Talk:Alternative metal/Archive 1

Who Deleted?

I rewrote the article, and REFERENCED it according to Allmusic and what it said. And now someone deleted it, and wrote a bunch of unreferenced stuff. If no one references that in 3 days, I'm deleting it, cuz it has zero references. D33PPURPLE (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussions

Alternative metal survived Wikipedia:VFD. See: talk:Alternative metal/Delete -- Wile E. Heresiarch 06:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find the discussion of the genre, so since no one seems to be defending it so far, I'll nominate it (if merging doesn't work anyway). Prophaniti (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Circus metal and Avant garde metal appear to be two very different genres yet in Paragraph four they are mentioned as interchangeable terms. Jeffy 16:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, I'm guessing from the list of bands, alternative metal is nu-metal -- Dysfunktion 10:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that this was written by a Mike Patton fanboy? Please also note that Jane's Addiction began gaining public/critical notice several years before the grunge wave did.

Is this even a real genre?

No, this is most definetly not a real genre of metal. I have never seen this genre mentioned before in any respectable metal publication or website. This does not seem to be written by a Mike Patton fanboy so much as it was written by a resentful nu-metal fan who sought another way to salvage the loss of credibility of their favorite bands as legitimate metal bands, such as Slipknot, on the Slipknot and nu-metal pages, and concocted this phony genre out of thin air as a means of keeping their favored bands within the much-coveted sphere of metal music, who THEN drew upon Patton's work to reinforce this genre. If anything, Mike Patton's music is either a) not metal at all in some cases, b) avant-garde metal, or b) each project is different, with Fantomas being black metal, his Dillinger work being hardcore, etc. In any case, this entire article's wording smacks undeniably of the Meaningless statement fallacy, from the Wikipedia article I now quote an example:

A statement in argumentation may be considered meaningless because it draws a distinction without a difference, that is, asserts that two categories are disjoint without proposing a way to distinguish among them. For inound in punk or alternative rock scenes. For example, White Zombie used to be noise rock in the vein of Sonic Youth, Helmet's approach was influenced by Page Hamilton's time in Band of Susans and and draws a link between post-hardcore and nu-metal, Jane's Addiction was part of the same alternative scene as RHCP and Faith No More and mixed several genres (including goth, folk, psychedelia, and others besides metal), Alice in Chains and Soundgarden were grunge bands who played up their metal influences, RATM draws as much influence form hardcore punk and Gang of Four as they do from Zeppelin-ish heavy metal, and so on. I agree this article can be written better; equal time sould be given to the metal and alternative sides of the form. But please, don't simply disregard it because it doesn't conform to a viewpoint of metal genres. WesleyDodds 09:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel the article should be deleted, because the term -does- exist and is in use. However, I feel it should be made clear that it is NOT a genre of heavy metal, it is a form of rock music with some metal elements and influence. That doesn't make it heavy metal, and I am tired of seeing bands on here with "Alternative metal" thrown into their genre section, it's a token term to slap "metal" onto any band with the slightest influence. The fact is that just because a band bears some element of metal doesn't mean it is. This isn't elitism, but simple statement of fact. As for sources, wikipedia as a whole places far too much emphasis on unreliable sources. Sources such as Kerrang, MTV, NME, etc, may be authorities on mainstream music, but heavy metal is not, on the whole, mainstream, and so they cannot be used as valid authorities and sources. Prophaniti (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC) agreed i always saw alternative metal more as alternative rock bands that played hard rock, not heavy metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging

There is strong argument for this argument to be deleted due to Neoglism, POV, Meaningless statement and for the fact it is basically a poor rendition of things already said in the Nu Metal article. If this article is to be kept, then it should be directly merged into the Nu Metal article with Rap Metal, as this page is neithe informative, encyclopedic, or NPOV. If by the end of the week this article is still here, i will start proposed merging of metal articles that split hair myself, for lack of a user with better english skills doing it. Leyasu 17:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think nu metal should be merged with alternative metal. That's what the All Music Guide does.--Rivet138 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Rivet138

Alt metal influenced nu metal, but they are two distinct genres. All Music guide considers them separate as well, that's why there are two different pages for both.

I fail to see...

I fail to see how there can be such a thing as "alternative metal" when the whole idea of metal is that it is alternative, whatever sub-genre is comes from. Clearly this false sub-genre either needs deletion or mergence with Nu-Metal.

As a metalhead, I am ashamed to be associated with nu metallers today. They are clueless and idiotic and believing that band such as Slipknot are original when GWAR for instance did it all so long before Slipknot. I'm sure others will agree that the future of metal is doomed if cretins such as todays "nu-metallers" are to be handed the reings.

Because it refers to the genre of alternative rock? WesleyDodds 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, am I the only one offended by that statement!? What the fuck is your problem man?! I'm not even sure how to begin to respond to that! I like Slipknot, Disturbed and a few other "nu-metal" bands, I like their music, I also like death, doom and thrash metal and I fail to see how that makes me "clueless", "idiotic" or "a cretin". If you don't like it then don't fucking listen to it!

As for alternative metal. Heavy metal is a genre of music that evolved from rock, nothing more. Alternative metal refers to adding newer influences to tradional metal. Its a sub-genre of metal, just like every other metal sub-genre. Get a life man!

No, it isn't. Heavy Metal did indeed evolve out of rock music. But likewise, rock 'n' roll evolved out of blues and jazz. Should we call that "Alternative Jazz"? No! Because it's a new genre in it's own right. Heavy metal is -not- a form a rock music, it is its own genre. Alternative metal is a ridiculous genre, created so bands with some kind of influence from metal can claim to be heavy metal when they're not. It's not heavy metal, it just bears some traits of it. Prophaniti (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to suggest that heavy metal music is not a form of rock because most if not heavy metal bands refer themselves as a rock band. I guess Black Sabbath isn't a heavy metal band, because they did an album with the word "rock" in it.

Lastly, Metal is a precussive, riff-based form of music that has absolutely have nothing to do with classical composition at all.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.241.210 (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC) 

I feel that...

Alternative metal should not be merged with Nu metal. There quite so many diffrences with these two genres. It would quite a long article and it would be very confusing for anyone to read.

--The Thief 06:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Then someone needs to make clear the differences better, because the majority of people are confused as hell. Leyasu 09:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged either. Nu-metal can be considered a descendant or sub-style of alternative metal. Both terms are used quite frequently, and apart from the late 90's they refer to completely different approaches. By the way, I'm still editing both pages. I'm just a little held up because for some reason I can't cut or paste text in any sort of edit window (including Wikipedia) WesleyDodds 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

They are still overlapping, and still repeating each other. Your edits are making no difference other than to make them overlap, and repeat each other more. Yes, both terms are used. Alternative Metal is the name used by Nu Metal fans, who dislike the term Nu Metal due to the negativity associated with it. I will wait to see what AJ does with the articles, and then when they are done, if they still overlap drastically, and repeat each other, i shall merge them per what Wikipedia policys say. Leyasu 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Alternative Metal is the name used by Nu Metal fans, who dislike the term Nu Metal due to the negativity associated with it."

Now that is a gross generalization and is not a valid argument. And while I respect and encourage your right to disagree, it would be more efficient if you pointed out where the articles overlap and if possible, fix them or calrify points. Additionally, your proposal for a merge ignores the fact that while alternative metal and nu metal overlap and are related, they are not synonymous. For example, a hip-hop influence is not present in all nu metal bands, and much less in alternative metal bands, among other musical traits, so merging them together not only ignore athe distinctions between them, but it would also make it difficult for anyone wanting to read about one or the other seperately. We have articles for Black Metal and Nazi Black Metal, Indie and Alternative, Protopunk and punk rock, jangle pop and Paisley Underground, Grunge and post-grunge, and many other minute divisions of related genres. That does not mean they belong on the same page. And I have still yet to see anyone else agree to a merge. WesleyDodds 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a gross generelization, but one most all of the metal community of the world will repeat after me. No, not all Nu Metal has Alternative Rock influence, not all Nu Metal has Hip Hop influence. But then again, not all Death Metal has Thrash Metal influence. And not all Death Metal has Black Metal influence.

Ill point out the overlaps better when youve edited further, as im curious to see if your end product is something that overlaps, or something that doesnt. Leyasu 02:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

they are pretty similiar... Jwlx Seriously... there's so many bands... genre categorizations are stupid enough as they are and you certainly can't capture them all under the single "Nu Metal" heading. I don't see why overlapping is a problem. Of course there are gonna be similarities between sub-genres. Just relax and go refine articles if it's putting your panties in a twist. Phorque 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Youve just repeated what Progressive Metal is. As Dream Theater and Symphony X are both Progressive Metal bands.

Secondly, if its a genre, give me a musical definition of it, rather than random traits and bands copied from other articles about other genres. As it stands, this genre is a fusion between Alternative Rock, and Metal. Thats all well and good, except most all the bands that fit here, are Nu Metal bands. Almost all the description given here, has been of Nu Metal bands.

I suggest to Aj (WesleyDodds), that he gets cracking with the editing of the articles. Otherwise, i will start a merge at the end of the week. Leyasu 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought alternative meant a mix of alternative and metal, which basically is progressive metal, because alternative such as Pixies, Mars Volta, Smashing Pumpkins, is defined by the difference between it and normal rock/pop, such as time changes, wide dynamics so it has an "alternative" song structure, but Nu Metal is in no way alternative it should just be Nu metal becuase calling it alternative metal is an insult to the alternative genre Nu metal is not about making great original music as all music should be, but more about pleasing crowds and making money, alternative is different not so they sell records, but just being creative in their approach to music making, beacause music is an art and all art should stem from cretivity and express what message you are trying to portray in an alternative manner, but Nu metal is not art it is just money making. The Alternative Metal Genre should not exisit because Nu metal is not alternative. Nu metal is for all those twelve year olds who want to think they like real metal.

Progressive Metal is Progressive Metal. You dont redefine names based on bands you do and do not like. Also, you have just been etremely Neoglistic. Alternative Metal is basically the forepart of Nu Metal, before its name changed and before the new batch of bands that got high critical acclaim. I also suggest you read the article on what Nu Metal is, and what Alternative Rock is. Not all Nu Metal bands are out to make money, many Nu Metal bands have made no money, and im sure you wouldnt know any of them. Leyasu 03:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends what you consider nu metal bands. Please make a list. WesleyDodds 04:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought there already was one?

On the List of Nu metal musical groups, only Korn and Kittie overlap (and I didn't even add Kittie to the Alternative metal list; someone else did). All others that overlap are filed under Instigators/Progenators (which means they aren't nu metal artists). WesleyDodds 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them on the list are correct. However, the 'insigators' were simply some of the first Nu Metal bands. Ive listed them below:

• Deftones
• Fear Factory
• Godsmack
• Korn
• Rage Against the Machine
• System of a Down

They are all Nu Metal bands. If there is a Alternative Metal genre, it needs defining as exactly what it is. Gothic metal's and symphonic metal's 'Sound, Constructs and Lyrics' sections make for good templates for writing down what a genre consists of.

I dont want to delete this article if it can be kept, as a lot of editers have put good work into this. But if its essentially Nu Metal, it needs to be merged. If needs be, it can be mentioned on the Nu Metal article in the same way Gothic-Doom is mentioned in the gothic metal article. Leyasu 05:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine aren't considered a nu metal band. WesleyDodds 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The only place ive heard them not cited as a Nu Metal band is Wikipedia, except for some minority groups of fans claiming them to be Industrial Metal, Industrial Rock, Industrial, (insert industrial variant here). Leyasu 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

. . . People call RATM "industrial"? WesleyDodds 11:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In the cases ive heard that, it has almost always been young teenagers. Leyasu 15:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think that RATM and SOAD are nu metal bands, then you haven't been listening. I really can't see any meaningful similarity between them and, say, Linkin Park (or to each other for that matter). --Jemiller226 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Go and read the Nu Metal article. Then make such hasty comments. Leyasu 08:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rage are in no way Industrial, they don't use synth or drum machine at all - that's insane. But no, RATM and SOAD are not nu-metal. Pretty much, that's summed up by their proper use of solos, which don't feature in nu-metal almost as a rule. But there are other elements - political activism, considerable talent, absence of turntables, using real metal riffs, and having a hardcore/metalcore influence most nu-metal bands would shy away from. RATM are funk-metal: They fit the descriptor perfectly, and they predate nu-metal by years (Nu-metal really started with Korn, who started after RATM were already popular, and it didn't get popular until the mid-late 90s, whereas RATM were big even during the Gringe era). SOAD are Avant-garde metal.

Anyway, to define "Alternative Metal": It's a blanket term. It includes any metal with a pronounced "alternative" (eg: not traditionally associated with metal) influence: Industrial metal, Funk metal, Nu-metal, etc, and also includes the Avant-garde metal and prog bands, like Dream Theater, Opeth, Tool and the like. As was said in the Nu-metal talk page:

* 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.

I know what he means with the first usage, anyway. I hear "hard nu-metal" bands described as "alternative metal" all the time. Ünloco are called "alt-metal" by their label, I believe.

What's with these bands being "All nu metal"?

• Fear Factory - Industrial metal.
• Rage Against the Machine - Funk metal.
• System of a Down - Avantgarde metal.

It's as simple as this - Encyclopaedia Metallum if it's not there, it's not metal. I generally consider RATM to be Rap Rock, and SOAD to be just some type of Alternative Rock. I'm just stating my opinion (which is correct, of course *wink*) and nothing else. Ladysway1985 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this should be merged.

I've never heard anyone refer to this genre, but I get the point and I think it should stay seperate, I might take out the metal genre box and put the alternative one in it's place. Alot of these bands probably had alot of influence on nu-metal to be sure, but it's not the same. maxcap 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and swapped those genre boxes maxcap 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed them back, because it straddles the line between metal and alternative; therefore there's the metal box at the top and the alternative footer at the bottom of the page to cover both bases. However, if someone is willing to edit the article so that both boxes can fit without warping the page formatting, go right ahead. WesleyDodds 01:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This is a tough genre to pin down, I think it almost only exists in hindsight as a way to categorize oddities like Faith No More, Jane's Addiction, Fishbone etc.. maxcap 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading Ian Christe's book, the division bewteen alternative metal and nu metal appears to be thus: Alternative metal mainly refers to more eclectic metal bands during the reign of alternative rock, while nu metal is a more uniform movement largely coming out of the decline of alternative rock. That distinction is strong enough to argue against a merge. WesleyDodds 02:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. maxcap 02:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Given the number of people who have responded to the subject now, I think we should remove the merger tags on both articles. However, if there are any more objections against Alternative metal and Nu metal being separate articles, let's have them out. WesleyDodds 12:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too - keep them separate. I would rather see an honest approach to Nu Metal and to Alt. Metal (it really is commercialised, how often do you hear Tool, Primus or Mr Bungle on mainstream radio? Less than Linkin Park? Thought so.), I'd also like to see Rapcore redirect to Rap Metal (not the other way round, since this currently propagates the ridiculous music press' tendency to invent genre tags like post-funk-grind-melt-deathcore (my own example...) as they desperately try to make new (faceless?) bands sound fresh. If the Definition part of Nu metal was reworked into an ORIGINS section, preceded/followed by a clear definition statement that Nu Metal bands fill the void between the mostly unique-sounding Alt. Metal bands with a kind of unified, perhaps even formulaic approach to angsty rock, that might work.

This way people who love RATM, Fear Factory, SOAD, Tool, Helmet, and the other great-and-good pioneers on the Alt. Metal page won't get so offended all the time, and fans of those-who-came-later like Linkin Park and American Head Charge might actually be able to see that their idols do actually sound somewhere between some of these pioneers, and really aren't carrying any truly unique sound of their own.

The whole problem here and on Nu Metal is that people are all spouting POV when they feel like their faves are being slated. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground. I really welcome the recent words of wisdom on this page and hope that separate pages with slightly adjusted content can finally settle down and live in harmony.

If anyone wants me to do the edits and take the flak for it I'll give it a shot one day when I have time... Skewer 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is just a thought maybe to expand upon, especially regarding WesleyDodds reference to Ian Christe's book, to help pin down a timeline for this genre. I haven't read the book but it seems to me that most of the time when people, especially people in music press refer to the popularity of alternative rock in the 90's, they are more or less refering to grunge's popularity, which has a more defined sort of rise/decline. I think that alternative metal probably exists parallel to grunge (and crosses over a bit) for the sake of pinning down a timeline. maxcap 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

...but if it does merge...

...I would maintain that Alternative Metal (with its list of key bands) is a better page to retain, with nu- and rap- metal redirecting here. Perhaps then a decent chronology could be constructed which details a kind of family tree showing relationships such as

• from Ministry to Static-X
• from RATM to SOAD
• from RATM to Limp Bizkit
• from Biohazard to American Head Charge (or whoever, Biohazard's debut had the "no instruments used" thing but AHC play their own, I know...)

You get the idea, just use the power of a timeline to say "look people, these really did come first, there are these common threads we can follow, and these recent sleevenotes really do credit the earlier stuff, so why do you insist that bands from 1998 'invented the whole sound' or whatever the argument is today?"

Then we might have one decent article that reads like an essay on the evolution of non-thrash, non-death, non-gothic rock/metal from 1986 to 2006. Skewer 14:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If we did merge, that's the type of resolution I would back. However, I have two main objections that incline me to vote to keep them separate pages: space and sources. Combining them into one article might make it too large and we'd have to break it up into smaller pieces anyway. And as it stands the availability of sources does not create a clear history between the two. Creating lines of evolution would involve too much independent analysis on our part that might skirt dangerously towards POV. WesleyDodds 03:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, curses to your flawless logic! :) I see the POV potential there, unless we could use just sleevenotes as a resource, that might work, but that's a major project in itself. How about a situation where we use an Alternative Metal/Evolution subpage, to house this kind of section - i.e.

• Define Alt Metal
• Explain Nu Metal name a bit
• Briefly point out timeline issues (Helmet started in 80s, Slipknot started yesterday-ish...)
• Link to subpage "To demonstrate the relationship between Alternative Metal and the Nu Metal that is more often played and promoted in the mainstream media"
• then carry on as usual with the good stuff :)

I still think it's infinitely more applicable and convenient to just keep them separate articles. Because, when it comes down to it, the terms are meant largely to refer to two different eras. The connections between the two just need to be made in each article (which I've tried to do, but they can always be worked on).

And I would assume liner notes would be citable sources. I know the liner notes for the Helmet best-of has a lot of usable info in it, I just haven't bothered to open my CD recently. WesleyDodds 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, Names for referring to two different era's by the bands fans doesnt mean they are two different genres. With that statement you just made, you may as well of said 'This is a Neoglism article with the history of Nu Metal'. Leyasu 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's assuming both articles are solely about genre. WesleyDodds 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

At which point if one repeats the other in detail, they need to be merged due to Wikipedia policy. Leyasu 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how the articles are repeating the same things. Please give clear examples from the text. WesleyDodds 20:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Now your making the same argument as i am about Metal Music and Heavy Metal. This article lists the History of Nu Metal without definaing Alternative Metal other than to repeat Progressive Metal, which the history is nothing to do with. The term Alternaive Metal is basically used seemingly to mean 'Un Commercilized Nu Metal'. Splitting the Nu Metal article into History and Defination is cause to do the the same with all articles. Leyasu 21:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nu metal isn't strictly defined, either. I'm basically just transcribing what other people wrote on the subject, and there is a distinction made bewteen the two. And no one ever called alternative metal "uncommericalized metal". The neologism rule applies if we have coined the term ourselves (which we haven't), it does not show up often in searches (it shows up quite often) and the term is not useful in Wikipedia (it has been used frequently in other articles, and the subject has been integrated into these articles in order to add to the description of these articles).

But really, spell out exactly what you think repeats in both articles so we can try to address those issues. WesleyDodds 06:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

@Leyasu: Alt. metal isn't being defined as uncommercialized nu-metal, that would imply that the 2 are direct peers, doing slightly different things. Check the list, I can't see a band there that has been around less than a decade or so; they (mostly) broke the mould when they were fresh, and they (mostly) haven't been emulated directly, hence alternative. I would question Jane's Addiction and Alice in Chains as being more rock than metal, but it's all getting tied in knots without me adding to the problem!

I think AJ is right to draw time-based parallels between alt metal and the are of alt rock, and I think he is right to want nu- and alt-metal as 2 things, I just think he's right... (he agreed with me once so he's great). We can all see a need for rewriting or editing the 2 articles, so let's plan together how best to avoid repeated info and make the 2 obviously separate.

I would support (and help write) a fresh alt. metal approach, where for the few bands listed we stick in a section called What sets Alt. Metal bands apart from Nu Metal?, then give each a level 3 header, and write a few lines saying

"Formed in 1989, Helmet brought a hard edge to music popular amongst skaters and other stoner (?) subcultures, popularising synchopated rhythms and drop-D tuned guitars as they created their trademark stammering riffs. They did not abandon the rock/metal tradition of guitar solos, though Page Hamilton's discordant and chaotic interludes broke many established rules of what a solo should contain. They temporarily disbanded during the peak of nu-metal (1998-2004) but later reformed with their familiar sound intact. For more, see Helmet (band)."

(Note the factors that separate from generic nu-metal: solos, disbanded during nu-m peak...)

The thing is, these pioneers (Ministry, NIN, RATM...) and weirdos (Primus, Mr Bungle!!!) deserve isolating from any crowd. Genres are only really the creation of the media & fans trying to label things, and also a result of musical influences. The latter is a stronger source for encyclopaedic info than the former. When a band sounds unlike even its closest influences, we have "alternative", but when a band sounds like a mix of its peers (from Machine Head to Papa Roach) I'd not call it alternative - and if the best label we have is nu-metal, then so be it.

Cue the flamewar from Machine Head fans that don't see the lineage with Slayer/Pantera etc... :(

Skewer 08:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If Alternative Metal is a cross-genre reference, which is what you imply in what you have said, then alls i wish is that it is listed that way. Remembering, that all of about 3 bands on that list dont sound like several others, and all of about 3 bands on that list arent listed on other genres, that actually describe the bands music.

• 'Alternative Metal is a term used by some Metal fans to describe bands from across genres that do things that are not typical to the genre they are from. Alternate uses of the term also include reference to Alternative Rock bands that use a large quantity of metal influence in their music, leading their music to be a more metallic version of Alternative Rock. The term is used loosely, and the bands most commonly grouped in this style are bands from throught the 90's belonging to the Alternative Rock and Nu Metal scenes, amongst Progressive Metal bands and is often another name given to Avantgarde Metal bands.'

Something like that, and i can be happy, at least that describes what the term actually is!

Its not the best opening paragraph in the world, but it gives an example of what i mean. All-in-all, the thing needs to be merged into Nu Metal in reference to meaning Nu Metal bands before the Commercilisation of Nu Metal, or, it needs to define exactly what it is WITHOUT repeating 3487240398 other articles (Sarcasm intended). Leyasu 11:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think what's causing a considerable amount of confusion here is the usage of the word "alternative". You've got one crowd using the 90's marketing term "alternative" who wants to merge, versus one crowd using the older usage of "alternative" which is pretty much a synonym of what is called "indie" today, who don't want the merge (me included).

The article cites Faith No More as a good example. An even better example is The Rollins Band. A band that was most popular during the "alt rock" era, heavily influenced by metal, that is a direct decendent of the 80's undergound Black Flag (band). maxcap 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That part about Faith No More has been there since before I rewrote the article a couple times; I didn't take it out because I was hoping it'd do until someone wrote something better. WesleyDodds 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

FNM aren't a bad example, they are probably good for the article because they are kind of high profile. I was just citing Rollins Band here for the sake of the discussion here on the talk page. I think you and I are on the same page as far the reasoning goes to keep the two articles seperated. Anyway...I touched up the first paragraph this afternoon in an attempt to define the better. maxcap 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• As copied from the Nu Metal talk page.

From the Metal Music page, i cite this.

• Alternative metal is a cross-genre term used to describe metal bands and metal influenced bands, which some fans consider to be unique or experimental, as well as bands of the nu metal genre that lack hop hop influence.

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.

• That is what i have to say on the whole thing. Leyasu 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too, it needs to be fixed. maxcap 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

At the minute, it is the only thing that offers all the POV on the issue, and makes a clear defination that actually make sense. As such, it doesnt need fixing when after almost a month, this article is STILL being complained at as needing serious editing. Leyasu 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What in this article, in it's current state, do you feel needs editing? maxcap 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself again, just read the talk page from top to bottom, im sure you will get the idea. Leyasu 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not helping. Please point out specific examples from the text and explain the problems. I'm not willing to help rewrite this article based on an unsourced definition from a page that is still in the process of being cleaned up when I've got other, more tangeble material already referenced. WesleyDodds 05:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem 1) A Defination needs to be given to Alternative Metal, and what it is, that isnt already a genre.

Problem 2) The scene actually needs to have bands that fit the description that is then given, not a mish mash of bands from various genres.

Thats pretty much it really, something ive been waiting a month for. Leyasu 06:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's more direct and helpful. I'll see what I can do regarding those points, but you must keep in mind that many genres do not have concrete definitions, are not wholly unique, and frequently pull together a wide variety of bands. Direct correlations can be drawn with Alternative hip-hop, Alternative country, and even Alternative rock; other examples include New Wave music, protopunk, Britpop, post-punk, noise pop, Industrial music, and many others. WesleyDodds 10:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

They arent genres, they are references to bands associated due to something they do, are affiliated with, or otherwise connect about. Again, see Cross-Genre References. Goth Music is a typical example of this. Ive studied genres long enough to know what they are, i dont need lecturing by anyone on their opinions when fact dictates otherwise. Leyasu 11:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you define genre? maxcap 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's more complex than that: 1, 2, 3. All the terms I've listed are widely accepted genres, so it's not just my opinion. WesleyDodds 06:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Defining genre, just look at the links Wesley gave you. Other than that, Wesley, alls im asking for is a defination, which has a musical genre the article needs. As again, at the minute, it just repeats the progenitorial history of Nu Metal. Im not being bitchy, just trying to give you the small push into the first step in the albums problems. Leyasu 09:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought

If anyone wants to replicate this for Alt, Nu, or why not all of "Metal", be my guest. Until then, I can't accept anyone's self-opinion along the lines of "Ive studied genres long enough to know what they are, i dont need lecturing by anyone on their opinions when fact dictates otherwise". Sorry to pick on that post specifically, but none of us here can expect the others to have blind trust in such statements.

My point is this:

• The bands listed on Alt. Metal are not nu metal, not "Nu Metal bands before the Commercilisation of Nu Metal" (check the dates!), they are just "something else"
• The multitude of bands in the nu metal "genre" cannot really be classed as Alternative Metal, simply because they constitute a noticeable portion of current metal music (hence not-so-alternative).

Any decent encyclopaedic resolution is going to take time, effort and cooperation. Having seen how this is going, I'm becoming disinclined to contribute much beyond spelling/grammar/punctuation proofreading, though if anyone else is working on a rewrite I urge you to follow WP guidelines, be bold and replace the whole mess with 2 better pages. And to whoever doesn't write those pages, WP:COOL :)

I don't see anything wrong with keeping Alt Metal small or making it a huge "who's who", and the Nu Metal page could benefit from just about anything (starting with no two pics from any one band...). But I'm not into flamewars, I'd rather see respectful and constructive dialog than sarcastic and demanding posts. Any comments? - Skewer 09:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.

The way I see things (and this might be overly simplified, admittedly) is:

• alt metal is to grunge, as nu metal is to post grunge

I think the article as it stand now is acceptable guideline. I propose we remove the merger tags on both this article and nu metal.

maxcap 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You see the problem arrisses in that most people dont see how 'just something else' is a fact, when you give no reasoning. Just like you made a comment about my statement, its only fair that i ask 'How are they not Nu Metal when they share the same musical propertys? How are they 'something else' when they fit the description of Nu Metal?'. Wesley already knows that the genre needs a description, otherwise its violating the policy about drawing a distinction without drawing a distinction. Alls i ask for, as so the article isnt deleted, is that it has a defination. Otherwise its effectivly just a list that goes on about the progenitorial history of Nu Metal. Leyasu 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time I've had to say this. The bands on the Alt Metal page do not all share the same musical properties as Nu Metal. Primus have been using, at times, cello bows on electric instruments, 6-string fretless basses, 11/8 timing and no nu-metal-alike lyrical themes at all, for almost 20 years. They are in no way Nu Metal. OK, Mudvayne use 11/8, 17/8 etc, but I personally think grouping them with Linkin Park is a bit of a slur... But, if the consensus is they are nu-Metal, I'll go with it.

Also just because Helmet used Drop-D tuning doesn't mean they were/are Nu Metal, since genres exist along a timeline, not just based on style. Try painting a neo-classical scene - nobody will call it neo-classical because you're too late for that boat. Similarly (sticking with the art comparison) styles do not just appear, they morph through each other (e.g. Baroque>Rococo>Neo-Classicism), with pioneers helping out along the way.

So you want reasoning, there it is. Many of the Alt Metal bands existed outside of the Nu Metal timeframe, and many of them sound nothing like Nu Metal, and even the disputed ones (Tool are a prime example) may have drop-D/drop-c# tuning but their whole approach (10 minute long music videos, no rapping, no youth-aimed angst) separates them from Nu-Metal. When the Nu-Metal term was coined in the 90s, anyone from before that time is surely exempt by default.

I've not checked, but if there is a page covering something like "alternative art", it would likely hold info on artists who - for example - painted using their own head of hair as a brush, or threw canvasses under shower heads spewing soup, or something equally unlikely to be copied.

Perhaps your understanding of genres is being hindered by a lack of in-depth knowledge about certain bands? That's not a slur - good genre analysis is needed - but if you are assuming rather than researching at any stage, your input becomes flawed. That's why I'm not writing for particle physics pages, I have no idea where to start. Let's keep the dialogue open and see where we end up. Skewer 08:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maxcap. The merger tags should be removed now, and now the discussion should move onto how we can improve these subjects rather than trying to mesh two articles together that are not synonymous. WesleyDodds 09:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If a defination is not found within dispute, the merger tags should be readded for the reason given. Leyasu 09:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed here too, I think we're close enough to a definition (either as a genre or just as a blanket term) to work from here, fingers crossed Skewer 14:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Opeth

If the articles are staying separate now - as I believe they should be - I want to know where the Opeth references are! If any band's music can be seen as a combination of metal and other, "alternative" genres, surely they can be. They have, at various times, acoustic rock, free jazz, prog, and big band influences. And no-one can disagree with their classification as "metal"; go to any "True metal" rant against nu-metallers and I guarantee you'll see them listed as an example of real metal. User:SwitChar 8:03, 22 January 2006

Heya! I've got to let you know that this article has nothing to do with whether or not any of the bands cited are considered "true" metal, in fact I wouldn't call a single one of the bands listed as metal. I'll go even further and say that if a band is considered "true-metal" it doesn't belong, except if listed as an influence to one of the bands.

Honestly, I feel the term is sort of silly. But it survived AfD. The criteria used to refine it is Ian Christe book 's (listed as a source in the article). The defining trait (sort of) is that the bands are influenced by 80's indie rock and metal and gained noteriety concurrently with grunge, and pretty much died with it. The bands that I personally question on the list are Korn, and the Deftones, but I see the the reasoning behind their inclusion.

• Ultimately I think that the list is going to have to go, to keep this from being a repository of questioned bands
• I feel that that an Alt metal genre box will need to be created to replace the haevy metal box to (hopefully) cut down on confusion. (grunge needs to be added as a fusion genre in the metal genre box as well, IMHO)

maxcap 22:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It didn't die with grunge. Marilyn Manson, after all, became highly successful as grunge began to decline. And some consider nu metal a subset of alternative metal if not the succesor to it, so obviously some bands overlap in genres. Which is why Korn and the Deftones are listed; Korn debuted their first record in 1994, before nu metal even existed as a concept (making them contemporaries initially with the likes of Tool, RATM, Marilyn Manson, NIN, etc.), and the Deftones started around the same time and incorporate dream pop and shoegaze influences. User:WesleyDodds 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey! I did say "pretty much" !maxcap 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Either way. Manson, RATM, NIN, Deftones and Korn are all Nu Metal. Progenitors, yes. Nu Metal, yes. Cross Genre? Maybe, in some cases. Still, give us a defination of what Alternative Metal is before you claim bands are something that doesnt have a defination, otherwise you open the gate for any band to be Alternative Metal. Leyasu 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You've just called Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails nu-metal. You obviously don't kow what you are talking about. Especially considering that you also wrote Ive studied genres long enough to know what they are, i dont need lecturing by anyone on their opinions when fact dictates otherwise. Your judgement on musical genres seems seriously flawed. I'm not an advocate for alternative metal, you're just completely wrong. Cannonlab 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone call Marilyn Manson nu metal, mainly because by the time nu metal was coined he already had like four albums out.

And Nine Inch Nails? Oh, hell no. NIN had been in the public eye since the first Lollapalooza in 1991. Metalheads and alt-rock fans claim the band equally. They're also the public face of what most people consider industrial music. You're British right? I believe our separate cultural experiences is what is causing a lot of the problems behind addressing who is and who isn't considered nu metal. Because in the States no one calls either of these acts nu metal and does not lump them in with the nu metal wave. User:WesleyDodds 10:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that AJ, I am also in the UK and just came back to these pages, almost choking on the thought. RATM (circa 1991) can't be classified in a late-90s phenomenon, and I was waiting for the release of NIN's Broken EP in '91, having had PHM for 2 years. Even Trent was bemused to get a rock award for work on Broken...

Cultural differences may play a part in some areas but I concur that NIN are miles from metal, let alone nu-metal, and as a Godflesh fan I only just group NIN with Industrial. As I've said before, it's our clammering for labels that creates genres, not some unassailable link between bands. And on that note, I would call some of Marilyn Manson's work nu-metal (disposable teens, fight song, anyone?) but again he's changed with the tides to release what he, or his audience, wanted at the time. But NIN? Nu-Metal? Wounds again like an afficinado of some genres having a slightly skewed view of some bands...

Skewer 13:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Grunge was deleted for not being a part of the metal scene, and as was disclosed, taking influence from doesnt make it a part of. If anything, Alternative Metal should be moved to Fusion due to supposed fusion of various rock genes and various metal genres. Leyasu 22:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It is listed in the genre box as a fusion genre. I think we have different views on the fusion genre portion of the genre box. I there a wikipedia guideline for this the I am not aware of? maxcap 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as the discussion went, Grunge was not part of the Metal community. It took influence from early Heavy Metal, but has nothing to do on the whole with Metal Music, thus its removel. Also was discussed the fact that only a small portion of Grunge bands took influence from Heavy Metal bands, and that was that. Fusion Genres are a direct combination of two genres (Ie: NU Metal, Gothic-Doom, Metalcore, Symphonic Black Metal) etc. Leyasu 23:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind dropping some links on my talk page regarding that discussion? And again, are you aware of a wikipedia guideline on the fusion genre portion of the genre box that I am not?maxcap 00:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Only guidelines i knew of was the two arguments by the two sides involved. It should be on the template talk page if i remember rightly. Leyasu 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If you know anything at all about genre classification, you know NIN aren't nu-metal. Come on. You may as well say Primus are grunge. RATM, Marilyn Manson and NIN aren't nu-metal, and Deftones have done plenty of non-nu-metal work recently.

And, not saying that alternative metal bands have to be true metal; but Opeth are always mentioned there, and that proves their metal influence. If "alternative metal" has less to do with alternative influences and more with alternative rock influences, Manson probably shouldn't be there. Same with a few others; Primus seem mostly funk and thrash-influenced to me. They're even mentioned as being described as "thrash-funk" on their wiki.

And finally, on Grunge, it certainly has heavy metal influence, and was described as "Heavy metal played with the punk DIY ethic" or something similar. If nu-metal is in fusion genres, I think Grunge should be.--Switch 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest reading both the Grunge and Nu Metal articles, as your argument sounds extremely biased, without being mean. Leyasu 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Switch,Primus are definately influenced by thrash, and are often associated with the Bar Area scene, As are Faith No More. Primus' Ler LaLond was in Possessed, and It's pretty well known that Les Claypool tried out for Metallica to replace Cliff Burton (And was a schoolmate of Kirk Hammett) FNM's Jim Martin was in a pre-Metallica band with Cliff Burton. Honestly feel free to add Opeth if you want, I've never heard them so I'm really in no position to judge. Keep in mind that alt metal is listed as a fusion genre on the alt rock genre box though. maxcap 20:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Opeth are a prog death metal band, and they frequently experiment with other genres. I don't know if they belong though, as they are often called "true metal". They tend to alternate between metal and various other genres within albums and songs, unlike most of the bands here, which create a fusion. I'm not sure if they belong. I do know that if I add them, their placement there will be contested, probably hotly. --203.208.71.144 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Allmusic lists them under progressive metal and death metal but not alternative metal, so that's probably the best place to list them on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Kittie

I think Kittie should be included on the list of alt-metal bands. I've added them.

Love them (or in all probability, given the general 'accepted' opinion) absolutely fucking detest every last element of them, I think their sound is too far removed from any other genre to be put into any other box other than alt-metal.

nu-metal doesn't fit them as they don't make sufficient use of hip-hop or industrial elements, there's no fusion betweeen genres going on. They've got the simple metal elements - guitarists, bassist, vocalist, drummer. There isn't any polishing up or adding of beats and electronic elements going on in the studio (except for a tiny, tiny odd addition here and there). Listen to Spit and you'll see what I'm getting at. Their style is one vaguely, vaguely similar to (please don't miss the point of this comparison, I'm not comparing how good the two bands are or anything) a really simple Slayer. No solos or anything, just simple metal riffs and a pissed-off attitude.

They've got the distortion but lack the technicality for thrash / death metal.

So alt-metal it is. I know it's easy to just say 'Kittie = shit. nu-metal' but I really can't see a good case for them being nu-metal, as this genre requires a some influence from other genres like electronica / hip-hop etc. outside metal and Kittie haven't really done that - they've simplified their metal influences (such as SOAD, Napalm Death, Today Is The Day) into something they can play. Alt-metal nicely catches them.

You overlook the following points.

• The band's composition is all Alternative Rock based, using influences from Heavy Metal.

• The bands sound is normally far more rock sounding, or reminiscent of Nu Metal than it is of metal in general.

• The bands lyrical themes are typical of Nu Metal.

• The bands vocals are typical of Nu Metal.

In future, it is a good idea to take note of these things, before making such rash claims. Leyasu 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the fuck does almost everyone on the internet have to add a little patronizing comment at the end of whatever they want to say. It's always ' quiet child, I'm right, haha! '. Like a little ego-stroke at the end of every message. I made a point, you made yours. Why the 'In future, it is a good idea to take note of these things, before making such rash claims.'? I'm sure you'll go through a load of bullshit about over-reaction or that statement not being in the least patronizing, but you'll be fooling no-one but yourself.

The bands' vocals are typical of nu-metal? In that they are screamed? Well so do vocalists from death / thrash metal. The lyrical themes are typical of nu-metal, but I see a lot of similarity between nu-metal lyrics and the lyrical themes of ALL metal. This 'angsty nu-metal crap' thing is a real misconception. Almost ALL genres of metal have bands with angsty lyrics.

Give me 5 rock bands with a similar sound to Kittie. I don't think you can. I think Kittie's sound is reminiscent of early SOAD, who are certified alt-metal in the list.

In response to each other your comments. You made a rash claim, ignoring specific points that did not suit you, or forgetting to look at them. Thus, i reminded you of them, and reminded you to look at all the facts before you make rash claims.

Thrash Metal bands typically do not scream vocals, as most are sung. Death Metal vocals are very different to screaming. Thus, i am quite sure from your statement you dont know what either Thrash Metal or Death Metal is. Nor does all forms of metal have angsty, teenage lyrics. I fail to see how Power Metal/Gothic Metal/Progressive Metal have anything to do with teenage angst.

Youll also note i said they had a Nu Metal sound, which you then point out, by claiming their sound to be similar to Nu Metal bands. Im not bit into Alternative Rock, to know a high amount of bands in the scene, but never the less, i know the musics composition, and Kittie compose alternative rock music as a base for construction. This can be checked im sure, on their website. Leyasu 20:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'Death Metal vocals are very different to screaming.' Well I'll give you that for a lot of cases. But wtf is Angela Gossow doing, for example? Growling? Screaming? I'd say it's somewhere between the two, like Morgan. Thrash vocals are often snarled / screamed towards the heavier ends of the genre.

I fail to see how Power Metal/Gothic Metal/Progressive Metal have anything to do with teenage angst.

Gothic?

Sirenia's lyrics, for example, are not a bit angsty. Oh no. Not a bit appealing to angsty teens with lines like:

"A thousand demons at my door

screaming at my crumbling walls

My river's bleeding, my fields are burning

My world has stopped turning"

or

"We are all living a lie

would you like to try?

In these halls of time

we are all giving

in for another day

We shall pass away

on the break of day

We're lost anyway"

Let's take these Sirenia lyrics:

"I stand upon the fall

I'm giving in on all

I watch the sun's decline

for one last closing time"

the above being nothing like these lyrics by Linkin Park:

"In the memory you’ll find me

Eyes burning up

The darkness holding me tightly

Until the sun rises up"

One is absolutely, totally not angsty and is clearly oh-so poetic and meaningful. But the nu-metal ones are all kiddie shit. That's watertight logic.

Power metal? Oh well Dragonland never wrote these absolutely un-angsty, un-teenage lyrics:

"I travel though the wasteland in my heart As the grievance tears me apart

Thinking of you and the things you meant to me My heart is bleeding, I can't go on"

Prog? Well I'll go with the ones I know, Dream Theater. Which I'm sure will make you think me an ignorant person given that they're not underground and all, but hey, they're prog alright. They never write angsty lyrics either:

"...Cold

Lying in my bed

Staring into darkness

Lost

I hear footsteps overhead

And my thoughts return

Again

Like a child who's run away

And won't be coming back

Time keeps passing by

As night turns into day

I'm so far away

And so alone..."

I'll admit these genres of metal don't concentrate on angst as much as nu-metal. But angst in certainly not confined to nu-metal at all and if you think it is you are deluding yourself, being selective in your interpretation. In gothic / prog / power metal angst is something like 'poetic and meaningful' and in nu-metal it is 'kiddie shit' to the selective 'true, oh-so experienced in the metal 'scene' unquestionably right metalhead'.

"Im not bit into Alternative Rock, to know a high amount of bands in the scene, but never the less, i know the musics composition, and Kittie compose alternative rock music as a base for construction." hand-waving time! Look, Kittie are like SOAD in almost everyway except they scream more and are less technical. They're SOAD-lite. And like SOAD (who are acknowledged as influences in the album sleeve of Spit) they are alternative metal.

First, one band doesnt define a genre, and taking lyrics out of context doesnt help. Symphonic Metal band Offertorium have a very 'angst' ridden song, which meets what you say fine. Considering the whole point of the song is part of the albums story, to explain the anger of one of the characters, it doesnt help your case.

Thirdly, i didnt say angst was confined to only one genre. I said teenage angst mostly is.

Third, Kittie have cited Nu Metal and Alternative Rock bands as influences. Im not saying they aren't Alternative Metal either. As if you had read above, we have already come to accept that Alternative Metal is a two fold term, that refers to Alternative Rock bands that use metal influences, and to Nu Metal bands that pre-date the heavy commercilisation of Nu Metal.

Yes, Kittie could be considered Alternative Metal. Yes, they are Nu Metal.

My point originally, was to simply make you look at all the points of every part of your argument, before you make rash claims, not to debate the genre of anyone specific band. Leyasu 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As if you had read above, we have already come to accept that Alternative Metal is a two fold term, that refers to Alternative Rock bands that use metal influences, and to Nu Metal bands that pre-date the heavy commercilisation of Nu Metal."

No, it refers to alternative rock bands that use metal influences, some of which were in the group that inspired many Nu Metal artists. The only bands I can think of that fit into the second category are Korn and Deftones. 203.208.72.234 10:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Movement vs. Genre

As alternative metal seems to be a movement more than a genre, with bands as different as Corrosion of Conformity and Primus both being mentioned, I propose that the article be modified to reflect this, and mention some of the more prominent genres of alternative metal: (proto-) Nu metal, Funk metal, etc. be mentioned in the article. --Switch 16:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlike art, there really is not a distinction between "genre" and "movement" in classifying music. The most notable example is Alternative rock, where the ideas behind the music are just as important (sometimes more so) than the genre traits they contain. However, I see your point about talking more about the different forms of alternative metal like funk-metal and so forth. WesleyDodds 01:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Finally got around to it. --Switch 07:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails

I know there has been some, "This band is/isn't that genre," going around in the discussion, but those bands (such as Kittie) are understandable to be debated upon. I feel the need to remove Nine Inch Nails from the article because they are purely rock based, with no metal elements whatsoever. I don't see it fair to mention them with White Zombie, Fear Factory, et cetera. So I'm going to remove them for now but if anyone get's too strung out about it you can put a good reason here and put them back in the article. Ladysway1985 23:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they really belong there either, but I know they enjoy some popularity in the metal scene, and are often described as "industrial metal". --Switch 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the general opinion of everyone here that a band should be included or discluded from an article like this based on their sound, not popularity. That beind said, I also have a gripe about the absurd mention of the Red Hot Chili Peppers under the Funk Metal section of the article. Again, they're purely rock with no metal at all. I just don't see a logical reason for including them. Ladysway1985 01:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, wikipedia doesn't make judgements; we use reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum to voice opinions. As NIN are often categorised as "Industrial metal", they'll be here. As for RHCP, they were definitely influenced by metal in their early days (Up until around Mother's Milk), and on a few later songs (heavy riffs on "Suck My Kiss"). --Switch 06:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

-sigh- I guess I'm missing the point of this article. This is supposed to be about bands that aren't directly metal but only have influences? That makes sense. Some bands listed, though (Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, White Zombie, and Fear Factory) are actual metal bands. Ladysway1985 00:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes. "Alternative metal" is a fusion of alternative music and metal, and not what most people would consider "true metal". There is some crossover though - Industrial metal is considered a form of alternative metal, and some bands in the genre (such as Fear Factory) are based purely in metal with an industrial influence, and so can be both. Many alternative metal bands aren't metal by any stretch; some are considered metal by purists. --Switch 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What SwitChar said. In addition, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains, while marketed as metal early in their major label careers, are better known and more important in the context of grunge, an alternative rock subgenre. And White Zombie actually started out as a Sonic Youth-ish noise rock band (Kurt Cobain is known to have really liked their first few EPs). You could still pick up bits of their background in songs like "More Human Than Human", with that swelling dissonant guitar hook. WesleyDodds 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Industrial != techno beats

Industrial metal is not the same as techno-influenced metal. It would be more useful to state that The Prodigy's Music For The Jilted Generation enticed many metal fans with its aggression, and later in the 1990s bands such as Pitchshifter adopted a more techno-based approach.

Industrial metal conjures up Godflesh (who have dipped in and out of techno/dub experiments, I admit), and others such as Headbutt, Ministry (already in article), Throbbing Gristle etc. Why not mention Einsturtzende Neubaten while we're at it?

Labelling NIN as Industrial has always been controversial given Trent's diversity (evil rock/disco/electro in 98, metal in 91, some more industrial tracks in 94... to be very oversimplistic).

I have given up on directly editing some of these pages, since they can be preciously guarded by some users, so I hope this sparks a sensible discussion rather than a flame war. Skewer 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nu-metal section

"Alternative Metal bands which have a new technique of making rock music in today's nu-generation [2000..onwards] are lately referred as "Nu Metal" Bands. For Example Linkin Park , a metal quinet from Southern California which includes the formula of mixing & mashing of Rock & Rap and glorifying it to hip hop. This band has made progressive rock music [2000..] & has gained huge popularity worldwide."

That is some funny s---. Is it even English? Last time I checked, "quintet" referred to an ensembled of five, not six, and had two t's. Also, "..." had three dots. And Linkin Park as progressive rock...lmao. Anyway, someone needs to rewrite this.

Grunge influence

Okay, I'll let that stand. I would think that Tool were merely influenced by the same bands as grunge was, but it's not a big issue so I'll leave it be. ~Switch ^t 07:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Grunge was also a musical influence for alt metal (not the only, right) and wrote a big page of music influences for many bands of the next ten years (it was also considered an "alternative" genre for many years). IMHO "prog rock" is wrong, if with this genre you mean bands like Yes, King Crimson etc. Connacht

Alternative metal started in the early-mid 80s. Apart from some of the later bands like Alice in Chains and Soundgarden it wasn't a major influence, but it did influence those bands so it probably should stay in.

I think prog is fine; it's definitely an influence in the experimentational-approach-to-songwriting element, and it was a musical influence on Red Hot Chili Peppers, Primus, Tool and others as well. ~Switch ^t 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What the f**k?

WTF is alternative metal? Certainly not real metal. Delete this article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.41.179 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Go back to listen to Manowar, buddy. And remember: the true metal fights, wins and prevails (C&C cit.), traitors and impostors will be defeated. Connacht

OK. I have a profile on GarageBand.com, and they recognize Alternative Metal as a legit subgenre of heavy metal.Mezmerizer 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Mezmerizer

One more thing: Alternative metal has 40,100,000 hits on google.Mezmerizer

One more thing: Alternative metal has 40,100,000 hits on google. All that means is that the words alternative and metal both appear on a page, not that the article is about alternative metal, what you wrote is sophism. Cannonlab 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well blue metal has 76,500,000 Google results!!!! Why don't we have a blue metal page? I think I'll start one; Google obviously equals notability. Kflester 11:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "blue metal" only gets 313 000 Ghits, and they seem to refer to metals that are blue (eg blue steel), not a music genre. Alternative metal on the other hand has profiles on GarageBand.com, the All Music Guide and various other music websites. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Switch! 216.11.79.21 16:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. This is me, Mezmerizer- Im just using my IP address.

Rewrite

OK, I believe that Alternative Metal is a real genre. But really. This artice needs to be rewritten. I cant, since Im not an expert. Anyone willing to rewrite it?

i cannot get over the parts where it says that Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are Alternative Metal with the influence of Grunge. I also cannot get over the fact you say that all the bands you listed don't have, or at least never formed scenes, when in fact some of the bands you listed (i.e. Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Faith no More, Jane's Addiction, Corrosion of Conformity) all had scenes.

I also cannot get over the fact you say that all the bands you listed don't have, or at least never formed scenes, when in fact some of the bands you listed (i.e. Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Faith no More, Jane's Addiction, Corrosion of Conformity) all had scenes.

When did I say that?Mezmerizer 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)?Mezmerizer

Anyone? If nobody else will rewrite it, than I will, and yes, I will include original research. I shall Mezmerize you! My edits shall Mezmerize you!! My articles shall Mezmerize you!!! 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case it will be reverted. Read WP:ATT. 216.21.150.44 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Id just like to say...this is actually a pretty well written definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.219.2 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Metal is grouping disparate bands together

I personally don't believe that alternative metal is a valid genre. Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevent, the point I wish to put across to you all is that "alternative metal" is being used as a term to fill a gap. There is a lot of confusion and discussion about what genre certain bands come under. When no one can agree on the genre, they get put into alternative metal.

These bands have very little in common with each other. Consider these bands: Clutch, Janes Addiction, Nine Inch Nails, Primus and Slipknot. They are all on the page List of alternative metal artists yet have very little in common with each other. If alternative metal is a valid genre, surely there would be a correlation between type of music that the bands within the genre are creating? This is not the case.

It seems to me that the genre is used to group bands together that don't have one clear genre, but have all been around at some point within the last 20 (sic) years.

If the aforementioned bands each had a clear genre under which they could fall, alternative metal would not exist. I believe that the term "alternative metal" is being used lazily to categorise bands together which have very little in common.

The very fact that the definition of the genre is so loose is tantamount to this.Cannonlab 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Because bands in the same genre can't sound different... that's why The Smiths and Nirvana are so similar. Likewise with Chelsea and Amebix. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Switch. Are you advocating that the Smiths and Nirvana sound similar or are in the same genre? I concur that bands/artists within a genre don't necessarily have to sound the same, but there is at least some common ground shared. The point I was trying to make is that the bands listed have very little in common, and are being grouped together under somewhat false pretenses. Either way, please elaborate, I think you're making an interesting point. Cannonlab 23:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, The Smiths and Nirvana are both mentioned in the alternative rock article: The Smiths as one of the UK's most popular alternative bands, and Nirvana as one of America's. I don't think these bands are any more different than the most disparate of alternative metal bands. In fact, alternative metal is a fusion genre between alternative rock and metal, so essentially any alternative metal band could be considered alternative rock too. Similarly Chelsea sound nothing like Amebix, and Poison have little in common with Bathory. However, those bands, like the bands in this genre, share similar musical structures, lineage and cultural background. Of course there is variation, but these elements are all similar. Alternative metal is also covered as a genre by reliable sources such as Ian Christe (in Sound of the Beast) and the All Music Guide. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 05:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally: "Alternative metal" is a vague umbrella term for any alternative rock band that has some kind of metal influence. It -isn't- a genre of heavy metal, that's for sure (no, that isn't elitism, just plain simple FACT) and it's very questionable whether it even needs it's own article. In my opinion it should be split up and merged in bits with Nu Metal and Alternative Rock. Look at all the artists with the alternative metal tag: very few bear the actual qualities to term them "metal", and those that do can just be put under different headings. Also: how many bands can be called alternative metal and nothing else? My point being, if all bands can be classed as something else (groove metal, grunge, post-grunge, hard rock, whatever) then why the need for another genre? So, I'm putting it to everyone here: can anyone give me an actual convincing argument for the existence of this supposed genre? An argument that outlines what distinguishes alternative metal from all other genres of music AND outlines precisely how (with convincing evidence, not just some source that isn't much of an authority anyway) it is classed as heavy metal. If this can't be provided, I say the article is removed and split up, or at the very least renamed to make it clear that it isn't metal. Prophaniti (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

"Alternative metal" appears to be a vague name used by Lenox to refer to a tarnish-resistant, aluminum alloy, silver replacement. It seems as though it may be related to something like "armetale" or Nambé. --Belg4mit 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A better definition of Nu metal

First, listen to real alternative metal (alice in chains, ssoungarden and the hip hop-influenced faith no more), one question: faith is nu metal?????? or an ALTERNATIVE(alt-rock influenced) metal band????????? alternative metal, but why??? Alternative metal has an SOLID influence coming from theAlternative rock.

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) 19:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to get your point. Nu metal is a musical genre and movement, there is no need for us to determine new definitions for it. Zouavman Le Zouave 08:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I read that right? Soundgarden is metal? That is a joke right. Alice in Chains, maybe, if you really wanna push it but certainly not Soundgarden. Both Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are grunge. They were 2 of the big 4 grunge bands from Seattle (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains). To say that Soundgarden is metal is like saying Ozzy is country. It's just silly. --Jimv1983 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes: merge with alternative rock

Okay, it's been a while and thus far no replies to my comments/suggestions. So I'm re-posting it here as a separate section. "Alternative metal" is a vague umbrella term for any alternative rock band that has some kind of metal influence. It -isn't- a genre of heavy metal, that's for sure (no, that isn't elitism, just plain simple FACT) and it's very questionable whether it even needs it's own article. In my opinion it should be split up and merged in bits with Nu Metal and Alternative Rock. Look at all the artists with the alternative metal tag: very few bear the actual qualities to term them "metal", and those that do can just be put under different headings. Also: how many bands can be called alternative metal and nothing else? My point being, if all bands can be classed as something else (groove metal, grunge, post-grunge, hard rock, whatever) then why the need for another genre? So, I'm putting it to everyone here: can anyone give me an actual convincing argument for the existence of this supposed genre? An argument that outlines what distinguishes alternative metal from all other genres of music AND outlines precisely how (with convincing evidence, not just some source that isn't much of an authority anyway) it is classed as heavy metal. If this can't be provided, I say the article is removed and split up, or at the very least renamed to make it clear that it isn't metal. If no one can come up with any actual logical rebuttal or a number of reliable sources (a single isolated one isn't enough, nor is something with no actual qualifiction in heavy metal music) that verify it, I propose going ahead with splitting this information up and incorporating it into other articles. Prophaniti (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Still no replies, so let me add this in to see if this generates any: my definition of a musical genre. It's when you fulfil both the following criteria:

1.) You have a number of bands that do not nicely fit into existing genres.

2.) A good number of these bands that don't fit also sound similar to one another.

This is how you get new genres. If there are only a handful that sound different, that's just a few bands being different, as not every band in existence can neatly be categorised. Equally, it doesn't count if you have lots of bands sounding similar to one another, but they all easily fit into existing genres. Both those above points have to be fulfiled for it to be a new genre.

Alternative metal does not meet these criteria. The vast majority of bands with that tag very easily fit into existing genres of music (progressive metal, alternative rock, grunge, post-grunge, etc etc etc) and don't sound particularly similar to one another either. This does not make a genre. What it is is a grouping of any vaguely alternative bands with some kind of metal trait. Having an element of a musical genre doesn't put you in that genre. Incorporating death grunt vocals doesn't make a band death metal. Playing at fast pace doesn't make a band thrash metal. Incorporating an orchestra doesn't make it classical music. And likewise, having some element of metal like distorted guitars doesn't make it heavy metal. Alternative metal suffers from A) Not having a distinct definition, B) Not having a real list of bands that can't be called alternative metal and nothing else easily, and C) Not fitting the definition of heavy metal music. Prophaniti (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge Several notable sources describe it as a defined style of music, including All Music Guide and Ian Christe's heavy metal history Sound of the Beast. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, are these "notable sources"? Only sources in the article are the two you've given there. Allmusic is NOT a reliable source. Just because it's a big site doesn't make it an authority on heavy metal music. So that leaves one single book as a source. Not good enough. Unless more can be provided, that won't cut it. Prophaniti (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I just listed two notable sources. Yes, All Music is considered a reliable, verifiable source. The Ian Christe book is pretty reliable as well. I can probably find more sources, but those are the two most important, and they are sourced in the main Heavy metal music article. I really don't see a good rationale to merge to alternative rock, and certainly not one to bring the article to Articles for Deletion, if it comes to that. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given my reasons up there in detail, and thus far none have refuted them. If sources can be found, I'm happy to drop it, and I'm not denying the Ian Christe book is one, but it's just that: one. I've noticed everyone here defending it says "sources such as", which seems to me to be a term for "Well, we've only really got two, if that, but we'll make it sound like there are lots more". With regards to Allmusic, what precisely makes it a reliable source on this topic? What would you actually say qualifies it as a reliable source? Prophaniti (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It’s not heavy metal, so the name’s wrong, and the bands are all just alternative rock bands. Merge it. 80.7.11.238 (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal is different enough from Alternative rock to be a separate genre.
How come Post-hardcore is separate from Hardcore etc.? --  61x62x61 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know hardcore and post-hardcore, so I can't say there. Can you tell me what distinguishes alternative metal from alternative rock? All I can hear having listened to most of the bands described as "alternative metal" is that they have SOME metal trait somewhere, usually distorted guitars. That doesn't make them heavy metal, it makes them a rock band. So they're alternative, and they're rock. Alternative + rock = alternative rock. Prophaniti (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Prophaniti. All these alternative metal bands aren’t heavy metal at all! They’re just rock bands, it’s not a genre of metal. So I say get rid of it, delete would be best, but merging would move it out of the way at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.56.40 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge: The two genres are far too different to be merged, I will even go as far as saying that it will be a dissapointment if it is merged. 121.223.140.110 (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Thus far I'm the only one who's given any real reasoning. Prophaniti (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge This is a complete different style of music. It's not like stoner rock and stoner metal, which are basically the same thing. I mean, would you compare Radiohead to Disturbed? No. Master of Metal (Have a chat!) 12:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By that very same reasoning, would you compare Disturbed to Faith No More? System of a Down to In Flames? Linkin Park to Primus? None of the bands within "alternative metal" match up any more, the reason being because it's not a true genre, just a vague umbrella term.

So I'll say it again: can anyone saying "don't merge" provide any -real- arguments, ones that can't be dismissed in a sentence? Thus far it would seem not. Prophaniti (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Speedy" don't merge - Whether this started as neologism or not is irrelevant. The term has set foot in public media^[1][2] and is most definitely known and relevant. ~ twsX · ^T_C · Typo-Warning! ~ 12:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if so, it doesn't alter the fact that it's an inappropriate term because it's not heavy metal, and at the very least such a thing should be made clear in the article, in just the same way that there are published books that say the holocaust didn't happen, and wikipedia should acknowledge that but also acknowledge that such books tend to be biased or not used historiographical sources, and so cannot be relied upon. Prophaniti (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge - my reasoning is somewhat lengthy and complex, but I'll try to keep it as concise as possible. You see, a music genre basically includes bands, all of whom share inherent characteristics and who cannot be sorted into other genres, but don't necessarily have to sound alike. There are similar characteristics shared among every band known by alternative metal - they are all influenced, at least partially, by metal. Now, an example of another genre that has bands that sound differently but have similar characteristics is grunge. Nirvana, known for their use of contrasting dynamics, had a sound that was alternative rock straight to the core. They sound completely different in many respects than Alice in Chains, who had a much more metallic sound and they didn't really use the loud/soft dynamic that Nirvana used. Both of these bands are classified as grunge due to their angst-themed lyrics and heavily distorted guitars, and also based on the style and the fact that both bands came from Seattle, Washington. All of the bands classified at least partially under alt. metal have something in common, regardless of how different their sound is. I don't believe, therefore, that this article should be merged, mainly because a) it is recognized as a genre by the music press, and b) it's not necessarily an indiscriminate umbrella term, given that all of the bands have something in common - heavy metal influences despite being unable to be classified fully as heavy metal for one. Valtoras (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, thanks for some actual reasoning, it's much appreciated. Now, I agree with most of your points, to a point. Indeed, grunge has a degree of metal-influence, but isn't classed as a genre of heavy metal for that reason, and that is precisely how I feel with regards to this genre, it's the same sort of thing. A LOT of the bands termed here "alternative metal" are either grunge or post-grunge bands. I agree that the bands here have something in common, and thus fulfil that criteria for a genre (and I agree with your overall definition of a genre itself). However, they don't fulfil the qualification of being different enough to other genres. Almost every single band on this list can be called something else, without stretching any other genres. Only about two or three bands (System of a Down, Faith No More and possibly Alice in Chains) stand out, which isn't enough for a genre. The point is, there's almost no band you can point to and say "That's alternative metal. That's what that genre sounds like.". Whereas you can do that for other genres of music. There's no ultimate need for the term, and at the very least, if the article is allowed to stay, it should be altered to reflect this, it should be made clear in the article that regardless of what the media say it isn't really a form of heavy metal music and so the name is a misnomer. Prophaniti (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you do bring a good argument to the table, without question. It's difficult to argue that you most definitely have a point. However, the term "altermative metal" is itself a term used by magazines and critics - Allmusic is most definitely notable, no matter what stance anybody takes against them (I don't read them either). And they weren't the only people to use the term; I'm no fan of using the Google notability test, but a search of "alternative metal" picked up almost 9.5 million results.[3] This indicates that, while the term may not be popular, it does have widespread use. The fact that its status as a genre is disputable isn't by itself a reason to merge or delete an article. Valtoras (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that is true. Likewise, you make good arguments. My problem with it is that while the masses might term it "alternative metal", this is an innappropriate and misleading name, as the vast majority is alternative rock of some sort, with a vague flavour of metal, like distorted guitars or some such. While the odd band could be considered enough of a metal band to qualify (like, say, Faith No More), the majority really aren't. It's true that wikipedia articles should acknowledge and describe mainsteam views, but also it's important to be aware that while what the masses say should be noted, it's not always accurate. The masses, for example, when asked would probably say that in the English Civil War there was a pro-king side and an anti-king side. In truth, as historians of the period will note, neither side was actually anti-king. In an article on that, therefore, it would be appropriate to note what the masses think, but also note that reliable sources on the subject (i.e. qualified historians) argue otherwise. This is the sort of thing I'd like for this article, because while allmusic can be used as a source, I don't see that it's a reliable source on what is or is not heavy metal music. I promise this isn't typical metal elitism "It's not metal enough!". I like most of the bands described as "alternative metal", but most of them clearly are much more rock than metal. Allmusic doesn't, as far as I'm aware, have anything more to qualify it as reliable source than, say, metal-archives, which explicitly denies alternative metal. Thus, I'd argue that while the article perhaps should exist (my reason for suggesting merging was that it's rock music and it's alternative, therefore as far as I can see it's a particular form of alternative rock), it should be noted somewhere that many bands termed this way really aren't metal bands. Again, it's not elitism, I just don't like mis-terms like that. Prophaniti (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh, let's just wait until the consensus to merge or not has been created. By the looks of things, it seems to me that it's not going to be merged. But, if you really believe this article shouldn't be kept, then take it to AfD - there isn't really a point, though, because consensus has already been gathered. Valtoras (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No merger You are suggesting that Allmusic is not a reliable source but the Metal Archives is? I'm sorry but that do come across as "typical metal elitism," as you put it. The Metal Archives is not a reliable source because its content is derived from anonymous users. Allmusic is a reliable source because its content is derived from paid professionals as supervised by paid editors. The genre is recognised not only on mainstream publications like Allmusic, PopMatters, Rolling Stone and even [http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Metal-Hard-Rock-Music/b?ie=UTF8&node=67208 Amazon.com] but also on publications that specialise in heavy metal music like Metalstorm, The Metal Observer The BNR Metal Pages and Decibel Magazine. The genre can also be found in published books like The Rough Guide to Rock, All Music Guide to Rock and Sound of the Beast. An explanation of what alternative metal is can be found on Allmusic.--Bardin (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Italic textAllmusic is a reliable source because its content is derived from paid professionals as supervised by paid editors.Italic text

Do you have any proof they are paid? No you don't so stop using that for your reasons as to why they can be used as a source. Have you ever even bothered to look at how they list some of the metal bands. Nightwish and Kamelot are both list with Black/Death Metal. They also list Nightwish and Lunatcia as Symphonic Black Metal. Then Death Metal bands are listed as Both Death and Black Metal. Then a Metalcore band Atreyu is list as Punk Metal. I never knew Punk music is not part of metal. They also list them as Death Metal/ Black Metal. Yeah what a great reliable source of paid professionals. Hell As I Lay Dying and Bullet for My Valentine are either listed under genres no one has ever heard of or not listed right at all. All three bands are Metalcore yet they list as Punk Metal, Grindcore or some other off the wall genre.

If you want backaround info on a band yeah there good to use. You want to know what kind of music they play they a a very very very poor site to use. People who like Melo Death Metal are not going to like Bullet for my Valentine. People who like and enjoy Black Metal bands such as Hellhammer, Darkthrone, and Emperor are not gong to like Atreyu or Nightwish or Lunatica or Lacuna Coil because they have nothing to do with Black Metal. So yeah great reliable site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not merge. Pretty much different genres and would only mess wikipedia's genre boxes all over the site. Haxxiy (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge A combination of alternative rock and heavy metal, or just a very heavy form of alternative rock, isn't the only definition of "alternative metal". There's also a definition consisting of that, but with progressive/experimental addings to it too. Alternative rock isn't always like that. Besides, Coldplay, New Order, and R.E.M. are like, at opposite ends of Korn and Rage Against the Machine. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge Reasons have been stated above.72.81.227.98 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been long enough. Consensus has been established that Alternative Metal is it's own genre and there have been more than enough sources given to support that. Request that the merge tags be removed.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Groove Metal and Grunge?

What fucktard listed grunge, a recognized ALT ROCK style, as ALT METAL? The same for groove metal! Nu-'metal' is an alternative style with influences from grunge, indutrial rock, funk rock, and groove metal. That makes it a 3/4 rock style and only 1/4 metal. None of these bands are metal, they are hard rock bands.

NO SUCH THING AS NEW WAVE OF ALTERNATIVE METAL!!!

Someone (72.220.195.43) has been vandalizing or posting ignorant information such as "This subgenre of alternative metal describes bands such as Shadows Fall, All that Remains, God Forbid, and even the Swedish band Soilwork's more recent efforts. This style is characterized by heavy metal roots, alternative rock melodies, both harsh and clean vocals, heavy breakdowns, and guitar riffs similar to melodic death metal. It is also known as American Alternative Metal, and in the film "Metal: A Headbanger's Journey" New Wave American Alternative Metal." There is no such thing as new wave of alternative metal.Bertrumredneck (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you stated is true. But Personal attacks are not needed. 71.179.18.152 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge With Nu-Metal

Very simply alternative metal is an umbrella term for bands that take alternative elememts and mix it with metal although metal itself is sort of alternative. It has several subgenres including metal-core and nu-metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.240.206 (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jane's Addiction

Most if this article is fairly well-written in my mind (if ill-sourced), however I'm wondering exactly how Jane's Addiction is a member of this genre. (Albert Mond (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

I agree that Jane's Addiction really shouldn't be in a metal article. Rockgenre (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)