone going on there putting things like "Nu Metal is total SHITCORE." Objective criticisms should not be deleted either just because a Nu Metal fan gets annoyed at them.. I think if we do it right these sections could be very helpful. Any thoughts on this?

There should only be a section on controversy. Criticism would be overkill and invite trolling.Outlaw-Viper (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is about the "other names" part of the lead sentence. Now, while i have read "new metal" and "nü metal" before, I think they are border terms that are rarely used. Yes, even some major websites or magazines make that mistake, yet, the genre is genuinely and linearly referred to as "nu metal". Please do contradict if you feel i am mistaken.

Moving on: Now, on the other hand, "NU-metal for New Urban" i have never heard of before. I believe this to be complete neologism, although, obviously, as always, i could be mistaken.

My suggestion would be to remove the whole part in the parenthesis, as it doesn't really add anything, and i don't think the terms are used commonly enough to warrant them being mentioned.

Discuss. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

i agree never heard it refered to as new urban, and the alternate spellings should also be removed also does not add anything--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that nobody mentioned a disagreement, i went ahead and deleted the part in question. Feel free to comment here if you object. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This was up for deletion a while back, and everyone said "keep it, it's a commonly used term, but it needs serious cleaning up" It's been 5 months, and the article is still terrible. When reading the article, it gives the impression that there is no real definiton of nu metal. It includes many 'it is common to have this' and 'some do this... but most do this...' type statements, but no real definition is given. In the definition section, it says 'nu metal is hard to define'. What the hell kind of definition is that? if there is proof of this being a genre, rather than an early movement of 'the new wave of american heavy metal', please present it, or I will put it up for deletion some time in the new year. For it to be even called a gerne, we need to include... 1) defining characteristics 2) musical traits that each band share 3) sourced roots, and how they have influenced the genre

I'm aware that the bulk of the article is 'musical traits' but it is entirly unsourced and rather than listing the traits that each band shares, it has traits that is shared by a few, or sometimes even one band.

Also, to call it a metal subgenre, we need to include a piece on... 1) the traits it shares with traditional metal 2) explain how the genre as a whole (as it says in the article) is influenced by 'various heavy metal subgenres such as groove and industrial)

I'm not against the articles inclusion, but this article is highly unsourced and doesn't do the most important thing a article on a genre should do: make the reader be able to define the article after reading it, even if they know very little about the genre. 122.57.30.224 (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So you consider NWOAHM fine but not nu metal despite the fact that this article has multiple descriptions of shared traits and that one has barely any definition? Munci (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The article indeed does need heavy cleanup to be done. Yet, there is no valid reason for its deletion, so putting it up for deletion discussion is a rather senseless thing to do. PS: Nu metal is a commonly used term, NWOAHM a neologism. Not the other way around. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This article should be removed for it's more of a (sometimes insulting) term than it is a genre. Nu metal = a term for hard rock bands that gained popularity in the late 90s, early 2000s. If this page is kept on Wikipedia then it shouldn't be listed as a genre, a lot of the bands don't even sound alike and could easily fit in other genres like hard rock, rap metal, industrial metal, etc. without the term nu metal being mentioned. I don't understand nu metal, even after reading the whole article, it almost just sounds like one's opinion. EverBe (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it isn't. Besides, global public establishment of the term which undoubtedly exists does (i think) outrank what many people would call "fact". And yet again, your reason for deletion is, that the article is biased and the information is not correct. This is not a valid reason for its deletion. Does the article need heavy work? Yes. Does it need to be rewritten from scratch? Probably. Yet still, none of you guys made any argument for its deletion that matches the deletion policy. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 04:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That is what Nu metal is, its a rock sub-genre that uses these influences together or most of them to form nu metal i.e linkin park, limp bizkit, papa roach and P.O.D all play nu metal why? coz they incoperate hip hop into their music along with one or two others. EverBe you said nu metal is a term for hard rock bands.......do you know what hard rock is? hard rock dont have any hip hop elements or grunge like nu metal does so nu metal bands cant be hard rock unless they ocassionally play hard rock or switch to hard rock. This article needs to be improved but not deleted just like u can't delete

talk

) 11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, it is very hard to find an actual definition of Nu Metal. The main thing the bands share is when they broke into mainstream, and that they had some things incommon withother bands who broke into mainstream around that time. That is hardly enough to call it a genre, though, it's use throughout the media cannot deny that the term was used. Rather than deleting it, I now think it is better to merge it with either alternative metal or the NWoAHM. The latter is very poor so I wouldn't recommend it and I'm suprised that it hasn't been combined with Nu Metal, as they area very similar thing. Though a lot of people in the Metal Project wouldn't like this, I think it should become an article of focus. That is, if we can find enough infomation from secondary sources. Which is rather difficult. Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)