Talk:Doom metal

Allmusic

Hello User:ABC paulista. You have reverted my edit with the edit summary of "The WP:ALLMUSIC doesn't say anything about you said....." I beg to differ. You will have noted that it, and its traveling friends, have been rated WP:MREL, from which I will quote:

No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered.

Thus, unless it is a band review (which appears to be acceptable), I have badged the text with - these "no author provided and no references stated" pieces of verbiage hosted at Allmusic require better sourcing. We are now 30 years since the creation of some of these music genres/sub-genres/fusion-genres, books have been written on these subjects by expert music journalists, and better sourcing is needed in articles apart from Allmusic. William Harris (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, you may be right about Allmusic's rating as a source, but the quote you presented is just a general recommendation for such cases, and does not support your assessements/opinions about Allmusic's circunstantial reliability. Furthermore, WP:ALLMUSIC directly states that their reliablilty is contested when their info deals with WP:BLP, which is not the case here. So it is generally considered an acceptable source, not only for "entertainment reviews" like you stated, although WP:INTEXT is recommended when using them. About better sourcing being needed, just be WP:BOLD and present what you have, but the lack of such doesn't justify the content removal you promoted. Allmusic is fine if no better sourcing is being currently presented, and should only be removed if being confronted, contradicted by said better sourcing. ABC paulista (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not claim that it was not an acceptable source (above), I stated that it was a dubious source, and a better source was needed. So if my template had read "reason=WP:ALLMUSIC, refer WP:MREL rating" then that would have been acceptable?

The second issue, your reversions with "Sludge metal and Stoner metal are subgenres of doom metal, so such inclusions are pertinent to the article." The article states that these are derivatives, not sub-genres. The bands I removed from under the "Louisiana doom metal" scene did not have one mention of "doom" in their cited articles. These are largely sludge-core bands. If I had arrived in NOLA in the 90s, and went out to see any of these bands as doom bands, I would have been disappointed. The references do not support their inclusion. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, I have no objections on the inclusion of such tags, but the reasoning behind it (dubious for anything other than entertainment reviews with attribution) is wrong. And about Stoner and Sludge metal status of subgenres, they are included on the "Fusion genres" section of the infobox, they are summarized under the "Stylistic divisions" section, a section on music genre's articles dedicated for discussions on their own subgenres, and we already had an extensive discussion on this matter at Talk:Extreme metal. ABC paulista (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Whilst we are on this topic, the section on "Stoner metal" begins "Stoner metal or stoner doom[114][115]..." Nothing in those two references states that Stoner metal is also referred to as Stoner doom. The two articles list both stoner and stoner-doom works. There exists bands that fuse the two, with doom-laden bass and psychedelic lead (recent example being Monolord from Sweden). We appear to have here an article on doom metal that is based on "in need of better" sources, mis-interpretation of sources, or sources that do not state what is claimed. Perhaps if it focused on the topic - doom metal - instead of chasing after fusions and derivatives and leave those to their own articles, then it might be able to obtain better sourcing. Currently, I my opinion it mis-advises its readers. William Harris (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, while it's true that it is not stated directly, it is also clear that in both articles the two terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same genre (In no moment they neither state that they are dealing with multiple genre genre, nor they establish differences between Stoner metal and Stoner doom). But if that is not enough for you, Jonathan Piper's "Locating experiential richness in doom metal" state that "One of the most significant styles of doom, even to the point where it might be considered a fully parallel subgenre alongside doom, is stoner doom, often simply called stoner metal." About the current state of this genre, I do agree that it needs more info about the main genre, but I don't see how the current stated might mis-advise readers, and removing the subgenres would remove an important part of a music genre's articles, especially for a diversed and fragmented genre like Doom metal. ABC paulista (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Piper - do you have any other sources apart from someone's thesis that has not been published in an academic journal? William Harris (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my comment above. A detailed search of the academic literature reveals endless debate over what type of music should fall under which umbrella. One persons sub-genre of heavy metal is another persons sub-genre of doom, and so it goes on. Piper is just one of the many contenders. There was even one paper discussing that some writers regard doom, stoner, and sludge as falling under the doom umbrella but this is a recent concept, then goes on to discuss "traditional" doom, stoner, and sludge as a contrast. William Harris (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, Piper's work was peer-reviewed and published by UC San Diego. And about Sludge and Stoner's staus as Doom subgenre, AFAIK they always been considered as such, most bands and sources from the past cite doom bands as major influences (some even state that Stoner metal stylistically started from Wino-era Saint Vitus). I've seen some debate on whether Sludge and Stoner nowadadys should be considered their own genres and be fully separated from Doom, but the ones who defend such distinction are still a vast minority. ABC paulista (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no interest in what PhD reviews are conducted within a university; the candidate is generally among friends - those who helped teach them what they are stating. That is not the same as when published in a peer-reviewed journal, where they can be challenged by their peers, globally. Inclusions are subject to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", and "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature", which is the case with this one. Your apparent prejudice towards academic thesis is not supported by Wikipedia. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of "The sources you presented don't seem to state that Sludge came from Washington, but state that Melvins made the first album to be considered Sludge, which happens to be from Washington". This is much the same situation as the sources presented under Louisiana don't "explicitly" state that these are doom bands, but you have no hesitation in supporting those. Given that the Melvins were producing sludge albums before Eyehategod was formed, that nails it for Washington State. You removed my edit and references without amending them for your finding (above) which you might have done - a POV appears to have formed and supported in this article, and therefore I am leaving it. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

William Harris, these are distinct situations: Some sources do call some bands as Doom ones (like Crowbar's one, for example), but all of them are called either Doom, Sludge or Stoner metal bands. And since Sludge and Stoner are Doom metal subgenres, all Sludge and Stoner metal bands are, by default, Doom metal ones (just like Thrash, Power, Glam, Doom, Gothic and other metal bands are considered Heavy metal bands by default). The same cannot be said about a genre's "birthplace": a genre's "birthplace" is not always considered to be where the first record of such genre was made (or from where the band is from), but sometimes is considered to be where is became distingushable and/or it gained notoriety. A similar situation happened with the Second-wave Black metal: Although it always have been associated with Norwegian black metal bands, bands like Master's Hammer (from Czechoslovakia), Marduk and Dissection (from Sweden), Sigh (from Japan) and Blasphemy (from Canada) did that sound before. But still, Norway is considered its "birthplace" because it was where it gained fame and developed a constant output of bands, just like Sludge developed on New Orleans. Also, I didn't remove your sources, I relocated them to a better section. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Louder Than Hell book source wrongly attributed to wrong person.

I recently edited this page in regards to the wrongly attributed quote in “Louder Than Hell” book with the correct source information, the correct page #, and the direct quote and wiki moderator recently changed it back to the original (wrongly attributed) content. 67.11.2.113 (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Black Sabbath is clearly not doom metal

As the headline suggests, I'd like to cut out Black Sabbath categorized as a doom metal band. Black Sabbath is often considered the first heavy metal band (which is totally fine and has some foundation) but they are clearly not dedicated to the overarching sound of the doom metal genre. I think this might even plausible to people who don't know any doom metal. 2001:16B8:B20D:F800:284C:1B43:DC4A:E69D (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources routinely describe them as doom and being integral to the start of the doom genre. — Czello ^(music) 10:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

gothic-doom is just gothic netal

from what I know, gothic metal is an evolution of death-doom and the term includes both harsh vocals (to stay closer to the death-doom roots) and clean vocals (to stay closer to the gothic rock roots) 151.68.92.190 (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

According to the sources, Gothic-doom bands don't employ Death metal traits into their sound, unlike both Death-doom and Gothic metal ones. ABC paulista (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@ABC paulista «The genre is characterized by a diversity of approaches ranging from the classical slow pace of doom metal to medium and extremely harmonic rhythms and occasionally to episodes of fast and energetic beats. Most bands combine clear vocals and slow guitars with growls and heavy riffs, the latter not being an essential feature of the genre, unlike in death metal which is one of the sources for doom and doom-gothic.» It literally says the opposite in the sources (cit 101). Also, I believe they are using “gothic-doom” as a synonym to “gothic metal” to point out the big difference there is between gothic rock and gothic metal Πι Γρεκο (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a fair interpretation of the source, although itself is made of a rather poorly-translated text from another language, thus the lack of punctuation can lead to some ambiguity to its real meaning. But nowhere its inferred that gothic-doom is being equated to gothic metal in any way, even considering that the source can be considered as a dubious one. ABC paulista (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Extreme metal???

how is normal doom extreme in any way??i can see death-doom being extreme but normal doom? 2804:14C:85A0:8C4D:9133:C495:33FB:1923 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources presented for Extreme metal do present doom metal as one of such, but they don't specify which subgenres are to be considered as one, so it's safer to assume that the genre as a whole is considered to be extreme, to avoid WP:OR. ABC paulista (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)