Jump to content

Talk:Folk metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFolk metal has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 8, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Oriental metal is a kind of death metal music that originated in Israel which has traditional Jewish and "Oriental" influences?
Current status: Good article

Oriental metal merger proposal

[edit]

I'm proposing that the oriental metal page be merged with this one. This "genre" simply doesn't stand up and warrant a page of it's own. There are hardly any bands that could really be termed "oriental metal"; it's only real distinction from folk metal is that it has oriental influence in the sound, which is worth noting, but not worth a separate page; and it has hardly any sources. Also note for any discussion of sources: there's a difference between a source using a term and putting forth a genuine assertion of a genre.

A subgenre warrants a page of it's own when there is sufficient information about the genre, when there's too much to contain in another page. Oriental metal does not have enough distinction, enough sources or enough bands. Prophaniti (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I am tempted to simply remove the merge proposal as I doubt it has been done in good faith. First you suggested that the oriental metal page should be deleted. Apparently, I must have convinced you that any attempt to list it for deletion will not be successful. So now you have made a merger proposal for an article you believe should be deleted. That and your words above ("worth noting, but not worth a separate page) gives me the impression that what you are simply trying to achieve here is a deletion of the oriental metal page and not a real merger. A convenient way of deleting a page without going through AFD. This folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm putting this forward as opposed to deletion is simply because that's what makes most sense to me, to incorporate the pieces that are worth keeping. This is not some kind of attempt to get around anything, and I do not appreciate such accusations.
Please lessen your tone. This hasn't been done with hostile, negative or bad faith intent, and accusations of that nature won't help anything. Currently you're coming across as hostile towards me as an editor, rather than addressing the issue at hand itself. Please see wikipedia's policy on personal attacks before making further replies. Prophaniti (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will forgive me for having doubts given your inconsistent stance on the article in question. One minute you are adamant that it should be deleted. The next you want to merge it. As far as the issue at hand, I believed I addressed it quite succintly above: this folk metal page is already long enough as it is and merging the oriental metal article will only result in an unbalanced and biased page. --Bardin (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My stance hasn't really changed, because in truth what's the difference between a delete and a merge? In one scenario, we remove the info in an article, in another we remove the article but keep certain parts of it. My view hasn't changed, it's simply that in my experience many such deletion proposals end up becoming merge ones anyway, so this is quicker.
In truth, a lot of the info on the main oriental metal page is already contained here. Trimming things down and with careful editing, we need only add maybe an extra paragraph onto the folk metal article. That's hardly going to result in an "unbalanced and biased page".
Indeed, much of the info on the oriental metal page is, word for word, already here. I've copied and pasted into a word doc and cut what is, and all that's left is a little bit about Orphaned Land and a paragraph about Salem. Given that much of that info could also be cut (as it would be better placed on the pages of the bands themselves) there's almost nothing left to worry about. Prophaniti (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not understand your stance now. Do you believe that oriental metal exists as an actual genre now? I was under the impression that you do not. Even when you initiated this merger proposal above, you saw fit to use quotation marks around the word genre in describing oriental metal. Now you seem to think that it's okay to have oriental metal in another article but not on its own. If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article. As such, I do not see what's the problem is in having a stand alone article for oriental metal. Yes, there is some overlap but there are also stuff in that article that are not in this one. Those readers who are interested in knowing more about the genre can do so by visiting that page and those readers who are not interested can choose not to. This is not a paper encyclopedia. There's no limit to how many pages we can have. Whatever your problem is with oriental metal, it is an article that is verified with reliable sources. That is more than can be said of many other subgenre articles such as neo-classical metal or melodic black metal. Yet I do not see you proposing to merge the latter into the black metal page.
There is also room for the article to expand some more. The genre is a growing one and as more bands become known in the western media, more info can be added to the article. It seems rather pointless to me to merge an article that does not need to be merged, especially when it will likely break off into a separate article once more at some point in the future. --Bardin (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I shall explain further then. Firstly: "If the genre is legitimate enough to warrant inclusion in this article, then it is legitimate enough to warrant its own article." By this logic, anything and everything on wikipedia could have an article. A musical genre arises when enough bands are playing in a similar style to one another that they do not fit easily into existing genres, -and- when enough of these bands are playing in a style similarly to one another, so they could be grouped together. Example: death metal. Early death metal could be termed a particularly aggressive form of thrash metal. As the number of bands increased, and the music grew further from it's thrash metal origins, it was no longer sufficient to term it simply a form of thrash metal.

So, I would say oriental metal -is- a form of music, yes. But a genre? No, because there aren't enough bands playing in that style, and it isn't different enough to the basic template of folk metal.

It basically comes down simply to this: we don't need another article. Here's all the material that would potentially need to be transferred over:

  • "Mark LeVine cites the Israeli band Orphaned Land as the founder of oriental metal "in that they were one of the first bands anywhere in the region to mix oriental, Arabic sounds into metal.
  • Predating both Orphaned Land and Melechesh, Salem was formed as far back as 1985 with their first album Creating Our Sins released in 1992. They began as a black and death metal band before turning towards doom metal with their 1994 release Kaddish. That album featured a Hebrew cover version of a traditional Yiddish song S'Brent ("Haayara Boeret") originally written by the Polish Jewish poet Mordechai Gebirtig.
  • The band has used non-traditional instruments like the darbuka."

That's it. That's all the oriental metal article has that this one doesn't and could possibly do with. Those bits above are not enough to warrant an article. You need a separate article when there is too much for the parent one. So, if more information and more bands were found, then in the future such an article could be created. But right now, there's simply not enough for it to be necessary.

I don't have "a problem" with it, but wikipedia is not about having as many articles as possible. It's about having good articles. Some things are deemed not big or important enough to need one for themselves, and this is clearly one such instance.

"it is an article that is verified with reliable sources." - Incorrect, it's an article with -one- source (i.e. one individual), who is himself questionable. That's a long way from being "verified with reliable sources".

It's also not good enough to say "Well other such articles exist, so why shouldn't this one?". That's no argument. As it happens, I don't think those examples should have articles of their own either, but that's not the issue here, so it's irrelevant. As I say, if it does expand in future, then it may be worth an article. But right now, it's not: it's got one source to back it up, and only a few scraps of info not already contained here. Just as future albums don't need articles until there's enough info available, so too is this unnecessary unless the genre, including it's sources and bands, expands in the future. Prophaniti (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are two very different people. You see one source while I see twenty-six. You see only a few sentences worth merging while I see more. You come across a short article and you see deletion and merger. I come across a short article and I see promise and potential. Your understanding of what a genre is seems to be worlds removed from my own understanding. So be it. I've expanded the article further now and there's a good chance that I'll expand it even more. I've taken the liberty of removing the merger proposal. If you still have a problem with the article, I suggest you just send it straight to AFD because any further discussion between you and me is unlikely to resolve anything. --Bardin (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's try and clear up a few of these misconceptions you seem to have. Firstly, the article doesn't have 26 sources for the genre. It had that many citations, but the majority of those were (and still are) either not truly reliable sources (they are not professional and so cannot be used to justify a genre) or do not truly assert "oriental metal" as a genre. As such, you only had (and may still have) one good source for it.
Secondly, those few sentences -are- all that needed merging from the article. The rest was either unnecessary (which is not just my viewpoint, it's plain fact) or duplicated elsewhere.
As for "promise and potential", any article could be said to have that. But such articles should only exist when they have such information. "potential" in this context is just another term for "lacking".
Now, as it happens, the material you've added may yet make the article worthwhile. I've yet to look into it in full detail, so we'll see what happens. However, please don't remove the merger proposal simply because you don't happen to agree with it. That message is there to alert all users who wish to contribute to the discussion, and your say alone is not enough to close things off, just as mine isn't. This is supposed to be a community discussion, not simply you defending an article you believe should exist. Prophaniti (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That you would confuse your subjective viewpoints as plain fact is one of the reasons why this discussion between you and I will never get anywhere. I removed the merger proposal precisely because this discussion will never get anywhere. As I've said repeatedly, if you still have a problem with the article, bring it to AFD. --Bardin (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that if anyone is confusing subjective viewpoint with objective fact, it's yourself, sorry.
Case in point: you and I may not agree on it, but as I have just said, this is not just about you and I. Your removing the merger tag is excluding any other viewpoints, an attempt, it would appear, to prevent others from taking part. You must understand that this isn't just about what you yourself think. Prophaniti (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Prehispanic metal"

[edit]

anyone knows about this bands, i know a band called Tenochtitlan from Russia (strange that they are from russia and not from Mexico, Colmbia etc..), that incorporates music from mesoamerica with flutes, tribal percussions and other traditional american instruments and they sings in aztec, nahuatl, mayan and other languages..., anyone knows more music with this style??? is really hard to find.. maybe in the future this could be merged with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.231.95.211 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are heaps. Check out prehispanic (Black) metal on google. Or try this link, for example: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.100.186 (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first is probably Soul of Honor from Brazil.--Rivet138 (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pirate Metal"

[edit]

Wasn't there a "pirate metal" bit on here before? (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

At least the term 'Pirate Metal' redirects to this page. But there is not a single mention about it on the page. How sad! --EzelMannen (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there should definitely be at least a mention on this page, if not a page in its own right, as with bands such as alestorm, scurvy, weird beard, running wild, swashbuckle and verbal deception it is a fairly established genre with a large following, and citations wouldn't be a problem with the coverage alestorm has recieved lately

I found some stuff on pirate metal if someone wants to add a section on it: http://www.metalsucks.net/2008/03/21/theres-such-a-thing-as-pirate-metal-why-of-course-there-is/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/aug/03/scene-and-heard-pirate-metal http://www.seaoftranquility.org/article.php?sid=1316 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.238.156 (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turisas

[edit]

In this article Turisas is listed as one of the bands "that supplement a folk instrument like the violin with keyboards". This is clearly false; Turisas indeed have keyboards, but also have a full time violin and accordian player. If you'd like a blatantly clear example of this, look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT6PX-wnLQw I will be removing them from the list of bands who use keyboards to suppliment folk instruments.--Jesse (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Supplement" means "to add to", not to replace. So to say that the keyboard in Turisas "supplements" the violin and accordion is entirely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.54.11.218 (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin?

[edit]

LZ is not only one of the first metal bands, they also incorporated a lot of folk influences in their music. Should Led Zeppelin be included in this genre? Are they forerunners of it?Smiloid (talk) 07:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read this article. I mean, Zep was already there when most of these dudes were in diapers, with songs like "The Battle Of Evermore" and "No Quarter." I consider LZ to be the progenitors of this sub-sub-sub genre. I think this is splitting hairs a little too much, to actually call something "folk metal." 24.156.37.41 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article does suggest that the genre appeared fully formed with Skyclad. Certainly Thin Lizzy and Horslips merit a mention as part of the origins of folk metal, also Jethro Tull deserve a mention though Ian Anderson insists they are not a metal band there are plenty of their songs which blur the boundaries between folk and metal. Stub Mandrel (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obvious Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull and Thin Lizzy were already combining folk and rock in ways that would be they key influences of these later (and lesser) bands. A key difference between Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull and Thin Lizzy on the hand and all these newer so-called "folk metal" bands on the other is that rock bands of the earlier eras were not trying to conform to genres within rock since the conventions of these genres either had not yet been invented or necessarily consciously recognized and applied. The greatness and accessibility of the earlier bands was that Led Zeppelin strove toward their own sound and not "folk metal" or "heavy blues" or something else. And when genre did come into play with the earlier bands it could change from song to song. Genre as the identity of the band and the bulk of the music it played was usually unimportant, whereas today it is a key identifier. Now today a band that identifies as "folk metal" has to, to a much greater degree, conform to the prescriptions of the genre. Also British bands like Zeppelin and Jethro Tull that started in the late 60s and early 70s generally started out as Blues based and never really lost those foundations. Metal bands for the past 30 years or more, including folk metal ones, tend not to have a Blues foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:618E:D600:5988:7CC:AEA2:A35C (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prehispanic metal part2#

[edit]

Hi i`m from Germany and i wrote about Folk metal-bands of North-to South America and over the Asian-Folk-metal-scene. Are you interessted, here the Names of these Interprets and you can wrote about it.

Removing oriental metal

[edit]

After much consideration, I have decided to remove all mention of oriental metal from this article. I am the editor that re-wrote this very article into what it is today. There has not been many changes to the article since my complete overhaul. I realise now that there was never any sources, reliable or otherwise, that remotely linked oriental metal to folk metal. Only one oriental metal band has associated with folk metal, namely Orphaned Land, and from there, I erroneously extended that association to all oriental metal bands. I now realise I was wrong to do so and I am truly apologetic about that. I can only hope that all the clones of wikipedia across the web would update their copies now that I have belatedly rectified my mistake. Sorry, everyone. My bad. --Bardin (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental metal should be there, seriously...

[edit]

Okay, I know everyone says there aren't any reliable sources about oriental metal bands. But clearly, that's false; if you consider metal-archives.com for example "not reliable", that's a bit too much if you ask me. I mean, honestly, there are lots of oriental metal bands out there everywhere around the world, most are pretty underground and all, but it's worth mentioning here since it in fact seems to be gaining more popularity with bands like Shangren, Whispered, Senmuth, etc. and there are loads of underground bands (which most likely prefer to stay that way, it seems).

Although I understand the "good people of Wikipedia" (in lack of better term) don't like underground bands, it shouldn't be completely up to them to decide where the popularity of a band is enough to be mentioned in a page about a genre, if it's relevant; I agree that not every band should have their own pages, but... really? Deleting a large part of something simply because it's "not mainstream enough" is just stupid. I know this sounds hateful and all, but there's no way around it, oriental metal is rather large part of (especially) modern folk metal; it's not just a subgenre of folk metal but a subgenre of all the genres that are fused together. For example, bands like Nile, Lykathea Aflame, Shangren, Axaxination, Darkestrah, Al-Namrood, and many others are "oriental metal", while none of them are "heavy metal incorporating eastern folk instruments" but "various metal genres blended together + melodies and structures + lyrical themes of ancient eastern stuff". I know it's not a big difference, but anyone who says oriental metal isn't worth mentioning because it's simply folk metal-related, is wrong, when it comes to research and being a metalhead (especially underground).

If it wouldn't bother anyone, I could write a section about oriental metal, and then first get people to check if it's good enough and referenced well enough to be added to the page. Of course, about 90% of the references would be about underground bands, since most oriental metal bands don't have any major breakthroughs, apart from ones that push themselves on everyone's face until they get famous. :P SekoIdiootti (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one else has responded to you yet, I will tackle this issue. As far as your last paragraph goes, please, feel free to do that. If you can write a section which is well sourced, go for it.
My first big point is that you mention metal-archives as a rather big crux to your argument. Well, metal-archives is not a good source at all and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. Also, as someone who has used metal-archives a lot, I can vouch for them being innaccurate. They refuse to even recognize post-rock/post-metal as a genre even though that's become such a huge movement. They list bands like Isis as experimental sludge or some crap, which is totally incorrect. They have elements of sludge, but they are a post-metal band.
Next, you mention something about people of wikipedia not liking underground music. First of all, that is a silly blanket statement to make, and frankly insulting, especially since you don't know every Wikipedia user. I can tell you right now, that I listen to music that is WAY more underground than your "oriental metal." For years now I've listened to genres like martial industrial, neofolk, ambient, shoegaze, indie rock, war metal, funeral doom, dubstep, breakcore and more, so I know what it is to listen to underground music.
Articles on Wikipedia are not deleted just because they're not mainstream enough. There's plenty of articles on Wikipedia about underground bands/genres. Now, personally, I think "oriental metal" is a stupid ridiculous label. I listen to some bands that get tagged as "oriental metal" like Melechesh and Rotting Christ, but the "oriental metal" label is just another supercillious made up label like "vampire metal" as far as I'm concerned. Most of those bands labeled as "oriental metal" are just folk metal bands that combine some sort of metal with some sort of middle eastern folk. That's not worthy of an entirely new subgenre. You already have folk metal bands like Eluveitie who combine melodic death metal with Irish folk or Tyr who combines progressive metal with Scandinavian folk music. Bands like Melechesh and Nile are just another such combination (black metal or death metal with middle eastern folk).
However, if you can come up with enough reliable sources backing up your claim, you could probably add it in to the article. Navnløs (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they're wrong with some things, but as far as I know, references can't be directly associated with the bands, so to me that'd be one of the best places to reference stuff from, since the info around about many bands is from the band members themselves. But well, I guess it's just proof that the subgenre is too small to be even acknowledged to exist yet, by most people. But if oriental metal isn't a subgenre, then what is it? A "fusion genre"? If so, then that still should deserve to be at least mentioned, similarly to how blackened death metal is mentioned on the death metal page, since it just isn't too underground, at least shouldn't be... I mean, of course there aren't pages about stuff like "atmospheric blackened industrial drone doom metal" or something like that, but with a subgenre/fusion genre, it seems like there's always some excuse to why it isn't there; similarly to how politicians try to cover up racism in the country where it happens, which just increases it. (just in my opinion of course)

PS: and a bit off topic, I listen to almost every music genre and prefer underground bands. So you're not the only one, and I only meant the people who adminstrate Wikipedia, like those who say "this band hasn't had enough success to be here!". Because at least sometimes I've noticed bands used to have pages here, but then they were deleted with a statement similar to "unsigned band, never released physical albums, references are from interviews & reviews & band's website = not good enough for us" or something, I don't rememeber exactly how, but you know what I mean. Oh and if you're trying to say I don't listen underground music, you should probably look at my user page, where I have a list of some bands I like. :P

Again, I'm not trying to sound mean or anything, I just tend to sound like that... SekoIdiootti (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glittertind

[edit]

The information about Glittertind had two sources. The headline was "explosion" of folk metal, and I think it is important to give the information about how the Norwegian bands were doing in their home-country. Both of the sources were primary sources (not secondary encyclopedic) refering to internet pages confirming the claims in the text. The first firm refered to the official charts of Norway the week "Landkjenning" entered it, and the second to the official radio-listing of NRK the week Glittertind got listed.

I therefore not agree that the speculation of promotion is a valid argument in neglecting the validity of the important information. Check out the sources instead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbjosa12 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it is too wp:undue and promotional for the article. North8000 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
Two of the sources are just listing of charts (and please read what is said about primary sources at WP:PRIMARY). It is very hard to tell if these are official or reliable sources, since they are not in English and this is, please note, the English Wikipedia. Even if these are considered reliable they do not support the six of the other seven additions, which do not have sources and make various assertions about the band. The other bands whose names are used to support the various points made have citations to support their inclusion. The additions are also problematic in other ways and are quite poorly written. Most importantly they do not seem appropriate in the context of the article. When there is a list that just names other Norwegian bands it is inappropriate to give details about this particular band's hits and releases.
Adding a large number of mentions of a band to an existing article without sources is pretty much bound to be seen as possible promotion and if it is not, then it is still original research. However, the MusicMight reference looks like a reliable source for the existence of the band and for the point about punk being incorporated into the music. Accordingly, I have reduced the mentions down to two, using this citation to support them. If you want to include more about this band please make sure that the sources are reliable and support the points made. If you need advice, by all means bring your point here so that editors can help.--SabreBD (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additions must also comply with due weight. This is a top level article about a genre that covers thousands of bands, about 60 with wp articles. Putting an overly large amount of material on one of them is wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for informing about primary sources and that you find it hard to verify these sources because they are in Norwegian. I was unaware that primary sources are considered as original research. However, the secondary sources you were refering to when mentioning this band is too old. The MusicMight article is from 2009, wrong informed by mentioning a wrong line-up etc. A check into http://www.glittertind.net/english/bio_english.html would confirm that the original primary sources mentioned earlier on WP were in accordance with the secondary sources at http://www.glittertind.net/english/bio_english.html. I am also Norwegian so therefore I can confirm the primary sources as accurate. You should also note that the sources were refering to the original sites of VG (biggest newspaper in Norway) and NRK (broadcasting channel). They are reliable sites. In sum, non-english editors on WP should be considered as a resource on sites such as these by adding valuable information about folk metal acts in other countries and their reception there. Torbjosa (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on mentioning the band several places without references. That is considered poor work by me. However, under the headline "explosion" this theme were refering to the growth of these bands. I find it important to mention under such a headliner that Glittertind reached domestic charts in Norway and was playlisted by the biggest radio station. I don't know any other folk metal acts that has been playlisted on mainstream radio channels. Therefore it is important information for this article under that respective headline. If you think the language is poor, please help me out. If you think the context was wrong, please rewrite. But please let me add the point under the headline "explosion" as I find it highly relevant for this article. Torbjosa (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point there. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North800 - I assume you mean the point on the domestic charts? I am happy to help with the language and formatting issues and have edited the bit added to the "explosion" section to fit in with the article. My feeling is that we probably have enough of them in the article for now. As a sidenote it is a bit frustrating that a band can get to number 20 on a domestic chart, but get ignored by sources like Allmusic, but I guess they will catch up eventually.--SabreBD (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was at a vague/superficial level. In essence that the point of the material is "A Folk metal band charted well" rather than just promoting the band. I defer to your judgement overall on this. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golgotha was NOT a folk metal band

[edit]

I own the three albums by Golgotha and leader Karl Foster never showed in interviews any interest or intention of being folk metal. The first four-song EP may have some weird instruments in the second song but also Thin Lizzy and Led Zeppelin merged such folk instruments as mandoline or buzuki with heavy metal before in songs like "Black Rose" or "The Battle Of Evermore". No proof exists that an early and obscure incarnation of Golgotha ever played those instruments live or made them part of their style. Arsenanuf (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bathory's Blood Fire Death came out in '88

[edit]

Bathory's album Blood Fire Death came out in 1988, two years before Skyclad was formed. I'd say they were the first pagan metal band ... but I'm not confident enough in that to change it. Is there any reason not to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.182.184.2 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Folk metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Folk 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Folk 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 42 external links on Folk 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic metal …tribal metal

[edit]

@Issan Sumisu: I found those two subgenres, I found Vedic metal in this page and tribal metal mentioned in this. I was wondering if you could help me so we can create sections of those two subgenres. Thanks. SML-Growl n’ Screetch 16:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vedic metal is a thing; specifically death/black metal with Indian melodies and themes. I considered bringing it up, but decided to focus on Oriental Metal for now.
One could argue Vedic Metal is a form of Oriental Metal. Or-Shalem (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomore effort

[edit]

The section talking about Amorphis uses the US specific phrase "Their sophomore effort"; this phrase doesn't really make much sense outside of the US, so could it be replaced with the better sounding and more international "Their second album"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.225.231 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental Metal Separation

[edit]

I brought this up on the oriental metal redirect page, but I think that oriental metal should be made into its own article, separate from this one. Sourcing is tough, but oriental metal is not always folk metal. I do see that this exact concern was brought up on this very talk page 12 years ago, and that Orphaned Land really is the only oriental metal band, along with Myrath, that are typically considered to be "folk metal," and even them most people would put progressive metal before folk metal.

The problem is that most oriental metal bands are very obscure and underground, which makes it hard to talk about in the media. But IGNEA, a newcomer to the genre, are usually labeled as symphonic metal, progressive metal, and to a lesser degree melodic death metal, before they are labeled as folk metal.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone call The Epigenesis by Melechesh as "folk metal;" in fact I just found this Reddit post about a song from this album a few minutes ago where one of the commenters challenges a song from this very album being folk metal (after I posted on to the Oriental Metal redirect, coincidentally and amazingly): https://old.reddit.com/r/folkmetal/comments/169jmgs/melechesh_ghouls_of_nineveh_2010_i_originally/

Here are some more obscure bands that aren't on Wikipedia that justify an oriental metal addition:

Khepri: https://youtube.com/watch?v=j_sWsAwhZcg

Scardust: https://youtube.com/watch?v=aVMPjybaIkk

Akhenaten: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Fr3j2iS8sv0&listen=false

Aeternam: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hO6M5cS9B3A

ODIOUS: https://youtube.com/watch?v=126aWzh6S5g

Venus in Fear: https://youtube.com/watch?v=40K0U8-vWW4

Or-Shalem (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just found an excellent article that does a great job explaining what oriental metal is; it does not call it a subgenre of folk metal.
https://audio-estudios.com/what-is-oriental-metal-music/ Or-Shalem (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there are close to a hundred pages that link to "oriental metal," thus making it notorious enough that a page should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Oriental_metal&limit=50&offset=0%7C59599166&dir=prev Or-Shalem (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folk_metal&oldid=1249616535"