Talk:Sludge metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "sludgecore"[edit]

It is an official term, used by Pandora to describe sludge bands. Pandora's employees all have degrees in music fields, they know what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjrc09 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [1] [2][reply]

I don't think Pandora are the absolute authority on genres... possibly not an authority on genres that Wikipedia recognises at all. Do you have other sources here? Яehevkor ✉ 21:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should also consider contributing to the discussion above, Talk:Sludge metal#Sludgecore?, regarding the significance of the term. Яehevkor ✉ 21:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music streaming sites such as Pandora, Last.fm and Grooveshark are nowhere near reliable sourcesShallowmead077 (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, all of Pandora's employees have atleast a 4 year degree in music theory or other music fields, if that's not reliable then I don't know what is— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjrc09 (talk • contribs)
Where is this "4 year degree in music theory" from? Source please? If you feel it is valuable as a source then I invite you to bring it up at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE - I can't find anywhere on the site where they are open about genre selection however. They are usually crowd sourced. Anyway, the discussion above about the prominence of the phrase seems to have stalled - the reliability of Pandora is a separate issue - doesn't anyone have anything to add there? Яehevkor ✉ 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who ever said anything about Grooveshark or Last FM?User:Rocker0873 19:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris, I saw that you included Sludgecore as a supposed fusion genre of Sludge, but I don't think I agree with it. In the sources here before, it appeared that the Sludgecore term was used interchangeably with Sludge metal and Sludge doom to designate the same thing, and the source you presented doesn't seem to present a different idea on the matter, never establishing a relationship between the two terminologies. ABC paulista (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ABC paulista, I only just noticed your post back up here. Are you satisfied with the section now, please? It is looking as if these 3 bands were sludgecore (although they have been called many things by many writers in various journals), and it was invented in New Orleans. 08:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)William Harris (talk)[reply]
William Harris, yeah I think it's better now. Still not totally convinced, but the sourcing is solid enough IMO. ABC paulista (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks ABC paulista. Let us see what "Characteristics" turns up later on; perhaps there will be enough material to compare and contrast the two "genres, styles, variants" or whatever. This for me has been a learning journey. I have nothing in mind, and am just following the trail to where it leads from the sources that we have available today from reference searches. William Harris (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris I'm still not seeing much distinction between sludge metal and sludgecore. Did you ever turn up sources that draw a harder line between the two? I can take a pass at incorporating the material from the sludgecore section into the history and characteristics sections while still noting that some of these bands, particularly those from New Orleans and the South, have also been referred to as "sludgecore." Klintron23 (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection has been removed and reference to it moved to the Characteristics.
I've still not been able to find reliable sources on the difference between "sludge metal" and "sludgecore," but I did find an additional source that passes muster for a particular usage of the term to apply to bands like Black Sheep Wall. But it still doesn't explain the meaning of the term or spell out how these bands differ from other sludge bands.
In his book Doomed to Fail, Anselmi writes that Cavity has been called a sludgecore band without really explaining what it means. I'm not sure that's relevant to the article at the moment but might be useful background research if more sources become available. Klintron23 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Issan Sumisu It looks like a word or two is missing or extra from your latest revision "More recently, the term sludgecore bands like the Abominable Iron Sloth have emerged." Maybe it was "More recently, sludgecore bands like the Abominable Iron Sloth have emerged"?
I don't know about Admiral Angry, but I could also make the case that Black Sheep Wall is notable enough for a mention here even though they don't their own Wikipedia article. They've received quite a it of press. Songs for the Enamel Queen was listed by Decibel in their "40 Great Metal Albums You May Have Missed in 2021" end of year list and Metal Injection's "Metal Injection's Favorite Albums Of 2021 (So Far)" list. (I'm not a fan tbh, just seems like they should pass muster. Besides, the notability requirements within articles is more lax than that for topics of articles.) Klintron23 (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I edited the part more for WP:WEASEL and WP:THEBAND than for the two red links, I just saw they didn't have articles while down there. But neither of them seem to turn up more than 10 results on Google News. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, neither WP:WEASEL nor WP:THEBAND are valid reasons for their removal, since the latter is a guideline with only stylistic implications, has no bearing on deciding what content is to be displayed, and the article is anything but ambiguous about the inclusion of those bands on the subgenre. Phrases like Springing from the the American sludgecore camp alongside Admiral Angry and The Abominable Iron Sloth, Black Sheep Wall set a standard of punishing heaviness that few could hope to approach and Songs for the Enamel Queen maintains sludgecore heft as the quintet push themselves as songwriters. are pretty straightforward, thus avoid the earlier. ABC paulista (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were WP:THEBAND and WP:WEASEL issues before @Issan Sumisu edited, those weren't reasons for removing those two bands. I think it was only notability.
I didn't see this until after I'd already edited to put Black Sheep Wall (who I'm surprised don't have an article) back in. Will re-add Admiral Angry as well. Klintron23 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sludge metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sludge metal article[edit]

This article was created in 2004 and has not progressed beyond a quality level of Start class in all of that time. A review of the topics on this talk page reveal much woolly thinking and uninformed discussion (most are about to be archived). It does not matter what you believe, Wikipedia requires that changes editors make need to WP:CITE expert WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY. Only then will this article reach the level of quality that it rightfully deserves. William Harristalk 09:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now redeveloped the "History" section using only books by music journalists as references, plus the 2009 "Sludge Special" by Terrorizer magazine which spans two issues and is too comprehensive to overlook. Given that this half of the article cites largely WP:SECONDARY sources, I am raising the quality rating of this article from class=Start to class=C. William Harris (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic tone[edit]

I took a pass at improving the tone and prose of the article. I did leave some orphaned references that I'm not sure what to do with. Klintron23 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klintron23 Maybe you should bring back the sources you removed in order to eliminate the orphaned instances. I'm all for improvement and inclusion, but I don't see the reason for removing fully legit sourcing for such. ABC paulista (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just found a few places to slot them back in. Klintron23 (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics[edit]

@Issan Sumisu I assume that "generally using sources to define the attributes of the genre when actually they were only describing a particular band's sound" was in reference to my citations for the statement about feedback/industrial/noise. However, the Terrorizer is describing industrial/noise as a key third ingredient, in addition to doom and hardcore, to sludge in general (as well as to Eyehategod in particular). I added the additional citation for Melvins for good measure. I also just added a third citation about Swans's influence. I admit the second and third citations veer towards WP:Synth, but they are additional support for the first citation. I removed the line you added about noise becoming commonplace in the mid-1990s, since the quote from Anselmi about Cavity doesn't actually say that and because those elements were clearly there in the earliest sludge albums as per the sources I cited. Happy to adjust the phrasing and citations more, but let's discuss here instead of edit warring. Klintron23 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some additional editing of that statement that I think addresses any synth concerns. Klintron23 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was not just that section, it was a whole lot of the article. However, only the Terrorizer source you cited supports that info, because even though it is specifically talking about Eyehategod's influences, it does present them as influences for all of sludge. This article you cited is either original research or synth. It doesn't even mention sludge, it's just about the Melvins' influences. They might be the pioneering sludge band, but interpreting them citing their own influences as influences for sludge as a whole is synth and original research. Also this article says sludge is a merger of the sounds of Black Sabbath, Black Flag and Swans, but it doesn't call Swans an industrial or noise band, it calls them "sub/dom grind". To interpret that as meaning sludge is influenced by industrial is absolutely original research, it doesn't ever use the terms industrial or noise. I think the Anselmi source does support what I cited it to mean, because it says Cavity's use of noise and feedback in the mid-1990s was confrontation to sludge, but then became commonplace. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the Terrorizer source should be sufficient as it's a thoroughly researched and well searched article in a professional publication and the statement does apply to sludge in general: "Punk and metal may have gotten together to create sludge, but they were an infertile couple. Someone else had to provide the turkey baster that would lead to the resulting offspring of the clash of seemingly disparate genres, one that even if it shouldn't be labeled can still be seen as a distinct, unique musical entity." In context that "something else" is feedback, noise, and industrial, as clarified in the following statement from Joey LaCaze about "said baster." What the author is saying, in their very non-encyclopedic way, is that a third element (feedback, noise, and industrial), in addition to punk and metal, was required to create the genre of sludge ("offspring of the clash of seemingly disparate genres, one that even if it shouldn't be labeled can still be seen as a distinct, unique musical entity" = sludge metal). Remember, synth is not explanation : "If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis." Likewise, we don't need a source to call Swans an industrial/noise band to understand and explain what the author means by the reference anymore than we need the author need to explain that Swans, Black Sabbath, and Black Flag are not the only three bands that influenced the sludge sound. In The Melvins interview, they are not just listing their influences, they are explaining the influences of a specific element of their music ("experimental noise"). The question is, in and of itself, It's highly relevant to the WP article that industrial/noise elements are distinguishing characteristics of both of the two bands generally credited with founding the genre of sludge metal.
Re: Cavity: Anselmi does not appear to be suggesting that Cavity was exceptional among sludge bands. He writes: "If crowds of the time were reacting to Eyehategod with outright hostility, the same must've been true for Cavity." (Emphasis mine).
I see you already made an edit, so I'll rest my case and let other editors decide if a reversion is warranted in this case, otherwise in the interest of avoiding further unnecessary edits I'll leave it as it is. Klintron23 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Terrorizer source is sufficient, that's why it's still cited to support that info, it's just in a more concise and less SYNTH-y and WP:WEASEL-y way. If the two other sources were cited alone to support that same info it would SYNTH, and not fall into "SYNTH is not explanation", because there is no proof in the Riff magazine article that it even discusses sludge. The Melvins aren't only described as sludge, their Wikipedia page alone cites eleven other genres they have been called, if you can use that article (which never mentions sludge) to talk about the influences of sludge then you can also use it to talk about grunge, punk country and electroacoustic music. It could be used in the sense of "The Melvins, who pioneered sludge, had a sound which took influence from industrial", that would fit WP:STICKTOSOURCE better, it might have questionable relevance, but it sticks to the source. The same idea goes for the Metal Hammer article, Swan's infobox lists six different genres. If you can make the argument that an article which says "Swans influenced sludge" is saying "industrial influenced sludge" then it could also mean "no wave influenced sludge". I hope this makes sense. The Terrorizer source is good. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sludge_metal&oldid=1211121762"