Talk:Death metal

People really don't know death metal come along way.

Deathmetal come along way. back before our time. 73.34.107.203 (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

1983-4

This is Jeff from Possessed. These years are cooked. The media has always misled the fans because of a few revisionists and the actual history of Death Metal is actually better than the false claims. Put simply, I think we came too early and so many people were unable to understand what was going on. Of course, after I was shot and people thought I was never coming back Possessed went from the only Death Metal band to being massively downplayed. So many band labels, knowing there is a certain intrinsic value that comes with being the “1st “ began spinning stories in wn attempt to cash in during my absence . 1983 start date has went from just Possessed to a multitude of workarounds. To say that “Death formed in 83” is simply not true. According to Kam Lee “While Mantas we’re around in 83 they were a Venom cover band with one original that sounded like Venom “Chuck joined Mantas which quickly became the mighty Death.

Keep in mind, every member of Death also knew/knows what happened. Chuck was extremely taken with Possessed, Death Metal. Possessed were apples to oranges different than anything else at that tine.

In 83-84 Possessed were so far over the top. Back then it was like the most brutal death metal of today because at that time we were literally the heaviest fastest band in the planet. And. Ring “the heaviest” very quickly and early on became the benchmark. Once we opened Pandora’s box bands started getting heavier and heavier in a race to become the new heaviest. And with this Death Metal became more than Possessed,

I am certainly not trying to claim all things Death Metal. I just want people to know the truth. Which is that Possessed were unequivocally the first Death Metal band and created the original Death Metal style.

I was robbed of a big part of my life and I love Death Metal. It’s history.

It’s probably worth pointing out that not one of these bands that claim to have “invented Death Metal” would never say that to my face. Especially if the were actually there as well, there are still far too many of us around that were there and know the truth.

I am still trying to figure out how “Noise Records” is being attributed to “creating death metal” a year after we did. In fact, it’s a bull shit logic to say that because there are heavier bands Possessed should be blotted from what we did.

That logic goes both ways. And truthfully, since Possessed were the very first, it could also be said that it’s the purest form.

Anyone who claims to have “invented” DM before Possessed are posing hard and they know it. We would have never tried to sound it take credit for another bands efforts.

At the same time the most important thing is that Death Metal as a genre, and it’s true I brainwashed history be kept alive.

Chuck made no secret that he modeled Death after Possessed. He was in correspondence with me and literally moved into the California Possessed Fan Club President’s house (Krystal Mahoney) in Antioch in order to be closer to us. Chuck and I became friends and was truly one of the first people that followed in our footsteps. He was proud of me and I am proud of him. The only “rivalry” stemmed from greedy revisionist managers, labels and the lucrative business of the industry.

Possessed was the first, and this means we will forever be downplayed and despised by everyone who thinks newer is older.

Of course, I see it in the old school pre-cancel culture way. I support ALL Death Metal bands. Being first is both a blessing and a curse.

Long live Death Metal. May it’s true history be known and brought to light. Death to posers. 2601:200:4000:1D80:C938:CB87:15D8:1DC5 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with

Wanted to check on this - the "Not to be confused with" template says it's to be used as below:

"This hatnote is generally used when readers have misspelled their desired title, and the error would be apparent by simply displaying the alternative term without further explanation. For example, consider a reader looking for the punctuation mark who instead ends up at coma:"

Does this really apply to deathrock in this article? Deathrock certainly isn't a misspelling, and have to be honest, I don't have any idea what deathrock is - I'd definitely need further explanation. Does that deserve a section in the article under associated styles rather than a misuse of the "Not to be confused with" element? Random name (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Goregrind

On this page there is some criticism regarding the Deathgrind/goregrind part. I want to add something to that critique. It's too bad the source, Terrorizer Magazine 181, is not readily available. I'm writing a piece about goregrind (for my blog) and came to the conclusion the genre is not focused on complexity at all. It's raw and brutal like grindcore, but often it's less serious, and more sloppy and crude than grindcore. The death metal influence is mainly impacting the lyrics. This sentence might not be appropriate for goregrind: "brevity of grindcore with the complexity of death metal". I've bought Terrorizer Magazine 181 from Ebay, will have to wait to check the article. Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Just remember that your view as a wikipedian fails WP:RS because of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so if it were to be included on the article it might have reliable third-party sources to back it up. ABC paulista (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't I said I bought the sourced magazine to check if the claim was even made in the source? I think it's WP:NPOV and WP:OR to begin with. Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime https://www.academia.edu/764000/BRUTAL_BELONGING_IN_MELBOURNES_GRINDCORE_SCENE

"Grindcore adopted death-metal’s vocal element and loud volumes, but merged these forms with punk sartorialism and politics. Bands play short, fast songs, characterized by punk riffs, extremely fast drumming (blastbeats) and screamed vocals. Unlike heavy metal, and death metal, grindcore is not melodic and usually does not feature guitar solos (cf. Purcell, 2003; Walser, 1993; Weinstein, 2000). However, similar to death metal, grindcore lyrics are predominantly violent. Yet, grindcore’s aggression largely targets the machinations of late-capitalist culture.7 Radical politics still forms a key element of contemporary grindcore music.8 Nevertheless, there has been a recent shift toward gorier imagery, in the ‘‘gore-grind’’ subgenre. Here, lyrics are simply violent for the sake of violence, rather than violence with a radical message (see albums by Fuck y I’m Dead, 2001; Undinism, 2002; Vaginal Carnage, 2002). However, gore-grind music remains in the punk style." Kameejl ^(Talk) 06:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Another quote https://www.ckz.si/arhiv/274/CKZ_274_Notranja_net-199-214.pdf "Both technical death metal and powerviolence (PW) can be seen as an opposite to porno-gore grind (PGG). Namely, contrary to the above-mentioned technical skill, PGG musically is based on a very simple style of usually a groovy metalized polka dance rhythm that is “brutalized” by blast-beats and the vocals of bubbling, grunting or (pig)squealing that represent the main characteristic"of the sub-genre."

More https://books.google.nl/books?id=4BEeEAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false "(Plazola 2015: 147) Plazola's study applies these characteristics that he attributes to grindcore to subgenres such as pornogrind and goregrind, 12 the latter considered to be more influenced by punk and hardcore scenes (Overell 2010..." Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about your assesement of the genre, your "conclusion", which the second source does seem to support it. The other two just state that the genre have more punk charactersitics, which tells us nothing about its complexity. ABC paulista (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that hardly anyone can verify the claim goregrind has "the complexity of death metal". I assume it's not in the source, because it's demonstrably untrue. Hence, I think the claim doesn't need to be disproven. It can be deleted and a (verifiable) source can be used to make a valid claim about the genre, and no, it doesn't need to tell us anything about its complexity. Just to be on the safe side, I bought the magazine, I'll have to wait for it to be shipped. Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that that subsection deals with multiple combinations of Grindcore and Death Metal and isn't focused on Goregrind, so the statements contained there might not be appliable to all the iterations, but what is generally observed in such combinations. In all, I think that this issue might be easier resolved by tweaking the phrase a bit, just stating that these genres combine characteristics of Grindcore with Death metal, without being more specific about it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Easier done than said. I removed a few words Kameejl ^(Talk) 22:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, that's the spirit. ABC paulista (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Do not restore Cannibal Corpse as a band that exemplifies brutal death metal

Cannibal Corpse is a precursor to brutal death metal, and are not themselves a brutal death metal band. See this book, which describes their first two albums as precursors to brutal death metal (meaning not themselves brutal death metal), and sources do not generally describe their later albums as brutal death metal either. —Alalch E. 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A student newspaper article was used to support the claim that Cannibal Corpse exemplifies brutal death metal (being listed in a short list of bands in this one-paragraph overview of the subgenre, automatically indicates that the band exemplifies the sound). However, a student newspaper is a not a reliable source for the sensitive matter of ascribing precise genre labels to bands, which requires expertise in the subject area by the author; see WP:RSSM: Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred ... (emphasis mine). —Alalch E. 00:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because a band is considered as a percursor of a genre doesn't mean that itself can't be part of it, we have examples of bands being considered both like Venom is for Black metal, or Melvins is for Sludge metal. Also, Kerrang describes Cannibal Corpse as Brutal death metal multiple times. ABC paulista (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There are problems with that source.

1. Eaten Back To Life (1990, first album) is not described as brutal death metal, and is described as an incredible old-school death metal record by a killer band...who just aren’t there yet
2. Butchered At Birth (1991, second album) is not described as brutal death metal
3. Tomb Of The Mutilated (1992, third album) is not described as brutal death metal
4. The Bleeding (1994, fourth album) is described as The Bleeding is Cannibal Corpse’s “mainstream” album and Stripped, Raped, And Strangled is in many ways the band’s most accessible song, so "manstream" and "accessible", and then it continues with the following odd remark: At the same time, it’s hard to argue that this album is anything but pure brutal death metal. To me, this does not mean that the reviewer actually considers this album to belong in the brutal death metal subgenre stylistically, but is using the words "brutal death metal" to contrast the heaviness and the brutality of the album with earlier statements how it's more accessible than their previous albums.

The construction of that sentence is obviously rhetorical as uses the word "brutal" to compensete for previously used "mainstream" and "accessible". To me, this does not support the claim that Cannibal Corpse is an exemplifying the brutal death metal subgenre. Ths is just not the right type of writing that we should use for precise claims about a subgenre. —Alalch E. 01:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Being "mainstream" and "accessible" doesn't automatically remove its belonging to a specific genre, because they are two separated and mostly unrelated concepts. Not being accessible or mainstream isn't a prerequisite to be a Brutal death metal band, since this designation describes the bean's sound, the kind of music they play, not the amount of popularity they can achieve, so when they say that The Bleeding is "anything but pure brutal death metal", they say that the album still belongs to the genre regardless of its popularity.

Also, for a band to be considered part of a genre doesn't mean that every single album has to have the same designation, the band just have to be designated as such by a reliable source to satisfy WP:EXPLICITGENRE. It's not necessary to pinpoint where the designation is justified, being recognized by reputable people/institutions is enough. ABC paulista (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging other editors who have recently made edits to this content: @Binksternet and Second Skin: Please weigh in. Do sources support the claim that Cannibal Corpse is a band that exemplifies brutal death metal to such a degree that we would list them as a prime example of the subgenre along with only a handful of other bands that exemplify the genre (Dying Fetus, Suffocation, Cryptopsy, and Skinless)? —Alalch E. 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Consequence.net said that the band is known for their "brutal palate", that they "excel at making brutal death metal memorable, if not palatable," and that they have a "legacy of brutality." Satisfies WP:EXPLICITGENRE. Seems pretty solid to me. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The book Death Metal Music: The Passion and Politics of a Subculture state that With little contention, Cannibal Corpse's first album, Eaten Back to Life, was deemed pure, brutal Death Metal, the book Extreme Metal II state that Buffalo band Cannibal Corpse are perhaps the most devoted brutal death metal act in this book, rarely diverging from the path of the blastbeat and the throaty roar., and both this book and Masterclass directly cites it as a Brutal Death metal band. ABC paulista (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)