Talk:List of gothic metal bands/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

I see a good number bands that are "gothic" and may be related to Heavy Metal but don't at all belong to the Gothic Metal genre as described in the Gothic Metal article. Their pages don't have Gothic Metal as their genre because it clearly isn't. I think these bands should be removed from the list because they simply don't belong to the Gothic Metal genre. Some of them include (not limited to): HIM, Kittie, Nightwish, Malice Mizer, and Moi dix Mois. -RKFS

Who keeps putting evanescance on here?

Exactly!! Also, they don't belong here. Their music meets none of the criteria that is gothic metal. Besides, there's debate as to them being even metal, let alone gothic metal. The "references" that define them as gothic metal say "goth metal", which isnt even the correct way of saying it. You can tell they have the common misconception that gothic metal is the same thing as goth. So how would they know if they're gothic metal or not if they dont even know how to say the term right. They're definately going off the list. Coiler fan (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This band is most definitely a DOOM METAL band. I don't know why its in the gothic metal section. Yes, they have a female vocalist, but they also have the crushingly heavy riffs, slow tempo, and mournful lead guitar typical of doom metal. Also, they are described as gothic doom on www.doom-metal.com as well as being described as death/doom on wikipedias own Doom Metal article! For this reason, I will move Draconian to gothic-doom metal until someone can counter the two references I have listed above. Fred138 02:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, they sound more like Gothic Metal than Doom Metal nowadays ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that this band belongs in this category or not, but regardless wikipedia does not have an article for Silentium, and somebody should start one. Could somebody here do that?

Please stop deleting topics that have yet to be addressed. --198.82.125.67 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to simplify this article and possibly end the debates. Why not merge the gothic metal and gothic doom metal lists and then just put a disclaimer that says the list includes gothic metal, gothic doom metal, and goth rock inspired metal. Then, people can click on the band name and read the article to get an idea of what scene they are part of, be it the beauty and the beats scene, or a more doom metal inspired one.--Fred138 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to this, we could then include goth metal/goth rock influenced metal bands like To/Die/For and etc into the list as well.--Fred138 00:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This was already tried and overwhelming consensus showed that keeping the bands seperate was more helpfull, informative and correct. It also solved a lot of problems and fights users started. Albight i didnt like the idea of moving the list off the Gothic Metal article, it was done. In hindsight, its proved effective considering the work done to list all the Metal Genre Band Lists together on the Heavy Metal Bands list page. However, with the rewriting of the Gothic-Doom section to explain Atmospheric Doom, we can then seperate out the list into three clear sections, and also be more informative in the Goth Metal/Atmospheric Doom argument. Thus, we kill 3 birds with one potato.

Several bands in the gothic doom metal list do not belong there. Specifically, To Die For, 69 Eyes, Poisonblack and etc. If we go to www.doom-metal.com, we can see that these bands are far to upbeat and fast paced to have anything to do with doom metal. Also, even if we were to use Danteferno's liberal standards over Leyasu's, I don't see how they could even be put in gothic metal, as they have nothing to do with the rest of that band list either. Therefore, I am gong to revert whatever edit classified these groups as doom metal. Fred138

Danteinferno's liberal standards over YOUR OWN you mean. Do you really think Wikipedians are that dumb? Everybody knows who you are. Looks like another report to WP:ANI for you. Fair Deal 03:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is moronic. I love how whenever anyone mildly agrees with anything leyasu says in the slightest they are accused of sockpuppetry. My own standards actually happen to be more liberal than Leyasus, as I would consider bands like Moonspell to be gothic metal and he does not. I am going to revert your edit to my profile. Not to mention I provided a reliable source which gives a firm definition of the doom metal subgenre, which Leyasu also is not a fan of, but I am. Refer to my sources before you jump hastily to conclusions. Furthermore, if you have a legitimate source that would honestly list To/Die/For and the 69 Eyes as doom metal, I'd advise you present it instead of childishly accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a british user when I'm on Virginia based IP address.

In fact, here are some other sources that clearly explain what doom metal is. And also sources that point out the 69 Eyes and To/Die/For are not doom metal: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll, http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:hbfuxq9kld0e, http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11956

Not to mention no one has addressed any of the arguments in doom-metal.com

Once again, someone reverted my change, which includes cited sources. Debate the sources or provide sources otherwise please. Even if you look at Wikipedia's own doom metal article, you can see that the bands I've removed have nothing in common with doom metal. Furthermore, if I were Leyasu, I would have gone in and removed Type O Negative and Moonspell from the list, which I clearly havent.

You've been reported Leyasu. Regular editors feel free to add comments at the administration notice board. Fair Deal

Once again, can you provide ANY proof that I am Leyasu? Saying something is true does not make it so.

Once again it appears that my changes which are SOURCED have been reverted with no refutation of the sources I provided above. For this reason, I am changing it back as doom-metal.com gives a clear definition of what doom metal is, and allmusic does not list either the 69 eyes or To/Die/For as doom metal or gothic doom metal. --Fred138 01:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Paradise lost and Theatre of tragedy have been put in that category.I moved them in the gothic metal section because: 1.Both bands have played doom-death and then created the subjenre gothic metal. 2.the period when these bands moved from doom-death and made gothic metal can't be described as gothic-doom. gothic-doom is a fusion between doom metal and the established gothic metalmetal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_metal#Gothic_doom_.281997-present.29 P.S. Sorry about the grammar mistake in the Edit Summary about changing the article. Xr 1 09:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is not a Gothic-Doom metal band. There is nothing Doom Metal about them.

Also, they don't belong here. Their music meets none of the criteria that is gothic metal. Besides, there's debate as to them being even metal, let alone gothic metal. The "references" that define them as gothic metal say "goth metal", which isnt even the correct way of saying it. You can tell they have the common misconception that gothic metal is the same thing as goth. So how would they know if they're gothic metal or not if they dont even know how to say the term right. They're definately going off the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coiler fan (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Xandira has never had anything Doom in them. To list them as Gothic-Doom is wrong. Unless there can be proof given that they are such they need to be left off the list. Same thing goes for Marilyn Manson

Ok there is a big problem with the list of Gothic Metal bands. Someone or should a say a number of people are starting to list bands such as Evanescence, Xandira, etc. into the genre when half of them have nothing to do with it.

Exmpale Evanescence being listed as Gothic-Doom. Unless proof can be given then those bands need to be left of the list. If good hard proof can be given then I'm all for listing them. Truemetalfan

I agree they're certainly not gothic-doom, but are they plain gothic metal? I'm not suggesting either one, I'm just unsure myself. On a slightly separate note, what about H.I.M. and Inkubus Sukkubus? I'd personally put them forward as gothic metal bands, at least in part (whereas with Evanescence I'm just plain asking). Prophaniti 06:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Inkubus Sukkubus is a plain old gothic rock band. Just cause you have some metal elements and you are a goth rock band doesn't mean you are gothic metal. If that were the case, Fields of the Nephilim and even some Sisters of Mercy and the Mission would be gothic metal! The same applies to H.I.M.. Really I dont see how they are any more gothic metal than Evanescence. --Fred138 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair play then, just idle curiousity. Prophaniti 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The one problem with this is users who change the article and then the list to reflect their personal thoughts with no regards to WP:CITE. Thus users edits should be traced to check, unless they are a generally sound users known to give few problems. But lest you are right, for the most part

Well you see a lot of the bands that are being listed as Gothic Metal at times have a female singer. It seems that for some odd reason if a metal band has a female singer that means they are a goth band. That's just not the case at all. A very good exmaple To-Mera a new band that has just come out with a CD it is Prog metal through and through there is not one thing goth metal about them. Yet there are reviews calling them Gothic Metal becuase they have a lead female singer. They are far to heavy to be a goth metal band and have more solos and time changes and do a lot of what Prog bands do. So they should be called as such. Do they have some goth things in there music? Well maybe but it's not enough to call them as such. Same with bands as Nightwish, Epica, Edenbridge, and a number of other metal bands. In fact all metal bands if you really want to think about it have some kind of goth sound in there music some where. But some bands are just Power Metal with a lead female singer. Others are Prog metal and so on.

One last good exmaple Arch Enemy they have a lead female singer/gunrt whatever yet they are not Goth Metal they are Melodic Death Metal. Truemetalfan

I'm placing this discussion point on a number of different lists of metal bands of differing genres, because it's a general point addressing many of them as a whole. I watch a number of metal band lists, and see an awful lot of reverting back and forth, often due to debate about what genre a band is. Think of this point as a kind of appeal for sanity. If in doubt about a bands genre, check their wikipedia article. If they don't have one, either make one if you think they should, or take whatever sources (e.g. the bands homepage) you might normally use in such an article. But ultimately the point of this is the wikipedia articles are the first and usually last place of reference. If you feel the classification of a band if wrong, then take that to the article in question, do not start having revert wars on the lists, going back and forth. If you feel that a band is wrongly classified, then go and debate that on their page, where there are likely more people who have something to say on the matter, and where it will need changing anyway if at all. It's confusing if the lists give one genre and the main articles another. If you have a good case for the genre being changed, then you should be able to do so on the main article of the band, and then you'll have every right to change the list article too. If we just accept that the main articles for bands are the primary point of reference for their genre, then things become a lot simpler. Someone's removed a band from the gothic metal list and you think it's not right? Go check the article. If it clearly says they're gothic metal, even in part, at some point during their career, or have influences of that, then there you go. No one can argue with that, and if they wish to they will have to take it to the main article. The lists are there to refer people to bands based on genre, they are not the place to debate genre in the first place. There will always be basic vandalism of course, but if people take note of this point I'd hope it might lessen all this silly waring over genre. Thank you. Prophaniti 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing Lacrimosa... :( 213.112.157.250 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lacrimosa is gothic rock with some use of elements from metal and classical music.they best fit in the last category - bands that don't fully enter the gothic metal category, but play (or have occasionally played) a variation of it.

Added: Lacrimosa became (Symphonic) Gothic metal from their album Stille. It is true that before Stille they were Gothic Rock/Darkwave but since then you can classify them as Gothic Metal. I agree that Lacrimosa should be included in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.74.41 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. There have been a lot of edits going on here of late, mainly back and forth between myself and a number of others, mainly over the same bands. Here is my clarification for my own decisions on them:

After Forever: This I won't argue with, since they don't have a page on wikipedia yet and I know little about them myself.

Artrosis: Their article begins with "Artrosis is a Polish gothic metal band". Could this really be made much clearer?

Embraze: This is slightly more debatable, but really is still fairly clear: "a combination of traditional metal and dark/gothic elements". So Gothic, and Metal. Yeah, again, pretty obvious.

Lacrimosa: This is probably the only one truly debatable, but still they are described as gothic with occasional metal elements, and much more so since their album Inferno. So, of their 9 albums, at least 6 are predominantly gothic metal, and the other three are occasionally. I'd say this is still worth the list.

For My Pain...: Opening line: "For My Pain...are a gothic-doom metal supergroup". Yet again, no reason for removal whatsoever.

Virgin Black: Their box lists "Gothic-doom" as a genre, and the opening paragraph describes them as such. Painfully obvious again.

Morphia: As with After Forever, I'm not bothered about this band since it has no article.

Mourning Belloveth: They may be doom, but the word "goth" never appears in their article, so placing them on this list has no justification.

The Wounded: The same thing largely. They are described as Gothic Rock, but the word "metal" never once appears. So again, no reason to put them on the list.

Within Temptation: I'm not going to argue with anything about Within Temptation, ironic considering I know them best of all the above bands. But really, the debate about gothic metal here is a big one, so I'm not going to get involved.

So, if you want to play around with Morphia, After Forever or Within Temptation, go right ahead. But leave the remainder well alone. If this sounds like flaming then apologies, but I think I'm justified: I am sick and tired of the constant editing back and forth, where I give good reasons and everyone else just does it without a word. I've seen several bands be edited so their links, which I made functional, become red, and more than just once. That sort of editing is pure vandalism, and this really is a last warning before I start to investigate reporting it as such. I do not want to see the bands I listed above removed from or added to this article again without good reason given, or unless their own articles have changed. I really want this to be clear, because with the stupidity displayed by the people undoing my edits, I feel like a teacher admonishing little children. Read the article first. If a band is described as gothic metal then, shock horror, it's meant to be on the list. If the words "goth" or "metal" aren't mentioned, then oddly enough it's not. Is this quite clear? I hope so, because I don't want to have to deal with such moronic, pig-headed numbskulls as I have seen so far. Prophaniti 09:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

After Forever: This I won't argue with, since they don't have a page on wikipedia yet and I know little about them myself.>>>>

After Forever does have a page. But they are not Gothic metal. May a bit of there first album. But that is about it if that. They are Symphonic metal in fact they really have moved away from thing that might have been goth starting with there 2nd CD and beyond. There newst one from ever thing I have heard is so far from being gothic it's not even funny.

The problem here is that half the band getting listed as GOTH METAL just so happen to have a FEMALE SINGER in the band. Lead female singer does not = Gothic Metal. If it does then that would mean Edenbridge, Lunatica, To-Mera, Visions of Atlantis, Sinergy, Epica, Arch Enemy, and The Project Hate all goth metal bands and there not.

Edenbirdge is Symphoinc Metal Epica is Symphonic Metal Lunatica is Symponic Power Meatl To-Mera is Porg Metal Visions of Atlantis is Symphoic Power Metal or just Power Metal Sinergy is Power Metal Arch Enemy is Melodic Death metal The Project Hate is Death Metal

Yet people add them as Gothic becuase gasp they have a female singer. :|

Truemetalfan30, October 2006

Thanks for the info about After Forever, having checked the page you're quite correct they're not gothic metal and as such I'll strive to keep them off this list in future. Basically, I say just go with the wikipedia page. I agree, a female vocalist is definitely not reason in itself to class a band as gothic metal. But if the page says they're gothic metal (or words to that effect, such as "metal with strong gothic themes") then they should be on this list. If you, or indeed anyone, thinks that classification is wrong, then the place to debate it is on that band's page, rather than going through constant edits and counter-edits on here (not that I'm accusing you personally of this :)). Once a band's main page has been successfully changed (in the proper way of course, not just a quick change with no justification) then there is full reason to change this list to reflect that. Of the bands you list I've seen Epica added to this page, and removed it promptly because the page on Epica does not list them as gothic metal. This is the system I use for the list pages. Prophaniti 09:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the Gothic Metal article, it too states Goth Metal is variation of Gothic-Doom, and that Gothic Metal has nothing to do with 'goths'. Thus the word goth appearing in a band article means absoloutly nothing. Oh, and this statement does not mean they should be here:

• "But if the page says they're gothic metal (or words to that effect, such as "metal with strong gothic themes") then they should be on this list."

That is wrong. If the band is alike what is stated on This article right here about Gothic Metal, then the band is Gothic Metal. Metal with Gothic Themes can be 'any' form of metal.

• Please note that when I say "it doesn't contain "goth"", I mean I've done a search and no where does that word, even as part of a word, appear. Meaning "gothic" doesn't appear either. I don’t argue for a band being included in the list just because it contains “goth” in the main article. I argue that if it doesn’t contain that word, if the term is never used, there really isn’t any justification for inclusion on this list.

Artrosis has a single opening line. It says they’re gothic metal. Not much room for debate.

Cradle of Filth I’m again not bothered about, since their genre is very debatable. I’m not going to argue with that one on the list or off it.

Embraze is, as I said, debatable. I’d perhaps feel more confident one way or the other if I’d heard more of their work. As it is, I’m not going to fight hard for them to be on the list.

Lacrimosa is less arguable. As noted, their article states they have been gothic metal for 6 out of 9 albums, and more than 10 years of their career, and the initial three albums are not listed as outright -not- gothic metal. Unless their main article is incorrect, they do warrant mention on the list.

The Midnight Configuration article seems incomplete, so for the time being I’m again not going to argue this one either way.

For My Pain…seems to be causing a lot of editing, yet I still don’t see why. First line: “For My Pain... are a gothic-doom metal supergroup”. Read it, it makes things quite, quite clear.

Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded also don’t yet have reason to be on this list. They are doom/doom-death and gothic rock respectevely, not gothic metal.

Virgin Black have “Gothic metal” listed as a genre type, and are described as that mixed with symphonic metal in the opening line.

I also agree, merely containing some gothic themes isn’t quite enough, which is why I’m prepared to accept debate on Embraze for example. But I said “strong gothic themes” as my example, not gothic themes. There’s a difference. Prophaniti 23:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"Artrosis has a single opening line. It says they’re gothic metal. Not much room for debate."

Changed by the person who added them. Same as Autumn. Again, something you didnt bother to check.

"Cradle of Filth I’m again not bothered about, since their genre is very debatable. I’m not going to argue with that one on the list or off it."

Agreed. Debated remains debated, nor do they match what the Gothic Metal article says.

"Embraze is, as I said, debatable. I’d perhaps feel more confident one way or the other if I’d heard more of their work. As it is, I’m not going to fight hard for them to be on the list."

Metal with gothic themes does not a Gothic Metal band make.

"Lacrimosa is less arguable. As noted, their article states they have been gothic metal for 6 out of 9 albums, and more than 10 years of their career, and the initial three albums are not listed as outright -not- gothic metal. Unless their main article is incorrect, they do warrant mention on the list."

"Their musical style mixes heavy metal and gothic rock sounds along with violin, trumpet and more classical instruments, although their musical development throughout the years has also led to changes in instrumentation. Thats Gothic-Doom, as can be read here.

"The Midnight Configuration article seems incomplete, so for the time being I’m again not going to argue this one either way."

Not disputed.

"For My Pain…seems to be causing a lot of editing, yet I still don’t see why. First line: “For My Pain... are a gothic-doom metal supergroup”. Read it, it makes things quite, quite clear."

Answer to that is probally here

"Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded also don’t yet have reason to be on this list. They are doom/doom-death and gothic rock respectevely, not gothic metal."

See case for Lacrimosa.

"Virgin Black have “Gothic metal” listed as a genre type, and are described as that mixed with symphonic metal in the opening line."

Ehem, correction; "Virgin Black is an Australian band that combines gothic-doom, and symphonic metal influences for an emotional and dramatic sound". I fail to see where that says Gothic Metal.

"I also agree, merely containing some gothic themes isn’t quite enough, which is why I’m prepared to accept debate on Embraze for example. But I said “strong gothic themes” as my example, not gothic themes. There’s a difference."

And as i said, Gothic Metal has its own article. So bands that are Gothic Metal go on the list, not bands that simply have 'gothic themes', strong or not.

Firstly, you really shouldn’t edit someone elses post on the discussion page. If you have responses to things I’ve said, quote them and then say what you want under them. I have placed your responses together for you. If nothing else doing so is more likely to be overlooked. I have removed the comments to some of the points I made at the start, since the discussion has moved on from there and they are irrelevant (for example, saying "then they should be in the gothic-doom list", when they have since been moved them thusly). If you wish to add them back, please do so in a new post at the bottom. Putting in responses throughout the whole thing is just confusing and also sometimes makes it look like someone else has said something they didn't, especially since you haven't left signatures on them.

The gothic metal article can say whatever it wants. But the articles on these bands say they are gothic metal/gothic-doom/aren’t gothic metal/etc. If you think those are wrong, go and change them. However, to have this list directly contradicting other articles on wikipedia doesn't make sense. You seem to be under the impression that if an article has been changed that's the end of it. If Artrosis says a genre type you think is incorrect, then go and change it back.

"See case for Lacrimosa."

So you freely admit to having double standards? You say Lacrimosa shouldn’t be included simply because of the wording of the article, yet you then say that factor doesn’t matter for Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded?

"Ehem, correction; "Virgin Black is an Australian band that combines gothic-doom, and symphonic metal influences for an emotional and dramatic sound". I fail to see where that says Gothic Metal."

You fail to see it? Try looking in the text box at the very start of the article, where it says “genres” and then “gothic-doom”. Clear enough? Not to mention that if a band combines two genres, it is a part of both of those only unless it forms a new genre in the process. In this case, it doesn't.

Artrosis, For My Pain… and Virgin Black all make it totally clear what genre they are. Lacrimosa has a slight element of debate, but not much. They are not 100% pure gothic metal, but they are enough like it to warrant inclusion, because a band does not have to be unswervingly within a genre to do so. Take a look at the thrash metal list, which includes, for example, Metallica. I’m sure no one would argue to take them off the list. Yet of their 8 studio albums, 2 are not thrash metal at all, and another two are debatable. They are of course a more influential band on their genre, but I’m illustrating the point that a band doesn’t have to constantly be of a certain genre to get a mention on that list page. Prophaniti 14:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"If Artrosis says a genre type you think is incorrect, then go and change it back." And i did, and i changed the list back to what it was before the vandalism insued to match what the band articles and the Gothic Metal article said.

As for Virgin Black, the point i was making is it says Gothic-Doom, not Gothic Metal. Thus listing them as Gothic Metal undermines your whole argument about 'listing as what the articles say'.

As for Lacrimosa, it doesnt say they ever played Gothic Metal. It says they produced music akin to Gothic Metal. Black Metal bands that shift in a Gothic Metal direction are often Symphonic Black Metal bands. Thus the article doesnt say they played Gothic Metal, it says they moved in that direction. That doesnt warrant them being included on a list of Gothic Metal bands.

When precisely did you change the Artrosis article to not term them Gothic Metal? Having looked through the entire edit history, the "gothic metal" description doesn't seem to have ever been taken out. You've also given no explanation this time for the removal of For My Pain... again.

Virgin Black does indeed say Gothic-Doom. And, unsurprisingly, I put them on the Gothic-Doom part of the list. Yet you removed them from that list three times. So, how has this undermined my argument?

And no, it doesn't say they played Gothic Metal. None of the articles I've seen actually say "they played gothic metal". But the Lacrimosa article does say they were gothic with metal, and then the gothic element became much stronger. It all depends on specifically how much they've gone towards that. I accept having influences, then going more towards that, might not boost them all the way into full gothic metal, but it sounds like a good way there, enough to get a mention at the least. Prophaniti 09:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Read this part of the Gothic Metal article. It lists that Gothic Metal/Gothic Rock combinations are Gothic-Doom.

Somebody kept putting Virgin Black in Gothic Metal. I apologise if it wasnt you, my accusation was misdirected.

Lacrimosa says they were gothic with elements of metal. I can think of about 50 bands that meet that vague description that are nothing alike Gothic Metal. No mention for bands that arent Gothic Metal.

Oh, and as for For My Pain, i didnt realise id end up losing them. Ill be more thoughtfull to make sure they dont get deleted this time.

Artrosis' page lists them as gothic rock/gothic metal, not a true combination of the two, and thus they need to be put on the gothic metal list.

Lacrimosa's article also then goes on to say that the gothic aspect increased after their first three albums, and it became downright gothic. It's enough to get on the list.

And what are your exact reasons for wanting Mourning Beloveth and The Wounded on the list page? Prophaniti 10:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, ill go change the Gothic Metal part of their article to reflect they were Gothic-Doom if people really cannot figure it out themselfs.

Lacrimosa doesnt get on the list. Gothic has a whole disambiguation page for it: unless it says they are Gothic Metal and they are the same as whats listed on the Gothic Metal article, there is no reason for them to be on the list. As i said, Gothic + Metal can = Gothic-Doom, Gothic Metal, Symphonic Black, and Symphonic Death. Vague and POV to go They are Gothic and Metal so they are Gothic Metal.

As for The Wounded and Mourning Beloveth, there is about 30 pages in the archives of the Gothic Metal discussion pages that say they are Gothic-Doom.

For Artrosis, then that's fair enough. If no one edits the genre back, then it's accepted, and all I'm trying to do is keep this list reflecting that.

There's no mention of Mourning Beloveth or The Wounded on the current Gothic Metal discussion page, and whatever that might or might not say, their articles don't call them gothic metal. You can hardly be so strict on Lacrimosa, yet not on the others.

Yes, the term "gothic" can mean a variety of things, but on the Lacrimosa page it's clearly in a musical context, and indeed even a metal context. And indeed, "gothic" + "metal" can equal a variety of things, but given that there's no mention of "doom", "symphonic" or "black" metal anywhere there, they need to be put into a differing category. It's not really POV to say "they are gothic and metal, so they are gothic metal". That's a perfectly logical process.

I assure you I'm not trying to take this onto a personal level, but your arguments aren't being helped by what seems to be lying you have displayed thus far (gothic metal talk page, Artrosis history) and the implication elsewhere of you being the sockpuppet of a banned user. Prophaniti 13:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be in the archives. Im not saying that either band was specifically mentioned, there is just 2 dozen sources saying thats what they are.

And yes, its a perfectly logical first conception. But it doesnt say Gothic metal, and the Gothic Metal article has a whole common misconceptions section for things like this.

As with the Artrosis history. I can think of two users who kept changing them and adding them to the list. I dont think their names bear repeating when you can figure it out for yourself.

And sorry if this seemed personal, im not trying to make it personal - im more glad that we have made 'some' progress to come to a mutal, rather than come to heads.

But the reasoning behind Lacrimosa and Mourning Beloveth/The Wounded isn't quite the same. The latter two shouldn't be on, not because they don't use the exact phrase "gothic metal", but because one never has any direct sign of being gothic in it's article, the other never has any mention of being metal, and as such they have to be disqualified. Whereas Lacrimosa has both of those traits, the only debate is on how much of said traits are necessary to get onto the list article. Prophaniti 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In my view, its these traits. If Lacrimosa has these traits on its albums, then their article should be edited to reflect that, and they should be put on the list in the appropriate section.

Well until I get the chance to investigate them more myself I don't think this can go much further, so I'll leave it there myself for now. At least we got somewhere through this. Prophaniti 02:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When someone gets the chance, somebody needs to create articles for the bands that have red links, even if they only small stubs like the Penumbra article.

Since this is still concerning red links I'll put this in here. I'm proposing that red links be banned from the gothic metal bands list. Other metal band lists have done this and it works well, because it makes managing the article a lot simpler. There has been a whole slew of red links added lately and a big edit war has erupted with taking them out, putting them back, and so on. With bands with articles if there is a dispute about the band being on the list it can be solved simply by looking at the article in question. But without articles it makes settling this very difficult. Ultimately this article is not going to list ALL gothic metal bands anytime soon. Just take a look at other big lists, such as encyclopedia metallum, which lists over 40,000 metal bands in total. I think a shorter, but more complete list is better than an ultimately futile attempt at a full one, filled with red links, as those links serve little purpose and cause these big edit wars. Prophaniti 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I can draw up sources and such for all the red links i added, but from behind the veil (Shadow mechanic for those MTG whores), i cant create the articles. If i drop the sources to your talk page are yew prepared to create the articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.165.193 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure thing, if you can pass on sources I'd be happy for form small articles with any info in those sources. I don't know anything about the bands added, so I can't provide much, but I can form small articles with any info given, certainly. Prophaniti 15:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I dropped the sources in as citations next to the bands. Though its hard to communicate with yew when yew have one over righteous admin who has decided that its ok to revert to vandalised page versions simply because he dislikes yew.

I'm already on it. I've been scouring tonnes of lists with red links, and I remove every single band without an article. Chances are they're non-notable if they don't have an article. --Dane ^~nya 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is a Gothic Metal band. Not only does it say so on there Wikipedia page but that's also what they are list as at Enycolpaedia Metallum. truemetalfan Dec 27, 2006

They are not Gothic Metal. The person who added them changed it. Encylopedia Metallium is reknown for being wrong. And, the only reason it says Gothic Metal is coz some biased admin is changing it back to the vandalised page version because every user ip on Wikipedia is Leyasu now, seemingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.81.83 (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Ummm no they are Gothic Metal. Sonic Cathedral.com and www.metal-observer.com both list them as Gothic Metal. truemetalfan Dec 27, 2006

While I agree encyclopedia is one of the most biased and useless sources out there, the fact is that the band list articles should only ever reflect the other articles on wikipedia. In other words, if someone has genuinelly changed an article on a band to put them in a different genre, go and change that back. It's just as easy for anyone to make changes. And if a debate as to the genre of the band crops up, settle it on that band's page, not on the list pages. Prophaniti 15:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

They are still arent Gothic Metal. Listing non-reliable sources over reliable sources that made up the Gothic Metal article is not going to make the band Gothic Metal all of a sudden. It doesnt matter if someone calls Britney Spears Brutal Death Metal, she doesnt play it so calling her it doesnt mean she does play it. Simple as.

Well then let's go here http://www.last.fm/music/Flowing+Tears they also list them as Gothic Metal. Many many sites list them as Gothic Metal becuase that's what they are. turemetalfan Jan 1, 2007

Alright people, Let's put this to rest once and for all: After Forever is not Goth Metal. Look at the facts (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong):

1. They got their name and influences (amidst other things) form a Black Sabbath song. Yes, songs like "Hand of Doom" and the title track of the self-titled debut, which were debatably Doom Metal songs (proto-doom metal would do more justice), they were not Goth Metal.

   Another influence of theirs was [[|Iron Madien|Iron Madien (band)]], they even covered the song "The Evil That Men Do" (Did a good jorb i must say).

   They sound more like New Wave OF British Heavy Metal Revival/Progressive Metal, and (almost) nothing like Type O Negative, My Dying Bride or even 13 Winters.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong. --Emevas 04:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

mmm, you might be wrong. All sources I found state they are gothic metal: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=526
http://www.rockdetector.com/artist,31296.sm
http://www.bnrmetal.com/groups/affo.htm
http://www.last.fm/music/After%20forever
http://www.metal-observer.com/search.php?q=After+forever&sa.x=0&sa.y=0
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&opt1=1&sql=after%20forever
Emmaneul ^(Talk) 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (lay-out edit Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Most of the sources you used are not that great to use. Can you explain in your own words as to why they are Gothic Metal. Becasue there was a debate on this before and it was agreed that After Forever is not Gothic Metal. If you want ot bring it up again then go right ahead. But until then leave them off the list until people can agree if they are or no. There has been a big problem with band being listed as Gothic metal they are not Gothic Metal to being with. Turemetalfan 22, 2007

I want someone to give me one good reason why My Dying Bride is not Doom/Goth Metal. Eslewise I'll just keep reposing it. --Emevas 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They are Doom/Death (and are among the Big Three of Doom/Death, with Anathema and Paradise Lost). Goth/Doom is like Avrigus or Type O Negative. My Dying Bride has hardly anything to do with those sounds. I didn't take it away again, because I don't want to cause any big debates or anything, but I think it should be off the list (along with Paradise Lost). Look at their articles. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright If you don't want a debate, I won't give you one. This is just thrown out there to compete wiht those who are of an opposed view. (Although I do agree with your view on Paradise Lost), (And If I remember correctly I added Type O Negative, so I'm no stranger to the genre) Listen to tracks like Sear Me 1993, Two Winters Only, She Is the Dark (although not a great example), Velvet Morning, and Your river. Do these songs not capture a sound very much like what goth metal is/was?--Emevas 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I even provided a source. --Emevas 00:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay well if no one sees any problem with it, I'm taking off MDB & PL from the list. If someone has a problem with it, just revert my edit and talk about it on the talk page. :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears someone did have a problem. As for this "encyclopedia of heavy metal" source, I'd be skeptical of a popular book written in 2003 as an accurate source to classify early 90s doom metal bands. Just because My Dying Bride influenced Gothic Metal doesn't mean that they themselves are gothic. I'd like to point to the bands own site www.mydyingbride.org as well as www.doom-metal.com neither of which refer to my dying bride as being gothic. Fred138 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I fear that these discussions are useless and always will remain useless. People really should stop thinking in boxes. It's not what other people say that is correct. It's what the band says, and even more important: it's the feeling that you get by listening to them. Most groups don't stick to one sound. Most of them are cross-overs between genres. It's pretty narrow minded and plain stupid saying "they are this genre" Especially when they sound a quite the same. Some songs of a group are more gothic metal, others are more symphonic, then another song may sound goth-doom... whatever. Then it's not the group that is that genre, but the song. You can say that they have a certain sound, but to say that is the exclusive sound, the exclusive genre, and say that there is no other is just wrong. So I guess you should make a list with groups that have a gothic metal sound, but can also can have antoher sound. This should end all discussion. To bad you people are just simple humans... humans that need boxes and lables. To my oppinion, it's about time mankind starts growing a brain that actually works.

Penoesh

Stop adding them as such many sites are adding them as either Power Metal or Symphonic metal. But not as Gothic metal becasue that's not what they are. truemetalfan July 8, 2007

• I do really agree. NW is playing Symphonic Power Metal. They may be a bit similiar to bands like Within Temptation, but they are still not gothic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.192.112 (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose Within Temptation is Gothic...? lol ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked up sources for the bands in the list, mainly from Encyclopaedia Metallum, to be assured the listed bands should be in the list and to comply with WP:LIST. I couldn't find any good sources for some bands (I just did a brief google search), so if someone can find some sources for these bands, please add them (if no sources can be found, after a while, the bands will be deleted from the list). I might do this for other music related lists in the near future. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 00:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum that is not a good source to use. Before we go listing ever band Gothic metal let's really look at there sound etc. It was agreed that After Forever is not Gothic Metal. If you feel different then do what you are doing here bring it up for debate. If it changes and people agree with that they are Gothic Metal then they can be put on the list again.

I agree, metal-archives is not an authority when it comes to genres but I think dismissing all these sources is being ignorant (and I can find tons more just using google). Some of these sources are respectable and the use of these websites as source is common in WP.

OK, if you think all these sites are fed by liars and uninformed people then we should indeed "really look at there sound":

Text from the gothic metal article, applied to After Forever:

• Gothic metal is commonly characterized lyrically by either one of two distinct characteristics: dual vocalists (growls and female vocals) True
• Instrumentation is heavily based on the use of modern keyboards and distorted guitars with varying tempos and rather complex compositions. True
• Gothic metal tends to take influence from the doom metal, black metal, and death metal subgenres of heavy metal for its composition. True
• Keyboards in gothic metal play a significant role in the music, often replacing the second guitarist in bands and taking on the role of either lead or rhythm. The keyboards are often used to imitate a variety of instruments, most often string and wind instruments, though this varies between artists. True

After Forever might have changed their music, they obviously were gothic metal, a lot of sources back that up, so it is justified to put them in the list. If it's more comforting to have them in the list with a little comment (like "early works"), of course, that would be OK. It's clear however they should be in the list.

Listing After Forever complies with WP:VER, WP:POV and WP:NOR. Proof is all over the Internet. Emmaneul ^(Talk) 09:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gothic metal is commonly characterized lyrically by either one of two distinct characteristics: dual vocalists (growls and female vocals) >>>>>I'm sorry to say this but that dose not ways go with just Gothic Metal. There is a Detah Metal band Project Hate that has a Male growls and female vocals.

Instrumentation is heavily based on the use of modern keyboards and distorted guitars with varying tempos and rather complex compositions. >>>> Which can also be found in Prog Metal to which they have some of there music leaning to.

Gothic metal tends to take influence from the doom metal, black metal, and death metal subgenres of heavy metal for its composition. They have not really used much Doom Metal at all. I little Black Metal but that's when Mark was there for there first two albums and only on there first CD. After that they really moved away from that sound. Star with the CD after Mark was kicked out of the band. Keyboards in gothic metal play a significant role in the music, often replacing the second guitarist in bands and taking on the role of either lead or rhythm. The keyboards are often used to imitate a variety of instruments, most often string and wind instruments, though this varies between artists.>>>> I would agree with this if not for the fact that they like Epica have used small string orchestra. And it has never really replaced the second guitar player they.

I think we could put them into the Other gothic metal variations. Because if you listen to every thing after Prison of Desire and Decipher they take on a more Symphonic metal and a bit Progressive metal sound (Though with the Prog it's a smaller part. And there new CD After Forever has really stepped away from the sound you would have heard on Prison of Desire. Turemetalfan July 23rd 2007

P.S. You are much easir to talk with. ;)

You're right. I've put them in the Other gothic metal variations part, cheers Emmaneul ^(Talk) 07:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok :) You and I came to a lot better understanding. :) It was nice talking with you. :) Truemetalfan July 24, 2007

I removed the unsourced bands from the article. According to WP:VER#Burden of evidence they can be moved here until sources are presented. Gothic metal bands

• ASP^{[citation needed]}
• Asrai^{[citation needed]}
• Battlelore^{[citation needed]}
• Dismal Euphony^{[citation needed]}
• Love Like Blood^{[citation needed]}
• Malice Mizer^{[citation needed]}
• The Old Dead Tree^{[citation needed]}
• Therion^{[citation needed]}

Gothic doom metal bands

• 13 Winters^{[citation needed]}
• Anathema (earlier works)^{[citation needed]}
• Avrigus^{[citation needed]}
• Elis^{[citation needed]}
• Galadriel^{[citation needed]}

Extreme gothic metal bands

• Dismal Euphony^{[citation needed]}
• Eternal Tears of Sorrow (later works)^{[citation needed]}
• Hollenthon^{[citation needed]}
• Insomnium^{[citation needed]}
• Novembre (later works)^{[citation needed]}
• Twilight Ophera^{[citation needed]}
• Siebenbürgen (some works)^{[citation needed]}

Other gothic metal variations

• Lacrimosa^{[citation needed]}
• Deathstars^{[citation needed]}
• SaraLee^{[citation needed]}
• The 69 Eyes^{[citation needed]}

Emmaneul ^(Talk) 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to add sources: I added Apocalyptica based on their Myspace but am not sure how to source it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.36.140 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

First, let's see Hollenthon that was added as "Extreme gothic metal band", Hollenthon is clearly influenced by death and doom metal but they have nothing of gothic metal on their music, even the Article on wikipedia about hollenthon list them as "symphonic black/death metal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollenthon By doing a little search about the band on google, I also found other sources that list them as "Extreme Epic Metal" http://espanol.geocities.com/metal_melodico6/ I know that is really hard to put Hollenthon into just one category but still they have nothing to do on a list of Gothic metal bands.

Now, let's go with Therion, on their earlier records Therion were doing Death Metal, after that the band evolved and started doing Symphonic/Operatic Metal, I'm really not sure as of why Therion is being listed as Gothic Metal, because the band is not gothic metal only because they use female vocals, a lot of people seem to think that if a woman is singing then that is gothic metal, but is not. Even on Wikipedia therion is listed as "symphonic metal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therion_(band)

Ninosh 22 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Ninosh

After a brief search I couldn't find any source stating they are gothic metal (hence the "citation needed" tags). If someone can find a thrustworthy source, then I think it's justified to have them in the list. Otherwise, they should be removed.

OK, I have found some sources regarding Therion: [1] and [2] but they're not reliable, if you ask me. Would it be a problem to put them under "Other gothic metal variations"? Emmaneul ^(Talk) 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think Therion can be under "Other gothic metal variations" with the clarification that this is referring to their newer albums, because if we refer to their oldest albums (like Of Darkness..., Beyond Sanctorum, Symphony Masses: Ho Drakon Ho Megas or even Lepaca Kliffoth) they are clearly Death Metal and are not influence at all by Gothic Metal, as they do have some gothic influence on their newer realeses but 's pretty limited, they're mainly consider as simphonic metal band.

Ninosh 22 23:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Ninosh

Krypteria is Symphonic Power Metal

Midnattsol is Symphonic,Folk Metal

We don't care about your opinion, we care about sources and source prove you wrong:

Krypteria

• Rock / Gothic / Metal MySpace
• Gothic Power Metal, metal archive

Midnattsol

• Gothic Metal, Folk Metal: Rockdetector
• "Midnattsol performs a very interesting music based mainly on gothic metal, but with some folk elements" TARTAREAN DESIRE WEBZINE
• Folk metal, Gothic metal Metal Storm
• Gothic Folk Metal, metal archive

And I could go on like this Eman ^(Talk) 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm worng but Krypteria is not TRUE Gothic Metal they combine with more Pop Rock/Symphonic/Power Metal sound in many song (like Nightwish ,Within Temptation ,and they both are Symphonic metal band.) ,and lyrics fogus on fantasy themes.

http://www.nocturnalhall.de/reviews/K/krypteria_evolution_e.htm

http://www.gothicparadise.de/neu/index.php?mod=32&sub=859

http://www.emp.de/bin/shop.php?prog=shop&mid=&article=430579&funktion=PRODUCTINFO&bildrub=search

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypteria

Midnattsol 's gothic/symphonic/folk metal.

http://www.last.fm/music/Midnattsol

http://metalzones.proboards67.com/index.cgi?board=metalsymphonic&action=display&thread=1144517500

Metal-archive web is not good source ,They often use "Gothic metal" on many more female fronted metal band by not identify sound.

Myspace.com is not source ,Meny more band often use popular words for Promote images themselves such Gothic ,Emo ,Alternative

Sorry I'm bad English language.

I haven't heard Krypteria so I won't talk about them, however Midnattsol has very few elements of Symphonic Metal in their music, at least to me Metal archives is a better source than Last.fm, plus even one of your sources (the one on Metal-Zone) says the following: "[Precision: Midnattsol est un groupe de Gothic/Folk Metal, je n'ai pas trouver de section Folk ou Gothic donc ca justifie mon post dans la section Symphonique.]" which in a rough translation means, Midnattsol is a Gothic/Folk metal band, however since there is not a section for Gothic or Folk Metal I can justify posting them in the Simphonic metal section.

Midnattsol has way more elements of Gothic metal than what it does of Symphonic, anyways I still think they're mainly a Folk metal band, but that's just my personal opinion most sources list them as Gothic/Folk Metal, so I see no valid reason to remove them from the list.

Ninosh 22 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Ninosh 22

It has been gone over and over again and they are not Gothic Metal. They have never played anything close to Gothic Metal. One or two songs dose not make them a Gothic Metal band. There old stuff is Power Metal. There new stuff is Symphonic Metal. Truemetalfan Aug 18th, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.245.83.180 (talk) 02:30:36, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

The Early stuff by both PL and ToT can be considered as gothic metal/death-doom...which is the same as death metal influenced gothic-doom. So I realized they can be put in that category. Although the questioned albums are not really gothic-doom and do not sound like Type O Negative for example. Sorry for the large debate... xr_1 88.87.6.72 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Extreme gothic metal = gothic metal + extreme metal
• Dark Metal = gothic metal + black,doom metal (extreme subgenres) + symphonic/electronic touch.

=> they are almost the same. Yeah, there are bands that are more like post-black metal, black/doom metal.You can remove them if you like.

This is for ever one out there to please talk about --Turemetalfan (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

per our little edit war, I have re-added after your removal, and added REFS that refer to the bands as "gothic metal" it doesn't matter what you think, this is sourced. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the link you posted to about Nightwish. It was only talking about how they got a new singer. If you would care to explain where the Gothic metal comes from go for it. But as it stands there is nothing in there music that is Gothic metal. AFF, OB, and WM are Power Metal albums. CC changed there sound and they added more Symphonic sounds which can be heard even more so on Once and DPP. Know if you are going by it because of the duel male and female signers.

Well I can name two bands that do that Visions of Atlantis and RAM-ZET. VOA has both male and female clean singers and it's all 100% Power Metal this can be heard more so on there first two CD's which are a lot like Nightwish. There new CD is more Symphonic well still adding in power metal. Then comes RAM-ZET is a avant-garde metal which uses very heavy sides of Black Metal in the vocals and clean female singing. There music as times will be Prog Metal, Death Metal, Power Metal, etc. But they are coming from so many different sides that it could only really be listed as avant-garde metal.

Which adds to the point that the male growls and female singing is not something that is just used in Gothic metal. In fact bands such as Darzamat Black Metal and Seraphim Power Metal have done just that. Which would take Epica right off the list.

The Gothic metal tag has been unfairly add to bands with lead female singers for no reason other then that metalheads don't want to place them in the genre they really belong. Having a lead female singer does not make a band Gothic. Also just because a band has Lyrical themes of death and bereavement, tragedy, love, despair, emptyness and religion. Dose not make them Gothic for the very fact that it can be found in Prog Metal, Death Metal, Black Metal, Power Metal, Metalcore, Doom Metal, etc. In fact To-Mera and Stream of Passion are two such bands like that. Yet they are Prog Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is all it says:

New Nightwish frontwoman Anette Olzon has revealed that she was in an Abba covers band prior to joining the goth metal titans.

"When I read about Tarja's departure, I was in an ABBA-cover band," says Olzon. "I had just heard of Nightwish a couple of months before Tarja got fired, so I didn't know the band or its history at all. I first got into them because my sister's daughter is a fan and felt that maybe I should listen to them since I am always interested in new music. I bought their collection album and liked it immediately."

The band's new single 'Eva', the first recording to feature Olzon, will be released digitally on May 30. The band's new studio album will follow in September.

So explain why they are Gothic Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NW isn't goth metal band but Epica may be symphonic goth metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazzzz (talk • contribs) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither band are gothic metal, for the same reasons Stratovarius and Therion aren't gothic metal.Stargazer eternal (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They are Power Metal not Gothic Metal. There first CD was Power metal there 2nd two CD's were Power Metal. Many sites have listed them as Power Metal. They are not Gothic Metal. One CD or song does not make a band Gothic. Nothing in there music is Gothic. It's Power Metal. --98.224.211.86 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First PiercingMetal.com list there genre as Symphonic Operatic Metal. So that's one miss. Also Rockdetector.com has not a good place to be using for there genre either. On top of that ever band being listed here has a lead FEMALE SINGER and that dose not = Gothic METAL. Go by everything you listed Nightwish, Epica, Delain, etc don't even fall under the list of Gothic Metal.

And really this is it for me. The whole Gothic thing is nothing more then a sexist tag added on to band with lead female singers and ever one of you who is going along with it is a sexist pig. --Turemetalfan (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, bands listed on the list without a lead female singer include Amorphis, Tiamat, Anathema, Moonspell, My Dying Bride, Paradise Lost, Cradle of Filth, HIM, Poisonblack, Sentenced, The 69 Eyes, The Vision Bleak, Type O Negative and others while bands that are not listed here despite having a lead female singer include To-Mera, Aghora, Cruachan, Girlschool, Vixen, Lumsk, Opera IX, Visions of Atlantis, The 3rd and the Mortal, Sinergy, Arch Enemy, Battlelore and plenty more. Go figure. I see no reason why one CD alone is not enough to make a band gothic. Just as Moonspell is listed under folk metal even though their only contribution to the genre was on a demo and an EP, not even a full length CD. If you're not happy with the piercingmetal review as a source, that's fine. There's plenty of other sources on the internet that identifies the band as gothic metal whether you like it or not. If reviewers like Chad Bowar and Sam Grant thinks Nightwish falls under gothic metal, then your beef is with them. Not me.

Your immature attitude and insult does not have any effect on me whatsoever nor will it ever. The only thing you will achieve with your disruptive behavior is an eventual ban from editing on wikipedia. If the site truly sucks as you say on your talk page, then do yourself a favor and stop wasting your precious time on it. --Bardin (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And you need to start giving reason ASAP I don't really give a damn about Chad Bowar and Sam Grant. They can say what ever they want. It's there damn opinion. That's what reviews are OPINIONS NOT FACT. You are adding. And having one CD is not enough other wise ever band and there mother would be on the list. Let's start adding in Sarah Brightman. Give cold hard real facts about there music and what makes it Gothic not someone else opinion on the matter. What in there music makes it Gothic? It was gone over before and agreed that Many of the band that were on the list are in fact not Gothic Metal. --Turemetalfan (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you want some real facts here it goes

The lyrics of gothic metal are known to be "epic and melodramatic.">>>>>

WOW that can also be found in Power Metal and Prog Metal

Gothic fiction, a literary genre that blends horror and romance, has been a source of inspiration for the lyrics of many gothic metal bands. >>>>>>

Yet Epica, Nightwish, After Forever, etc are not doing that. But using horror and romance in Metal music is nothing new. Hell Most Death Metal bands use parts of horror in there music. So let's add in Cannibal Corpse or even better Iced Earth they have a hole CD just for horror. Like at said at this rate ever metal band and there mother will be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turemetalfan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gothic metal is a fusion of "the bleak, icy atmospherics of goth rock with the loud guitars and aggression of heavy metal."[65] The genre has also been described as "a combination of the darkness and melancholy of goth rock with heavy metal."[66] Characteristics of the genre including "dreary and melancholy riffs," "ambient keyboards" and "demonic chorales.">>>>

Nightwish, Epica, etc are not doing that. In fact they are taking there elements from Power Metal, Prog Metal, and Death Metal. Eternal Tears of Sorrow are using Melodic death metal in there sound. As for Evanescence there whole sound is that of ever other Alternative metal band. Have you not heard there music. It falls right a long side Linkin Park. Nightwish and Epica fall right in there with bands such as Kamelot and Symphony X. There whole sound being driven by the guitar well the keyboards make up the sound of symphony.--Turemetalfan (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Turemetalfan has a point. We could in fact add Sarah Brightman to the list because she's publicly described her new album as gothic metal influenced. Even Symphony (album) has Gothic metal in the infobox. I've heard three tracks, Gothica, Fleurs du Mal and Sarai Qui, so I feel I'm in a position to judge, the only song that has a certain gothic "feel" is Fleurs du Mal, but musically I don't think it is even remotely metal.

I'm not at all happy about this, you can find loads of references for any nonsense, let's reference last.fm for Britney Spears and Paris Hilton being brutal death metal. Genre classification should be based on the music alone, not on vocals or lyrics and certainly not on image. It may not always be very clear what genre(s) a band/album/song is part of, but we should at least try, or give up on attempts at classification.

Can't we at least indicate that certain bands are considered to be not very close to the sound of gothic metal by fans, or part of other genres? Something. Just something. Or at least indicate that there is considerable controversy about the use of the label. Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would most certainly add Sarah Brightman to the list if there is a reliable source that the new album contains some gothic metal. It was actually something that I wanted to mention in the gothic metal article under contemporary success along the line of how other artists from other genres are now crossing into gothic metal. Only problem was that I found no reliable sources that indicate that the album features any gothic metal. The video of her supposedly describing it as such is no longer on youtube. If a reliable source is found, then she can be entered into the list with a note stating that only the latest album crossed over into gothic metal.

Last.fm isn't a reliable source so it should never ever be used as a reference on wikipedia. Allmusic.com and Rockdetector.com for better or for worse are reliable sources even if fans do not necessarily agree with the tags they give for bands.

I've provided a column in the list for elaborate notes where one can mentioned that a band is not considered to be gothic metal bands by fan - if one can find reliable sources indicating that this is the case. This isn't a list for bands that are 100% gothic metal because that would be original research. --Bardin (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The part with last.fm was only an example, I know they are not reliable. I never said that only 100% gothic metal bands should be in this list, but we should avoid crass cases of misclassification. And there are such cases:

As a further example, you mention Allmusic.com as a reliable source, but does that mean I can now go and list Nightwish in the list of symphonic black metal bands, and in the list of progressive metal bands? The first one is clearly a systematic weakness - a bug, if you will - of Allmusic - they have no category "Symphonic metal", but one for "Symphonic black metal", so they'll just use that one; the second one is simply an outdated practice: I've seen old reviews which looked very serious and seemed to be written by connoisseurs, where Oceanborn was called progressive metal, but probably only because symphonic metal was not established as a genre term yet. Allmusic applies the Progressive metal tag much more liberally than Wikipedia and metal-oriented websites, for example, including Lacuna Coil and even Rammstein! This usage is far too wide and, by the way, incompatible with the definition on Progressive metal.

If we took information from sources such as Allmusic over uncritically, Wikipedia would end up a target of ridicule.

A much more reliable source regarding classification of metal bands, in my opinion, is Metal-archives.com.

Another point. How come you mention Nightwish here, but not on Gothic metal, except in the "symphonic metal" section? Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The metal archives is just about the worst source that you can possibly name actually. It is not considered a reliable source for use on wikipedia, see for instance here. The reason it is not considered a reliable source is because the information there is submitted by anonymous fans like you and I. Allmusic.com on the other hand is a reliable source because the information there are from paid, professional staff. Not only is there an editorial oversight but it is a legitimate firm with a publicly listed address and identifiable corporate members. There's accountability. As popular as the metal archives is, it is ultimately just a fan website at the end of the day with little editorial oversight, no identifiable staff members and no accountability. I am fully aware of the shortcomings of allmusic.com. I would not recommend the use of allmusic.com for non-controversial entries if there are no other supporting references from other sources. Which is why we need not worry about finding Nightwish on the black metal list. For the record, Nightwish is not tagged as gothic metal on Allmusic.com and is not used as a reference on this list. Instead, we have the entry for Nightwish on Rockdetector, a review of on About.com, a news article in chart magazine, a review on gothic metal specialist site soniccathedral.com and an interview with Marco Hietala and Emppu Vuorinen on metalundergound.com. Noticed that for each of these references, there is a specific author identified: Garry Sharpe-Young, Chad Bowar, Pete Richards, Sam Grant and Zack Dusedau. These are the people who identified Nightwish as gothic metal (except for Zack Dusedau who was the interviewer and Marco Hietala the person making the identification). They are real people with known identities - not anonymous users. There's even a picture of Chad Bowar on About.com while Sharpe-Young is an author who has written and published books on heavy metal music. Who are we going to credit if we use metal-archives? Anonymous? One of these sources on its own might not be enough but five reliable sources all fully accountable are more than enough to merit a place for Nightwish on this list whether we like it or not.

As for why Nightwish is mentioned only in the symphonic metal section, that's because I crumbled to pressure. It was not originally separated but part of the history following the beauty and the beast section. That was a compromise I made and which was quickly forgotten. I have every intention of going back to work on the gothic metal article to improve it further to the standards that I did with folk metal. So expect some changes.--Bardin (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, we have a misunderstanding here. Of course I was not saying that Metal-archives.com is a reliable source, but the classifications offered on that page are much more reliable than those on Allmusic, with which I mean, more consistent, and based in the actual music played by a band.

I do not care what these guys say, they simply fail to distinguish between gothic metal and symphonic metal, and possibly female-fronted metal, possibly due to popular confusion; their classification is not based in the music. If we define or describe genres by musical characteristics in our articles, it looks bad to go and ignore them in practice. Fans and websites specialised in metal (even if essentially fanzines) are much better and more consistent in classification according to the music. They are essentially who developed the elaborate system of sub-genres, even though admittedly they may tend to work rather with family resemblance based or impressionistically based categories than strictly defined categories based in music theory.

Gothic metal is defined by Wikipedia as a fusion between metal, especially doom-death, and gothic rock. I quote again:

Gothic metal is a fusion of "the bleak, icy atmospherics of goth rock with the loud guitars and aggression of heavy metal."[65] The genre has also been described as "a combination of the darkness and melancholy of goth rock with heavy metal."[66] Characteristics of the genre including "dreary and melancholy riffs," "ambient keyboards" and "demonic chorales."[67]

We simply cannot ignore this definition.

Nightwish's music is generally far too fast, light, uplifting and catchy to be gothic metal, and growls are not used. It is the crass antithesis of doom metal or gothic rock. Only some songs on Angels Fall First may be reminiscent of gothic rock.

Evanescence do not fit the definition of metal given on Heavy metal music.

We do not need to use every source that we find. We can select, and we should select those which reflect a consensus, and which are consistent with other sources, such as those that define genres. There is no consensus on Nightwish being gothic metal or progressive metal, and it contradicts every definition, even if dozens of websites list them as such (there are also literally dozens of anti-evolution websites). The genre symphonic metal has been established, and the article has been kept, for a good reason.

By the way, Metal-archives.com is heavily used as a source on Neo-classical metal.

Oh, and as I argued below, artists are notoriously unreliable sources (in my sense) for issues of genre. Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that I was the one who wrote that description of gothic metal onto wikipedia in the first place? I see nothing there that rules out Nightwish as gothic metal. In his review of Dark Passion Play, Chad Bowar even wrote that the keyboards and strings create "a gothic atmosphere." Your interpretation of the description I wrote is original research. There's nothing in that description that rules out gothic metal band from performing "fast, light, uplifting and catchy" music or that growls are a necessary element in the genre.
We're not discussing evolution here so bringing that up is quite pointless. Those editors interested in that issue can spend the necessary time to evaluate the reliability of websites covering that subject. We're talking about a fairly inconsequential issue: whether a band should be included in a list. You're basically arguing that your personal opinion is worth more than the opinion of other people. Unfortunately, you are an anonymous user while Sharpe-Young and Chad Bowar are reliable sources so per wikipedia policy, I have to defer to the latter and not you.
The classifications on metal-archives are not reliable either. Lots of dubious entries. There are a few bands tagged as folk metal there but which I could not find any reliable source indicating that they are so. Like everything else on metal-archives, there's no identity as to the source of the tags and hence, no verifiability. The fact that the metal archives is heavily used as a source on neo-classical metal only means that the article on neo-classical metal is of a poor quality. I'm not sure why you would brought up the symphonic metal genre because nobody's denying that Nightwish is a symphonic metal act. Bands are quite capable of performing more than one style of music simultaneously.
Now if you and any others are so determined to prove that Nightwish is not a gothic metal band, then please by all means give me a reliable source indicating that this is the case. If they really do not fit the "definition" of gothic metal, it should not be so difficult to find a statement to that effect, should it? Yet I was unable to do so myself. Maybe you can. Good luck. --Bardin (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Shape Young's Metal the definitive guide(2007) classifies Nightwish in "the operatic metal genre" not in the gothic metal (p.285)(no mention is made about gothic metal about them). Yet Shape Young is generally one of those rewiers who tend to confuse easily Symphonic metal and gothic metal (and also with prog metal). But at least in his book, for Nightwish, he seems to see the diference. But well apparently it is in contradiction with what he claims on rockdetector. But we are here in particular case: which source prevails here? Normally the publications do over any online source, but as it is the same author. it's a sensitive case. So I guess it would be better to search other PUBLICATIONS. I got a book especially dedicated to gothic music and other dark music associated with gothic culture Carnets Noirs (2006) ISBN 2-915551-01-4. This book includes a large chapter dedicated to gothic metal by Stephane Leguay (p.211-225): There bands like Theatre of Tragedy, Type O Negative, Moonspell, Paradise Lost, On Thorns I lay, Lacuna Coil, Crematory,(early)The Third and the Mortal and even Anathema are mentioned. Their biography is detailed as being major acts of gothic metal, but Nightwish is not mentioned at all there except to specify in a one sentence that gothic metal launched the whole vogue of female fronted Soprano in metal p.225.

Bardin, you recognized yourself that Allmusic.com classification may be problematic, as you said

"I do not like to allmusic.com too much but there are not a lot of other reliable sources out there on music genres like gothic metal. I tried to use allmusic.com mostly for non-contentious points"see here.So I wonder why you still keep on refering to it to it especially here for a precisely contentious point. And I must say I'm quite puzzled by your tendencies to use any sources(even the less reliable ones like Allmusic.com) to support a view (you said) you disagree with. Let me remind you what you said to me a while ago: "Be that as it may, you're quite correct that while purists like you and I do not consider Nightwish, Epica or Evanescence as gothic metal" see here

I guess the fact you argue against your opinion may be interpreted as an example of objectivity. But I must confess I'm wondering if it is really objectivity here: I mean I wonder if you really meant what you said when claiming you don't consider Nightwish as gothic or if it was just a way to shut our mouths. Well,let's say you were just being objective. But well being objective and neutral is sure all fine and dandy, I praise that, but using such energy to defend a counter-intuitive approch with sometimes debatable sources is beyond my comprehension. Hope you'll clarify this apparent paradox of yoursFrédérick Duhautpas (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting all over again since the previous exchange between Frédérick Duhautpas and myself descended into farce, mostly through my own fault as I became increasingly frustrated with what I perceived to be slights directed to me. For that, I apologise.

• The book Carnets Noirs that you refer to was published in 2003. The omission of Nightwish in that book does not mean that the authors intended to infer that Nightwish are not a gothic metal band. Perhaps they did not felt Nightwish deserves to be mentioned in whatever limited space they had. Sam Grant's review of Nightwish's 2004 album Once indicates that he believes Nightwish only turned to gothic metal with that album release. If this is correct then there's no reason to expect the authors of Carnets Noirs to mention Nightwish in a book they originally published in 2003. Similarly, Garry Sharpe-Young might have changed his opinion of the band's genre with their latest album. The fact that he tags any band as gothic metal does not mean that he thinks the band has always been or still is gothic metal. Bands are prone to change their style of music.
• Allmusic.com is of no relevance to this discussion since they do not actually describe Nightwish as gothic metal and are not used as a source for that. My stance on Allmusic.com is that I'd rather not use it as the sole source for anything contentious. If there are other sources that back up whatever it is that Allmusic.com claims then I'm perfectly willing to use it.
• My personal opinion of what Nightwish performs is irrelevant to this discussion as well. I am not a reliable source. I do not think Aerosmith, Jeff Beck or Queen are heavy metal bands but I do not object to their presence in the list of heavy metal bands because reliable sources have been provided. Well, at least I assume they are reliable because I have not bothered to actually check.
• The fact that some sources describe one band as one thing does not mean that the band in question cannot be another thing. Many bands perform more than one style of heavy metal music and it would be a nuisance to refer to them constantly with as many prefixes as possible. Some people call Nightwish symphonic metal, others call them gothic metal. There's no reason to think one is contradictory to the other as it is possible for a band to fit within more than one style of music.
• Not every source on the internet qualifies as a reliable source. I'm not making some arbitrary rule here. This is wiki policy. Websites like the metal-archives and metalstorm are based on submissions by anonymous users. Anyone can join those sites and edit entries to their liking, submit info that matches their views and so on. You could be a member of both sites. There's no point having a criteria for reliable sources if we can just cite anything that anyone can say at any website. There's a reason why it's reliable sources and not just sources. A professional staff member working for money at a corporate firm can easily qualify as a reliable source. We can attribute the information to a person with a known identity and hold that person accountable for that info because there's editorial oversight. On the other hand, a fan volunteering contributions at some website that is willing to publish just about anything would not qualify as a reliable source. I do not believe you disagree with this. Sharpe-Young and Chad Bowar are reliable sources and they describe Nightwish as gothic metal. Unless you can provide a good reason as to why they are not reliable sources, then there is no reason not to use them as references and include Nightwish in this silly list. Supplying other sources that omit Nightwish as gothic metal does not in any way affect the credibility of Sharpe-Young and Chad Bowar. Supplying sources that describe Nightwish as something else also does not in any way affect their credibility. Even if you can find anymore sources to the one I found that explicitly say Nightwish is not a gothic metal band, we'll still have to include the band in this list with the proviso already in place that not everyone agrees that they are gothic metal. The only reason to remove Nightwish from this list is if there's no reliable sources available that describe them as gothic metal. No personal interpretation of definitions and music. Only the absence of reliable sources. The only way then that anyone of you can get rid of Nightwish from this list is to demonstrate that each and every one of the sources cited are not reliable. I doubt that any of you can do without relying on your personal opinions but by all means try. --Bardin (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, Bardin, I know you're a good guy. I appreciate the fact, you removed all the personal attacks agaisnt me and only kept your more rational arguments. As I said countless times I'm aware you're doing a real great job. You provided a lot of great sources...As said I didn't try to question your work. And I'm aware you made a lot of strong points. I was just making comments of what I felt as a lack of reliability of some sources, nothing more than that. Yes, I imagine how frustrasting to see parts of your work contested when you have the feeling of having played by rules. I can understand that. But note I was just commenting, I didn't go into edit waring. Anyway as far my point goes as I said I don't exclude I may be mistaken. But I don't think I'm prejudiced, but I don't exclude I might be mistaken. But this is issue is a matter of conviction.I know convinction is not enough and I tried to provide sources, I'm aware they're not sufficient to contradict your claims explicitely. However I consider they're a good start, at least they convinced me, that my point wasn't necessarily a POV. And so I'll keep on searching other published sources. it is easier to find sources that state bands play in the genre than sources which state the negative. Generally a source when describing a band, doesn't say Slayer doesn't play Glam, death, black, folk, rap,symphonic and viking,no they only refer to the genre they play. This is precisely what happens with the sources I provided about Sharpe Young. Sometimes with sources you're only left to deduce what they seem to imply rather than what they explicitely say. Deductions are not sufficient...I'm aware of that. I'll try to find reliable sources which explictely say they're not gothic. Not that I intend to prove how other sources which state they are gothic are necessarilly wrong. But just to prove there may be different conceptions of what gothic metal is. Which I'm convinced considering how controversial this subject is concerning the nature of what gothic metal is and considering the number of people who disagree. Yeah lack of sources...I know, but the lack of sources doesn't necessarilly proves a cultural fact or a shared view doesn't exist.Yeah, Wikipidia policy is what it is. I'm not contesting that anyway Whatever... I'm aware that general folk use generally calls any female fronted band gothic even when such bands have no gothic rock influences. This is something that can't be avoided, noone can't go agaisnt general folk use. Just like general folk use mistakes the term Schizophrenia with identy disorder, when clinicaly speaking these disorders are absolutely not. But I noticed countless time some people claim that only bands having gothic rock or any original gothic music can be called gothic metal. For the moment, I'll stop trying to argue with you about this subject...But if I find other sources (preferabily published ones)I'll be back here to argue.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bardin: I apologise for drawing Frédéric into this discussion, I did not anticipate that it would blow so much out of proportion.

I still do not think it is Wikipedia's task to spread popular misconceptions, as widespread or deeply entrenched they might be, and no matter how many professional critics (interestingly, usually US critics apparently not intimately familiar with the European scene [just thinking there might be differing definitions, as with power metal]) have fallen prey to it. (Afterthought: Some of the confusion may indeed stem from the fact that melodic power metal is still a rather unfamiliar style to many US metal fans, while European fans tend to think of it first when they hear "power metal", not Iced Earth or perhaps even Metallica. Also an alternative rock/metal-influenced sound as on the more recent Nightwish albums is more familiar to US metal fans.)

Apart from the need for consistency with the genre articles (both the gothic, symphonic and power metal ones), we must also be consistent with band articles as has been argued in the comment List of gothic metal bands#Classification of metal bands in general above), Nightwish has even got an extra section on musical style, spurred by the frequent, very questionable application of the "gothic metal" tag.

By the way, the ubiquitous presence of high-pitched, melodic guitar solos, is another criterion in favour of power metal and against gothic metal, and this one is not open to personal interpretation, it need not even be sourced: it is plainly apparent to everyone who knows what a guitar solo is. Also, I find it more than obvious that "bleak, icy, dark, dreary and melancholy" is hard to reconcile with "uplifting and light". The critics who describe Nightwish as gothic metal are simply misguided and not aware of the stylistic profile of gothic metal: they're simply wrong. Even the official biography talks about the enormous Stratovarius influence especially on Oceanborn and Wishmaster, and quotes Soundi reviews to the effect that Nightwish are considered, in Finland at least, power metal, symphonic metal, but not gothic metal.

Therion, too, has a significant traditional heavy metal influence, which Christofer Johnsson confirms in that Metalcrypt interview and is further supported by the cover versions of songs by traditional metal bands that Therion have made.

In fact this review, as polemically worded it may be, which unmistakably calls the music of Nightwish power metal, is traceable to the leader of The Project Hate MCMXCIX, i. e., a musician intimately familiar with the Scandinavian metal scene. His expertise is certainly at least as large as that of the US critics. Their number, I repeat, is irrelevant. A single, coherently argued analysis could most certainly override all the other "professional" sources.

Oh, and by the way, a single song or even a few songs are not enough to assign a band to a genre, because Nightwish have made several songs that could conceivably be classified as progressive, especially Ghost Love Score, but still they're not a progressive metal band, as you have confirmed.

In fact, I cannot help but wonder if you do not yourself select your sources to bolster a particular point of view, for whatever reason, perhaps personal bias, I don't know.

I simply find it hard to believe that there are no reliable sources out there that point out that Nightwish's sound is considerably closer to power metal, especially European, melodic power metal, and on more recent albums, hard rock/mainstream rock or alternative rock, than to Gothic metal, but if so, I do understand your dilemma.

In this case, let's just acknowledge that problem and work from there, by looking if useable sources perhaps do exist after all.

Again, let me emphasise I'm not here to be antagonistic, I try to be productive as you do, I just want what I believe is the POV of the typical old-school European metal fan represented, because I find it truer to the music in this case. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Remarkably, something that just reinforced my recent understanding just how far Nightwish is from gothic metal is the realisation that Tarja's album is at times closer to the sound/atmosphere of gothic rock/metal than Nightwish has ever been. ;) Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you admit it yourself here that you are trying to push a particular POV. Whether this POV is correct or not is quite irrelevant given wikipedia's policy on having a neutral point of view. As far as there not being any reliable sources that point out that Nightwish is more power than gothic, you are more than welcome to try it out for yourself with a google search. I've tried numerous times already with different keywords to no avail. The only thing I found was an interview and it wasn't exactly the best source in the world given that there's no indication anywhere in the interview as to which of the two band members interviewed is the one replying to the specific question. As Frederick notes, most articles on a band would not mention what they don't play but just what they play and that description of what they play is unlikely to be exhaustive. Nobody's denying here that Nightwish performs power metal or symphonic metal. I do not see why they cannot be all three, quite frankly. I do not recall ever ruling out the possibility of Nightwish being a progressive metal band either. I've not done any search for that but if some reliable source out there indicates that they are prog metal, then they can very well be described as such here on wikipedia. That's the policy I abide by. I do not select any sources to push any bias. I do not listen to many of the bands on the list including Epica, Evanescence and HIM. I just work with what reliable sources say and in the case of Evanescence, HIM and Nightwish, I've used sources that both describe them as gothic metal and sources that describe them otherwise. That's me adhering to a neutral point of view. --Bardin (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. But still. Sigh. Reading Chad Bowar's overview of heavy metal genres alone makes me want an edit button (there are even outrageous mistakes such as "Fate's Warning", never mind that they're listed under power metal, and "Fates Warning" under progressive metal), and knowing some of his sources would also be nice. Or Gary Sharpe-Young. OK, so HIM might have some similarity to gothic metal at times. The 69 Eyes? They don't even use keyboards. And where's the metal? Recent Amorphis is more prog rock than metal, but at least they use keys and come from a doom/death metal background. But Letzte Instanz? Why? So I heard them played when I was in a "goth" club years ago, but I don't see the musical connection. Why do we have to back up everything with sources and those guys can make anything out of thin air, not even having to give reasons? They're not accountable to anyone, yet still considered "reliable". I don't get it. Does this article really follow the spirit of Wikipedia policy, or only the letter? Is expertise and the slightest hint of common sense or logic really forbidden on Wikipedia? Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Any anonymous user on the internet can claim expertise or common sense on a topic, Florian. How is anyone else suppose to judge whether that person is really an expert or is using common sense? Would you really want wikipedia to turn into a battleground between people who all claim expertise and common sense but cannot agree with one another? Both Chad Bowar and Garry Sharpe-Young are music journalists working in a corporate environment. Bowar is at least accountable to his superiors at About.com while Sharpe-Young can boast that he has written many books on the subject of heavy metal, each of which should have been edited by the publishers before they were printed. So there's some degree of accountability there. I have not heard the music of any of those bands you mentioned so I can't really help you with that. I believe this article does follow the spirit of wikipedia policy wholeheartedly and I would venture to suggest that your problem is not so much the content of the article but wikipedia's policy. After all, you've already admitted that you want to push a specific point of view when wikipedia's policy is for each article to adhere to a neutral point of view. I imagine that you would also like to contribute your own original research based on your self-professed expertise but wikipedia's policy is for each article to be verifiable with reliable sources and not original research. --Bardin (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bowar and Sharpe-Young may be competent. But they're also obviously sloppy sometimes or occasionally and the criteria they apply towards genre classification are dubious and in any case obscure - there's no way to reproduce them. I'd prefer sources that do not simply rely on their expert reputation, but that argue why they state what they state. (That's good scholarly habit, not only when talking to a lay audience.) Especially when a band's style is not immediately familiar and obvious. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish does not belong on the list (part 2)

Bardin: I apologise for drawing Frédéric into this discussion, I did not anticipate that it would blow so much out of proportion.

Florian, I’m extremely sorry that you felt the need to apologize for inviting me as if you felt responsible for my own deeds. Sorry, if I disserved your aims but you know the only responsible for my deeds is no one else but me no matter you invited me into this discussion. (this is precisely the consequence of free will) . So no need to apologize about my contributions within this discussion. Besides I already did it by myself. This said, this doesn’t dismiss the fact that I completely agree with your points concerning this issue.

Anyway as provided in the gothic metal talk page: I got a source where Tuomas( the main composer of Nightwish) explicitly says that Nightwish is not gothic metal. This source is sufficient to support the fact that Nightwish might not be considered as Gothic metal no matter certain professionals they are.See Talk:Gothic metal#Is Nightwish gothic metal?

I think with these discussions we touched certain limits of Wiki policy. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not here by any mean questioning Wiki policy or proposing to break its rules. No, I think this is an important element of Wikipedia, A warrant of reliability. But while sourcing is necessary, I think one should use the sources with a certain critical spirit instead of using them as an absolute authoritative argument. (Of course this comment applies to me too in the first place). Tagging styles is not an exact science So you may find many contradictions between sources concerning styles. Recent examples of this include sources concerning the 3rd and the mortal or Evanescence when you got some sources which claim they are gothic metal when some other deny it

As I said I think there are many confusions concerning what gothic metal is just because there are different representations of what gothic metal is. While gothic term had a precise sense and a precise aesthetic in the 80s I think this notion has been blurred and slowly confused in popular perception today. And I said it is difficult to go against popular misuse of a word, when even journalists and record labels use this label for anything that is female fronted.

"As Frederick notes, most articles on a band would not mention what they don't play but just what they play and that description of what they play is unlikely to be exhaustive."

Well, Bardin, at least I admire the subtle way you’re using my own point to argue the exact opposite of what I was trying to say… You’re not wrong in doing so though. There's truth, in what you say. But I just need to specify that I was using this point to underline the contrary, which is true as well.

My point was: when a stylistic facet is not mentioned, it doesn’t necessarily prove it is existent.On your side you’re arguing the opposite: when stylistic facet is not mentioned, it doesn’t prove it is necessarily non existent. :Which is right as well…I concur. But that’s no proof per se. Just like my claim, (I realised) is no explicit proof either.

How do we know then, when something is not mentioned that it is existent or not? As said tagging styles is not an exact science. And bands don’t necessarily respect the strict borders between genres. So you’re right, "The fact that some sources describe one band as one thing does not mean that the band in question cannot be another thing." One may often find bands that fall in several genres at the same time. And sometimes all of these genres are not always specified out of reasons of convenience. But 1. some bands can also fall in one unique genre and 2. Such omissions can also lead to doubts and confusion as to what they realy imply and really omit. I mean because the "Thrash metal" labbel is not mentioned about Nightwish, doesn’t necessarily mean this facet of their style is existent but being omitted for convenient reasons. In this case such a label is omitted because Nightwish just DOES NOT play thrash. Yet, if you ask me to provide sources, it would be very difficult for me to prove it. Yet, I doubt many people may say I'm wrong in claming so. Am I wrong or biased to deny they play thrash or black just because I don't find source that support it? I necessarilly have to refer to some part of appreciation for such a case.

So when you’re arguing that when a style is not mentioned in sources doesn’t mean it is inexistent, this is correct but this is not a proof of the existence per se either. When I see Sharpe Young say Nightwish is Operatic metal,while it is not necessarilly implied that a goth facet doesn’t exist( you're right) this doesn't prove this gothic facet exists either. So we both have to provide other sources in such cases wher existence or non existence is explicitly stated.. Which we both did.

Now how do we do when several sources contradict each other?

Frankly speaking, I would choose the views of the composer over those of reviewers, because I think he knows better his music than reviewers. But some might argue otherwise. So in my humble opinion, I think the approach you choose which confronts views and sources might be the best option and the best compromise when necessary, just like you did concerning Evanescence. Just my opinion. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've mentioned on the talk page of the gothic metal article, that interview you mentioned has been used as a source on this list and it has been so for many days now, long before you joined this discussion. Perhaps you should take a look at the notes for Nightwish again? You're right that the thrash label is omitted because Nightwish does not play thrash metal but we do not need to concern ourselves with that or many other labels because there's (presumably) no reliable sources that suggest that Nightwish is thrash metal or whatever. You do not need to disprove something that nobody has claimed. But there are sources that describe them as gothic metal, including one of the band's members. So that means if you want to disprove them as gothic metal then you'll need something that explicitly contradict those sources. I agree that the views of the band composer is pretty damn important but it's not always right: Motorhead is a well-known example where the main songwriter does not consider his music to be heavy metal when everyone else generally thinks it is. For Nightwish, we have a situation where two different members of the band have said different things in interviews as to whether they perform gothic metal. So perhaps we should just send an email to Tuomas and Marco asking them to come to an agreement first. ;)

Regardless of what they say though, I think the only appropriate solution that would adhere to wikipedia's policy on having a neutral point of view is to do as I did and just present the different and contrary viewpoints together and let the reader decide for him or herself. --Bardin (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused.. Evanescnece and HIM have been labelled as gothic metal, but they are mostly regarded as alternative. Nightwish,Therion, Within Temptation have been laballed as gothic metal, but they are mostly regarded as symphonic metal. Amorphis are supposed to be progressive/melodic (death) metal. So, I don't think the bands I mentioned should be in this category.. Xr 1 (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are they on the list because people refuse to give out facts about what in there music makes the Gothic when in fact they are playing Death Metal. --Turemetalfan (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They are listed on the list because more reliable sources than either of you have labelled them as so. Those sources might be right or they might be wrong, I really do not give a damn. This is wikipedia and not your personal playground. They are here for the same reason that AC/DC, Aerosmith, Alice Cooper and KISS are all listed as heavy metal bands regardless of the fact that many people (myself included) do not consider them as heavy metal but hard rock. --Bardin (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Right there no more reliable then a CNN, MSNBC, the BBC and FOX NEWS are when it comes to world events. I will ask again. What are your reasons for listing bands that have nothing to do with Gothic metal on the list? What in there music is Gothic? Do you even listen to the bands? Or are you just listing them because some so called reliable 2nd hand source said so? --Turemetalfan (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say sources are not always right and their reliableness depends on the occasion. Also there are always sources to say something and others to oppose them... So..you call Evanesncence gothic?Then I guess you could call Skillet or even the new AFI stuff goth metal .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xr 1 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do not listen to Evanescence. I've seen maybe two or three of their music videos. I do not listen to HIM. I've only seen the music video to their Wicked Game cover once. I had not even heard of Eternal Tears of Sorrow until I came across their name on the previous version of this list. If someone else had not already included them in this list, I would not even have thought of looking for references. No idea that their inclusion would be controversial. I am a fan of Nightwish and I think that they are a symphonic power metal band that has gradually moved closer to gothic metal, particularly on their last two studio albums. I am a fan of Within Temptation and I do consider them as gothic metal, moreso in the past than today. I have not heard any music by Epica, After Forever or Delain. I have never heard of Skillet and I have not heard any music by AFI.

Now, the two of you might think you know a lot more about gothic metal than me. Maybe you think that since you listen to these bands, you are in a more qualified position to speak about it than me. Unfortunately, this is not an online forum as I've said before many times over. This is wikipedia. I might hate Fox News with a passion but if they decided to do a feature on gothic metal tomorrow and describe metallica as gothic metallers, then metallica can and probably will be added onto this list whether any of us like it or not. This is how wikipedia works. We do not embark on our own original research. We merely report what others have said. If others have described Evanescence or Nightwish as gothic metal, then so be it. Not the end of the world.

I try to be a nice guy though. I made alterations to my rewrite on the gothic metal article as a compromise for the two of you who seem so adamant to deny the gothic label for certain bands and once again, I've made an alteration to this list as a compromise. I created a secondary list for associated acts with two columns for refernces, one for those that tags them as gothic metal and the other for those that deny that state otherwise. Now you might be tempted to add Epica and whatever else to this secondary list but please do so if you can find reliable sources that clearly and explicitly state that they are not gothic metal. This does not include sources that merely tag them with some other label unless there's a statement to the effect that the label is the one and only genre the band performs in. This does not include sources that describe the band as no longer performing gothic metal but which nonetheless indicate they have once upon a time performed gothic metal (eg. After Forever). --Bardin (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is beyond dumb at this rate ever metal band in the world will be the the damn list. Eternal Tears of Sorrow is melo death metal Nightwish is Power Metal Evanescence had nothing to do with either Gothic Metal or Gothic Music as whole they are Alternative rock/Alternative metal. The whole damn page reads like one person opinion on bands that don't even play it or are playing in different genres. Either give some good cold hard reason behind adding them in there or stop doing it. This whole genre has become the biggest joke mainly do to the fact that 90% of the bands are not playing anything Gothic. --Turemetalfan (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cold hard reasons" that you are looking for are the references that describe the bands as "gothic"; in the case of Nightwish a member of the band uses the term (see this interview). The article should not be based on personal opinions, you are right about that. ... discospinster _talk 02:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, and that one isn't a personal opinion? Do you realise that with admitting self-classification, you open the whole epic/troll/pirate/war/battle/circus/tribal/love/swamp/ice/Hollywood etc. metal can of worms again? Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what any of that is. All that I'm talking about is whether a reliable source has described the band as "gothic". It might be that author's personal opinion, but it was published, so it's a published description of the band. ... discospinster _talk 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

When a band describes their music as battle matle or troll metal, they are obviously using a little-known neologism to make themselves appear unique. When a band describes themselves as black metal or gothic metal, they are using a term that is widely used and understood so that they can relate themselves to other bands associated with the term. Big difference there. Of course, any individual can be mistaken but when the opinion expressed by that individual matches the opinion expressed by others that are deemed reliable sources, then that opinion would most certainly count. With regards to Nightwish, another (unidentified) member of the group apparently does not think that the band is gothic metal. That view is also included in the list. --Bardin (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached ages ago that bands listed are not Gothic Metal and agreed that they should not be listed. You can go look it up yourself. --Turemetalfan (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to this discussion, because I have looked through this page and I don't see it. Just cut and paste a short quote and I will CTRL-F to find the rest of it. ... discospinster _talk 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is really getting long with some of the old discussion going back to 2006. Does anyone mind if we get one of the automatic bots to start archiving the old discussion on this talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardin (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to sign my comment? Damn, that's the first time ever. :) --Bardin (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know many, (if not all of you) are incredibly tired of people adding bands with no articles to these lists, especially, along with links that are blue but are disambiguation pages or something else along with not even being the "x" genre of metal it's supposed to be. I was thinking of making a rule box or something similar like a section for it, instead of it being with the context/intro. For example, bands that are added because the editor wants an article on them very badly, people who just look over our (damned) comments, the people that don't check their links for the right article and those links that lead to disamb pages that don't have the band or you would have to make a huge search for the band and the bands that are not even part of the genre. If there was a "master list" that I know of where all editors that edit these lists would see it, then it would've been better to put this there and as there are many metal lists it would be insane to put them all over which I might want to do anyway if you accept my proposal or better yet show you here and you decide how we should go along with it and to fight those that add redlinks and remove bands they dislike, etc. Something must be done and I thought those hidden comments were enough and it's clearly not. I also think this would make a good explanation to editors who do this type of thing as a warning on their talk pages which is an action we can partake. Here is my proposal below:

This will be part of the introduction to an editor for his warning:
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to add bands to this list, the last band you added was a red-link, was not the intended article or has notability concerns on it's article page. Hereby you must follow to these guidelines for band inclusion to this list:

Article rules/warning explanation:
Bands without articles will hastily be removed from these lists. This list is not merely the place for you to add bands of the style that you want an article for, this is a list of "x" bands with articles nothing more. You can do this exactly at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Performers and bands but they must pass WP:MUSIC to be acceptable here. Also, please click the "show preview" button next to the "save page" button to check your article links before adding them here and that you also have the right band that plays the genre. This is not of your personal opinion of what the band actually plays, the band's genre must have been approved either by verifiability with other editors or sources stated in that respective article. Also, make sure a band is notable, if a band is being questioned for notability has a notability tag at the top of the page then it should not be added to this list, wait awhile and re-add them when the notability of the band has been established. Please make sure bands are alphabetised and that the formatting is consistent with the other bands before adding them. Thank you.

I hope this proposal goes well. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I like the idea man. But how is this going to trigger? is it like all HTML'd and stuff I don't understand or is it some person who catched the person themselves? I would like though, one thing, if the band added is a 'red' link and a death metal band...if that band is notable, I think we should create a 'death metal article to be made list' so that all the notable bands go on wikipedia. My last header, was saying this, I don't think we should just delete bands becuase the wikipedians before us haven't bothered to get information and make a dam article for them, do we?

Also, this way you get notable bands, becuase of wikifacists like speedy deletion service jeps the dam articles you make, just becuase you translate the biography into english and change a few sentences and that somehow interfers with G what the fuck O laws. Bullshit. Anyway, yeah nice idea, but ant going to work...you still going to have fags that think Bullet for my valentine are metal.

METALFREAK04 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be like User warning templates, if you catch them you warn them and if they persist well... I never thought of that but they would keep on being reverted until the link is blue, that's for sure. And of course, if a band is surely notable we'll have a list here (wouldn't make sense to have a death metal band article to be made list anyways (and would have to start with "Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/. . .")) for them (which I'm not sure can stay up here, as this page would need to get archived within time) and also at the request article link I provided. Also, the amount of editors we will need will be like the size of a taskforce (albeit small one) for this to be carried out well. I've been thinking I should really add this to all the other lists.

All I ask for is for people like you and everyone who edits these lists help in notifying these type of users. If that can be done then that's the least you could do for these lists. Have hope, and let's make an example for them. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 06:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a few bands from the listing and rephrased a part of the opening, to exclude bands that are not gothic metal or are too hotly debated to be mentioned with any real validity. This inculdes After Forever (symphonic metal), Evanescence (Alternative rock), and HIM (mainstream "goth" rock) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizmonicgamer (talk • contribs) 23:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove referenced information that you merely disagree with. Verifiability not truth. --Bardin (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit references, absolutely unreliable. You sounds like a machine, Bardin. Not like a logical being. In the next time i'll add simple pop music chart groups with different internet references. Soon after, the list becomes an untrustworthy, worthless and thrashy turd. --Ada Kataki (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ada kataki, you know I agree with you concerning this issue. But please instead of making sterile agressive comments (that will only lead you to be banned), I strongly suggest you to consider (once for all) having a more constructive approach by providing SOURCES that back up your claims. Thanks for your comprehension Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You sounds like a machine, Bardin. what a good grammar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.225.77 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had seen the worst with the gothic rock article. For all of your information, gothic metal is not a solid genre with a definition. It's name itself is an oxymoron. Gothic music by nature is not heavy. Goth metal is just a made up genre used by metalheads to pretend to be goths. It doesn't really matter whats on this list. Gothic metal can describe symphonic metal, black metal, nu metal, industrial metal, alternative metal, doom metal, or a combination of any of these. This article is not something to take personally! It's not like you're protecting a movement with a long noble history (this is not goth rock or black metal, there is not debate on purity or credibility here!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.130.38.115 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree, but again it's worthless here. People keep adding bands and more bands that have pratically nothing to do with what they call Gothic Metal. It's a good article to laugh, but not for taking seriously. I can't honestly believe people find Therion Gothic Metal, or (clearly) Symphonic Power Metal bands such as Krypteria or Nightwish. The worst is to consider currently rock acts such as HIM, Evanescence, Anathema and Within Temptation Gothic Metal. It just shows a lack of knowledge in music, as much as they can say the sources are there (from sites that label Within Temptation and Evanescence as Gothic Rock!!!) I mean C'MON! Just listen to the music and tell me Therion is Gothic Metal - Therion cannot even be labelled with one simple genre! Gothic Metal HAS NOTHING to do with Gothic Rock's history, people may want it that, but it really does not. Oh well lol :) ImaginaryVoncroy (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.lordsofmetal.nl/showreview.php?id=3590&lang=en http://www.thegauntlet.com/letter/s.html http://www.rockdetector.com/artist/taiwan/seraphim http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=1443 http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=773 http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=495 http://www.metal-temple.com/review.asp?id=527

So far that's five sites all calling them Power Metal and not one of them places it in Gothic metal. Seraphim has never had anything to do with Gothic metal. and all the sites not listing them as such. Next to one site that can't even make up there mind. Metal-observe first lists them as Gothic Metal/Black metal, Then Just Gothic Metal, Then just Symphonic Metal. They can't even make up there mind of what genre they are. Hell one of the reviews there says throws out Gothic Metal the minute they say it's Power Metal.

Almost ever site on the net lists them as power metal not Gothic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And here's some more links http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=1443 http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=773 http://www.metalcrypt.com/pages/review.php?revid=495 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.211.86 (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Coal Chamber is listed on AllMusicGuide as Goth metal. This statement (unlike most of this article) has a source. http://www.allmusicguide.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:kifqxq9hldke —Preceding unsigned comment added by VolvonDoom (talk • contribs) 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All Music is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.122.24.13 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

Archive 2