Jump to content

Talk:Doom metal

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacula?

[edit]

Based on what I've seen while researching this, I know I'm going to regret opening this can of worms, but - Are we sure Jacula, listed as one of the "other notable groups" from the 1970s, really existed as a notable or even real band in that decade?

Jacula was introduced in the Doom Metal page on "14:37, 27 August 2016‎ ABC paulista" - and I think ABC paulista added it in good faith based on the band's claims, but the citation used is a link to a page under construction, which seems to have been the band's own page on their label's website, and this isn't my first time running into trouble tracing Jacula to any legitimate source earlier than the year 2000 or so.

The band's Wikipedia page looks downright suspicious over its history, the folks at the Metal Archives seem to have nothing on them while finding their strangely modern production suspect, the only citations I can find for the band's existence before the 1990s seem to come from the band's autobiographies and hype appearing in blogs and wikis suddenly through the 2000s, and their pre-2000 autobiography claiming to have invented extreme metal before Black Sabbath existed reads like something from "This is Spinal Tap" with the punchlines filed off: https://dangerousminds.net/comments/bleak_sabbath_did_the_mysterious_occult_group_jacula_invent_black_metal_in_

Based on everything I've seen when researching Jacula and Antonius Rex back in the early 2000s, and again now, I have no reason to think this band isn't... "exaggerating their back story a little". Furthermore, I think Wikipedia (along with a bunch of other wikis and blogs and zine review pages) are being used to help build a fake history for a pair of bands (Jacula, Antonius Rex) that I don't think existed much earlier than the year 2001. Jacula claims to be a metal band older than Black Sabbath that nobody has heard of until the band started trying to sell "rare" and suspiciously modern-sounding records in the 2000s; I can't find such extraordinary claims credible, without proof more extraordinary than the band's own hype posted to wikis and blogs long after the fact.

Can anyone really demonstrate that Jacula were...

  1. Really an active band in the 1970s [EDIT: I think they might have been active in the 1970s, but NOT the 1960s, and not as the same band after the 1970s], and
  2. If so, that they were notable enough to have left any genuine footnotes in 1970s history that didn't have to be added by the band's promotion after the fact? (EDIT: I think they might have been a genuine band in the 1970s, but NOT a notable "doom metal" act - I think the metal songs were recorded by different musicians - notably the original musicians' son - no earlier than the 1990s; thus, I would suggest that Jacula were not a real doom metal act or even a metal act, let alone a notable one, in the 1960s or 1970s.)

16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywhateley (talk • contribs)

If you look at Jacula's source, you'll see that that page is from Sputnikmusic, a well-known and renowed source here. It's neither near close as being Jaculas's own page, nor a label's website. ABC paulista (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the Jacula review by Sputnikmusic doom metal is not mentioned, the linked article is about Flower Travellin' band and it is also under construction so that remains WITHOUT SOURCES. Also, I ask you: are the Sputnikmusic reviewers music critics? They have nicknames and it is not clear what are the criteria to be considered a member of the staff. It does not seem like a professional site to me, it is not All Music Guide, About.com, Kerrang or such. Why is it considered a professional source, are there proofs of it being compiled by competent people? Jacua were formed in 1972 according to early sources (in 1969 they were called Dietro Noi Deserto and they played beat music, as quoted by newspapers articles of those years, and collectors who lived those times). Sometimes, in the later years, Bartoccetti said that they were born in 1969, sometimes he said they were born in 1966, continuosly contradicting himself also stating that "In Cauda" was released in few copie, never released or distributed to religious cults, depending on the interview. The album does not appear on the Gnome catalogue from the '60s and the cover (turned black-and-white) comes from a comic book which came out in 1972 ("Terror" #27). The album "In Cauda" was recorded at the end of the 1990s (in the SIAE register the son of Bartocetti, born in 1977, is credited as having contributed to compose the album) and is not mentioned in the band's catalogue nor it is in any interview until the late '90s/early2000s. The leader of Black Widow Records (who printed the album in 2001) said that even he never saw the supposed original album. --79.52.115.179 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! At the risk of beating a dead horse, first, I stand corrected - Sputnikmusic is a review site, not the band's label site. Nevertheless, I have to agree with the commenter above: Sputnikmusic's reviewers appear to be anonymous amateur reviewers, the reviewer behind the Jacula review only posted seven reviews, all within a span of a couple months, the glowingly positive Jacula review being the first of them, before the reviewer disappeared. It's frightfully easy to create a "sock puppet" account: I was able to create an account to post a review with rather easily, there don't appear to be any particular requirements for doing so, and the only thing standing between a fake review and the public are anonymous moderators who moderate based on standards I couldn't find; it looks like we're simply depending on a volunteer's ability to catch a suspicious-sounding review.

On further reflection, I believe that a version of Jacula existed in the 1970s, recording prog music in the form of organ music and sound effects with spoken word passages, poetry readings, or vocals. But, it's worth noting that Discogs.com now lists the In Caudo... album as a product of the year 2001, and even the Sputnikmusic site concedes that elements of the so-called 1969 album probably weren't recorded before 1980, and researching the Bartoccettis further reveals that there are two different musicians named "A. Bartoccetti": Antonio Bartoccetti (prog musician born in 1946), and Anthony Bartoccetti (AKA "Rex Anthony", DJ and experimental/electronic music enthusiast born in 1977), who seems to be son of the elder Atonio Bartoccetti and producer Doris Norton. I'll also note that several bands relating to Antonio Bartoccetti, Anthony Bartoccetti, A. Bartoccetti, Anthony Rex, Rex Anthony, Atonius Rex, Antonius Bartocetti, etc. were active in the early 1970s, before a period of almost 20 years of inactivity, before activity resumed in the 1990s.

What I THINK might be happening with Jacula is that the elder Antonio Bartoccetti recorded the prog organ music in the 1970s with his wife Doris Norton producing and performing vocals, with the couple also being involved in one or two other Italian prog acts, before retiring those efforts, with Doris apparently being active through the 1980s and 1990s as a producer. By the 1990s or 2000s (the 2000s seem more likely), the younger Anthony Bartoccetti appears to have dubbed some of the older recordings into new, modern releases under his father's name, back-dating the recordings to the 1960s, perhaps as a misguided tribute to his parents, or (I think more likely) as a hoax taking advantage of interest in vintage, obscure underground "proto-metal" acts.

In short, I think Jacula's organ-based prog music might have been legitimately produced in the 1970s, but the alleged 1969 "doom metal" is actually a far more recent product of the original musician's son, using some samples from the 1970s. Unfortunately, this is speculation: everything about this band and the people involved is dubious and difficult to sort between reliable fact, and fiction.

Ywhateley (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the mix, I (Ywhateley) will add the following points against the doom metal claim, made by an anonymous commenter at psychedelicbabymag.com (admittedly hardly a weighty source under ordinary circumstances, and the hear-say of course can be taken with an appropriate grain of salt, but I feel this particular anonymous commentator otherwise does make some excellent points I didn't catch myself:

"The Jacula/Antonius Rex story is almost certainly a hoax, for the following reasons:

  1. None of the "disputed" albums ("In Cauda Semper Stat Venenum", "Neque Semper Arcum Tendit Rex" and "Praeternatural") sound like they were recorded between 1969 and 1980. They are modern progressive metal, complete with programmed drums.
  2. None of these albums sound anything like the LPs that were actually released in the seventies ("Tardo Pede In Magiam Versus", "Zora" and "Ralefun"), none of which have any metal elements whatsoever.
  3. They do, however, sound very similar to one another — probably because they were recorded right after one another in the early noughties.
  4. Not a single copy of any of the disputed albums has ever been offered for sale or is in the possession of any known collector. This simply *never* happens, no matter how rare a rock LP. A "white label" "original" copy of "Tardo Pede…" was once offered, at a huge price, on eBay. When I contacted the seller, he said that he was a friend of the band and had no idea whether what he was selling was authentic. He sounded very embarrassed about the whole thing.
  5. The band later changed their story about the white label, claiming it was remixed and repressed in 1981 in the Ukraine by a band associate. The Ukraine? It was part of the communist USSR. You couldn't simply have wandered into a studio and pressing plant with a tape of an obscure Western underground band and asked them to run off 100 copies.
  6. I have another mutual friend with the band, who has described them as "compulsive liars".
  7. Charles Tiring was supposedly 68 when he recorded "Tardo Pede…" (and had allegedly just married an 18-year-old). According to the band, he died in 1979 (in mysterious circumstances, of course). Yet the band credited him as keyboardist on the (supposedly) 1990 recording "Magic Ritual", indicating they can't keep track of their own claims.
  8. Drummer Albert Goodman was supposedly an English nobleman with his own castle; he was allegedly murdered in Slovenia (which didn't exist at the time) in 1978. Allegedly he had contacts with the Italian branch of Vertigo, which was planning to issue "Neque Semper…" back in 1974, but they refused because they considered the cover and the lyrics to "Devil Letter" too controversial. The cover isn't controversial and occult rock was huge at the time, so this seems extremely unlikely.
  9. "Praeternatural" credits Doris Norton with "Fairlight CMI". How would Bartocetti and Norton have got their hands on such a rare and expensive piece of kit back in 1980?
  10. The final smoking gun: Norton's solo album "The Double Side Of The Science" (1990) includes a discography in its booklet, complete with inflated collectors' prices for all her releases. None of the disputed albums is mentioned (and neither is her non-existent solo "debut" "Under Ground") as the band hadn't made them yet.

- Anonymous Comment (source)

Allmusic

[edit]

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

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

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

William Harris, you may be right about Allmusic's rating as a source, but the quote you presented is just a general recommendation for such cases, and does not support your assessements/opinions about Allmusic's circunstantial reliability. Furthermore, WP:ALLMUSIC directly states that their reliablilty is contested when their info deals with WP:BLP, which is not the case here. So it is generally considered an acceptable source, not only for "entertainment reviews" like you stated, although WP:INTEXT is recommended when using them. About better sourcing being needed, just be WP:BOLD and present what you have, but the lack of such doesn't justify the content removal you promoted. Allmusic is fine if no better sourcing is being currently presented, and should only be removed if being confronted, contradicted by said better sourcing. ABC paulista (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that it was not an acceptable source (above), I stated that it was a dubious source, and a better source was needed. So if my template had read "reason=WP:ALLMUSIC, refer WP:MREL rating" then that would have been acceptable?
The second issue, your reversions with "Sludge metal and Stoner metal are subgenres of doom metal, so such inclusions are pertinent to the article." The article states that these are derivatives, not sub-genres. The bands I removed from under the "Louisiana doom metal" scene did not have one mention of "doom" in their cited articles. These are largely sludge-core bands. If I had arrived in NOLA in the 90s, and went out to see any of these bands as doom bands, I would have been disappointed. The references do not support their inclusion. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris, I have no objections on the inclusion of such tags, but the reasoning behind it (dubious for anything other than entertainment reviews with attribution) is wrong. And about Stoner and Sludge metal status of subgenres, they are included on the "Fusion genres" section of the infobox, they are summarized under the "Stylistic divisions" section, a section on music genre's articles dedicated for discussions on their own subgenres, and we already had an extensive discussion on this matter at Talk:Extreme metal. ABC paulista (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Harris, while it's true that it is not stated directly, it is also clear that in both articles the two terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same genre (In no moment they neither state that they are dealing with multiple genre genre, nor they establish differences between Stoner metal and Stoner doom). But if that is not enough for you, Jonathan Piper's "Locating experiential richness in doom metal" state that "One of the most significant styles of doom, even to the point where it might be considered a fully parallel subgenre alongside doom, is stoner doom, often simply called stoner metal." About the current state of this genre, I do agree that it needs more info about the main genre, but I don't see how the current stated might mis-advise readers, and removing the subgenres would remove an important part of a music genre's articles, especially for a diversed and fragmented genre like Doom metal. ABC paulista (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Piper - do you have any other sources apart from someone's thesis that has not been published in an academic journal? William Harris (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my comment above. A detailed search of the academic literature reveals endless debate over what type of music should fall under which umbrella. One persons sub-genre of heavy metal is another persons sub-genre of doom, and so it goes on. Piper is just one of the many contenders. There was even one paper discussing that some writers regard doom, stoner, and sludge as falling under the doom umbrella but this is a recent concept, then goes on to discuss "traditional" doom, stoner, and sludge as a contrast. William Harris (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris, Piper's work was peer-reviewed and published by UC San Diego. And about Sludge and Stoner's staus as Doom subgenre, AFAIK they always been considered as such, most bands and sources from the past cite doom bands as major influences (some even state that Stoner metal stylistically started from Wino-era Saint Vitus). I've seen some debate on whether Sludge and Stoner nowadadys should be considered their own genres and be fully separated from Doom, but the ones who defend such distinction are still a vast minority. ABC paulista (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in what PhD reviews are conducted within a university; the candidate is generally among friends - those who helped teach them what they are stating. That is not the same as when published in a peer-reviewed journal, where they can be challenged by their peers, globally. Inclusions are subject to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", and "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature", which is the case with this one. Your apparent prejudice towards academic thesis is not supported by Wikipedia. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert of "The sources you presented don't seem to state that Sludge came from Washington, but state that Melvins made the first album to be considered Sludge, which happens to be from Washington". This is much the same situation as the sources presented under Louisiana don't "explicitly" state that these are doom bands, but you have no hesitation in supporting those. Given that the Melvins were producing sludge albums before Eyehategod was formed, that nails it for Washington State. You removed my edit and references without amending them for your finding (above) which you might have done - a POV appears to have formed and supported in this article, and therefore I am leaving it. William Harris (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Harris, these are distinct situations: Some sources do call some bands as Doom ones (like Crowbar's one, for example), but all of them are called either Doom, Sludge or Stoner metal bands. And since Sludge and Stoner are Doom metal subgenres, all Sludge and Stoner metal bands are, by default, Doom metal ones (just like Thrash, Power, Glam, Doom, Gothic and other metal bands are considered Heavy metal bands by default). The same cannot be said about a genre's "birthplace": a genre's "birthplace" is not always considered to be where the first record of such genre was made (or from where the band is from), but sometimes is considered to be where is became distingushable and/or it gained notoriety. A similar situation happened with the Second-wave Black metal: Although it always have been associated with Norwegian black metal bands, bands like Master's Hammer (from Czechoslovakia), Marduk and Dissection (from Sweden), Sigh (from Japan) and Blasphemy (from Canada) did that sound before. But still, Norway is considered its "birthplace" because it was where it gained fame and developed a constant output of bands, just like Sludge developed on New Orleans. Also, I didn't remove your sources, I relocated them to a better section. ABC paulista (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louder Than Hell book source wrongly attributed to wrong person.

[edit]

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

Black Sabbath is clearly not doom metal

[edit]

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

Reliable sources routinely describe them as doom and being integral to the start of the doom genre. — Czello (music) 10:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doom_metal&oldid=1234694327"