Talk:New wave of British heavy metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleNew wave of British heavy metal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 27, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2016Good article nomineeListed
May 17, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Melodic death metal[edit]

@Lewismaster what's wrong with including this as a derivative? The About.com info page I cited clearly states it has characteristics of NWOBHM.--MASHAUNIX 20:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your talk page. Lewismaster (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New wave of British heavy 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles[edit]

Related to the change of "Although encompassing various mainstream and underground styles" in which it was replaced by "Although it can be considered more underground than mainstream". The change was made with the intention of highlighting NWOBHM in favor of the underground scene, the reasons for this I also discussed in the changes made by me and related to several references in the article NWOBHM which comes out more underground than mainstream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.97.176.160 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered in your talk page, but I want to stress that the sentence is about the music played by the young metal bands in that period. Much of the music was very mainstream, radio-friendly and inspired by well-known hard rock bands from the 70s. A few new musical elements were introduced by the new bands, which became quite popular and mainstream in a couple of years, as the British charts clearly show. I would add that what you wrote doesn't work with the rest of the sentence for me and doesn't give the reader the important information that the music of that period had many styles in it, even if it was simply called heavy metal. Lewismaster (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we can have the discussion here as well.
Indeed, NWOBHM is not a musical genre and a movement, and for that I apologize for my mistake, related to the question that brought us here and your questions: It's a little hard to define what the underground was like in the 70's and 80's respectively, because I didn't live in those events at that time. Regarding the radio broadcasting phase, then the radios are not as you perceive them. Not everyone has / owns a mainstream automatic radio, the radio was a key source for other subcultures (ex punk), at that time there were radios that promoted underground music (It's like saying you're not underground if you listen to music from internet apps). Doesn't my sentence make sense? You can define what it doesn't make sense to say specifically about DIY and independent record label, and again I specified that the sources in the article indicate this. And the final note, of course, I do not intend to throw in the trash that worked some people before me, to make a rather minor accuracy once the journalist Geoff Barton himself who called the movement says that once some troops have entered the mainstream the movement ended. 213.233.88.108 (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition does not make sense in the contest of that sentence, which wants to convey some info about the music played and the styles involved. What you wrote is not about styles but apparently about the movemnt itself, because it would be sincerely difficult to make a ranking of "undergroundness"and "mainstreamingness" in NWOBHM music. I lived in those times and in those 80s' compilations you could find poppy catchy tunes as well as barely-listenable and awfully-recorded noisy tracks. Mainstream and underground went hand in hand under the banner heavy metal. I remember an interview with Kelly Johnson of Girlschool where she remarked how ridiculous it was that Rush, ZZ Top, Motörhead and Venom were labelled in the same music genre. But that was what the press and record labels were doing in the early 80s. Lewismaster (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You asked some more questions, I answered them and your questions on the personal "talk" page were about the movement itself. What doesn't make sense about why, I just make sense of it because as an ordinary reader I can understand "various mainstream and underground styles" means that it was inspired by undergraund / mainstream music genres even though they are in a form or other "scenes" not styles. You lived in that period of congratulating you sincerely, when the movement ended I didn't exist in the world but that's not what we're talking about here we are talking about an encyclopedia and if the sources indicate something like this it should be written and for me it turns out to be more underground.
And the bands that I will list that have reached a huge popularity in the mainstream like Iron MaidenIron Maiden, became mainstream at the end of the movement and yet the NWOBHM troops were not reserved only for a few known bands and it was practically ''a finger compared to a whole hand''. 213.233.88.108 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you insist in editing the intro, without understanding what the sentence that you continuosly change means and what I am saying. The intro of an article sums up what is inside the article for the casual reader and a large part of the article is about music styles. The fact that the NWOBHM is more underground than mainstream can be partially true, but it is not the focus of the article and is a lot less important than giving the readers a glimpse of the variety of musical tastes present in the music of that period. That it started as an underground movement is already clerly stated and there is no need to insist on the concept. Please, don't continue this edit war. Lewismaster (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase is a bit out of place in the sense that it jumps a bit from one idea to another and I don't think it's necessary to mention that it was both underground and mainstream, although I understand that it's a phrase added in 2016, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed , I express my opinion because I saw that they have several individuals who tried to remove it. I see that the way the underground and mainstream scene is approached is already maintained in the following lines, I don't think it's necessary to mention it here. Raphael the great (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The part that you want to erease is about the MUSIC and is used to describe it. The rest of the intro is about underground movements. The two parts are not summarizing the same thing even if similar words are used. Is it so difficult to understand that they are different things? Lewismaster (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way you explained it here no, it needs to be clearer define for a non-connoisseur what it means "Although encompassing diverse mainstream and underground styles", I personally understand that he means that he was in both scenes, it's just that it's a phrase that it's a bit misleading because when you say "Although encompassing diverse..." it doesn't make as much sense because it's not as clear as you'd think, underground or mainstream are just music scenes not styles to define music, plus it's not relevant to say it was in both scenes, i understand it's a phrase added by you yourself back in 2016 that doesn't mean it can't be replaced or removed. Raphael the great (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that sentence summarizes an important section of the article and what it says can be rephrased but should not be ereased. Did you read the article and in particular the section "Musical and lyrical elements"? The first sentence is "The NWOBHM – comprising bands with very different influences and styles" and most of the section describes how in the NWOBHM were present both musical styles coming from underground (pub rock, punk rock) and mainstream (hard rock, prog rock) music. I remind you that an intro should not be detailed, but give hints of what is in the article. Maybe you can try to change the sentence, maintaining its meaning. By the way, I did not write this draft of the intro, but I find it pertinent to what is in the article. Lewismaster (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you're really right, it's kind of silly to remove everything and yes, it's really a much better option to be reformulated, but it's a bit strange to say underground and mainstream, for example an ordinary reader won't note that it refers to porg rock and hard rock for the mainstream and punk rock and pub rock for the underground, because they won't understand that this is actually what they are referring to, it should be simplified a bit, but also make a little sense because it's very weird the reference, you can say for example that "incorporated various styles of rock music" would be much better and clearer for everyone. Do you agree with this proposal? Raphael the great (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK. Try to rewrite the sentence with that snippet. Lewismaster (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding, "Although encompassing diverse styles inherited from rock music" is the new phrase of the intro. Raphael the great (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of glam metal[edit]

Two fundaments of Wikipedia are verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and readibility (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is human readable). Fellow editor User:StjepanHR claims that the words "image-driven, sex-celebrating" used in the article to summarize aspects of the glam metal genre in the 80s are biased and go against WP:IMPARTIAL. I contest his point of view in both merit and method.

  • Mertit - glam metal in the 80s was exactly what those few words describe. The musicians' looks were gaudy, colorful, androgynous and often more important than their music; the lyrics of their songs were sexist, indulged in the description of sexual acts and their main topics were rock 'n' roll lifestyle and romance. This is all verifiable, there is plenty of literature about it and I don't think that it can be disputed. The use of those words give the reader of the article important information about the stark contrast between glam metal and the NWOBHM, whose bands had in general a uniform uncospicuous appearance and whose lyrics were about horror and youthful fantasy. I think that cutting off those words is detrimental to the article and impoverishes the information that it conveys.
  • Method - I saw in recent times that some editors have the tendency of being bold (Wikipedia:Be bold) in cutting off more or less large parts of articles, without much concern about the work of those who preceded them. This article passed through months of scrutiny and editing by dozens of senior editors before being promoted to its Featured status and its neutral point of view was assessed many times. Of course, we all strive to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia possible and any contribution is welcomed as long as it does not cancel important info, is verifiable and referenced. IMO, if User:StjepanHR was somehow offended by those words, the right course of action was to find different words or modify the syntax of the sentence, remaining concise, maintaining the meaning of the paragraph and maybe even adding some new references.

I hope that this discussion does not escalate further and that my explanation is sufficient to settle the dispute. User:StjepanHR, please, write below your thoughts about it. Lewismaster (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problemS with the statement are quite obvious, IMHO. Please note that I am writing this not to offend You in any way. I am a HUGE fan of both glam metal and NWOBHM movement for about two decades, so I am not leaning to the side of each of them (I actually find them to be quite similar, aside from obvious NWOBHM outliers liek Venom or Witchfinder General). However:
  • most of rock (and early metal) lyrics can be classified in two categories: love- (or just sex-, depending on the song) celebrating songs and songs dealing with general lifestyle connected with that type of music - "sex, drugs and RNR". For example, Def Leppard, Saxon, Girlschool, Tokyo Blade, Praying Mantis, and even Judas Priest and Motorhead (I know, they are not NWOBHM, but are the most direct precusors to the movement), plus sex was found in the lyrics of so-called "occult" bands like Angel Witch. While some NWOBHM bands (such as Venom, Witchfinder General, Demon etc.) continued in the "darker" fashion of early Black Sabbath, the huge majority of NWOBHM bands had lyrics not very different from US glam metal or 70s hard rock/early metal in the vein of Scorpions. Thus, mentioning "sex-celebrating" in the context of glam metal would mean that it differs from NWOBHM in the lyric themes, which is (mostly) not true. Just like there are NWOBHM bands standing out from "sex, drugs and RNR" formula, we had glam metal bands with Christian lyrics (Stryper, Leciticus from Sweden, Holy Soldier and many more) and those touching upon much darker themes (just look at some of the earlier albums from Europe, they even had horror-themes "Seven Doors Hotel", or Motley Crue, two of the most famous bands)
  • "image-driven" implies that musicianship was not important to glam metal bands, while it was the genre that established shred guitar playing as we know it today: Eddie Van Halen was both amond the "founding fathers" of glam metal and shred-guitar, and glam metal guitarists included many of the important virtuoso players of the time: Nuno Bettencourt (Extreme), Steve Vai (David Lee Roth and Whitesnake), Yngwie Malmsteen (Steeler and early solo work), Michael Schenker (in various projects), etc, etc. I think it is simply wrong to label the genre that emphasised technical abilities so much as "image-driven". On the other hand, quite a few NWOBHM bands had very basic musicianship.
  • "image-driven" also implies that NWOBHM was not image-driven. While glam metal bands sported more extravagant appearance influenced by early-70s glam rock, NWOBHM bands almost exclusively sported "denim and leather" look. The image was so prevalent that it is actually the title of the Saxon's album, which is quite often included in various NWOBHM Top 10 albums lists. Actually, it is hard to find a single picture of a NWOBHM-era band in which the band-members DIDN'T have this visual appearance, plus the almost-obligatory long-hair (Paul Di'Anno aside).
Considering the references, I can back-up everything I wrote with valid citation, but it is also important not to use references that are obviously hateful towards glam metal. Jelaousy is, sadly, very prominent in the metal world and most of the popular genres get a lot of hate from the so-called "critics". For example, I can't stand most nu metal or metalcore bands, but I would never, ever, write derogatory words about them, but many "critics" can't seem to separate their personal opinions and objective qualities. StjepanHR (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to have this discussion to clear up opinions about editing and sources. Unfortunately, many reliable sources are the reviews of those "critics" that you despise. Writing musical articles for an encyclopedia sometimes implies the balance of different points of view, which does not necessarily mean that those opinions are true. However, I do not agree with your statements above, maybe originated because you did not read the article with due attention. In the section about "Musical and lyrical elements" there is a short paragraph where the themes of NWOBHM lyrics are listed and referenced. It is written that "songs about romance and lust were rare". On the contrary, in the glam metal article a sentence says "lyrical themes often deal with love and lust, with songs often directed at a particular woman", followed by a good reference. The words "rare" and "often" used in those sentences indicates the general direction in most songs by most bands and it is not the same for NWOBHM and glam metal. There are a few exceptions in both genres, but you cannot say that they are similar.
No one says that glam metal did not have virtuoso musicians, because some of the greatest came from that period and genre. What I meant is that the glam metal bands' look was a winning card in the MTV-dominated second half of the 80s. In the "Decline" section, it is written that "music videos exalted the visual appeal of a band, an area where some British metal groups were deficient". Many NWOBHM musicians did not conform to the Californian look (attractive, lean, athletic, full of combed hair and make-up); many of them had short hair or were even bald, some others were fat and clumsy. It was not important when playing in a club in your hometown, but it became a problem when your band could be broadcasted worldwide. Their denim and leather uniform was inconsequential to distinguish them. Can you contest that glam metal bands' image contributed greatly to their success? Would Ratt, Poison, Dokken, Winger, Mötley Crüe and the likes be so successful without their colorful, choreographed music videos shot by Hollywood pros? I don't think so. The denim and leather uniform worn by British headbangers was essentially the same adopted by most American thrash metal bands and it was not so important in getting them recognition and success in mainstream media. Until Metallica went commercial... Lewismaster (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't neccessarily disagree with YOu on most things. I wan't just to clear few things. Firstly, the (sourced) statement that "songs about romance and lust were rare" in NWOBHM is baffling to me. While they were not as prevalent as in glam metal, they were certainly quite numerous, even in the more famous bands, and especially in those bands that were widely considered to be NWOBHM at the time, but are now frowned upon by so-called "true" metalheads.
As for the visual appearance, I think the glam metal image was sort-of "right thing in a right time" and music (and TV) producers saw their chance in those bands. Mind You, glam metal was around for quite a few years before it really became mainstream music (and inspired many imitators in the late-80s), while NWOBHM icons Iron Maiden and Def Leppard had debut album that charted at 4th place and 15th place respectivelly, in the UK, and another icons, Saxon's second album (released slightly over half a year after the debut) charted at No.5. I might be wrong, but I think the first glam metal album to chart in the Top 10 in the US was Quiet Riot's third album in 1983, while the genre started a few years earlier, with Motley Crue's and Dokken's debut (I have even seen Def Leppard's High 'n' Dry, a NWOBHM album, listed as the first glam metal album on various sites). So, I think it was the other way around - young musicians (mostly) from the states decided to fuse musical style of NWOBHM and 70s hard rock/heavy metal like Scorpions, Kiss or Van Halen with the glam rock visual appearance and it turned out successfully for them. While their image did help, it was not the only reason for their success. Also, a lot of NWOBHM bands relied HEAVILY on their visual appearance, especially theatrics during the live shows.
While visual appearance of thrash metal bands was closer to NWOBHM bands' look (glam metal took image from another British (and American) genre - glam rock), bands like Quiet Riot, WASP, Motley Crue, Ratt, Stryper, Dokken, etc. were much closer to NWOBHM musically (again, excluding very rare exceptions like Venom). You and I are both fans of metal and/or rock music, so we would immediately spot the difference between Saxon and Dokken, but give any random man from the street a listen to, let's say, Iron Maiden's, Saxon's or Def Leppard's early album and then a listen to Slayer's and Motley Crue's debut and I don't have any doubt that he will say the Crue's debut sound more similar.
All in all, while we can say that glam metal image had greater impact on their later commercial success, it wasn't formed with the intention of being successful. Just like NWOBHM bands took their appearance from the 1960s, as the NWOBHM article states "The dress code of the British headbangers reflected the newly found cohesion of the movement and recalled the look of 1960s rockers and American bikers.", the glam metal band took their look from the early 1970s glam rock. Neither of them adopted the image bacause they thought it would immediately bring them success, but because they felt like that at the time. Of course, glam metal image was more successful with the TV era, but it is a thing that happenned after the visual appearance of the glam metal was already established.
To conclude everything, I would like the contested sentence to be rewritten from "By the mid-1980s, image-driven, sex-celebrating glam metal emanating from Hollywood's Sunset Strip, spearheaded by Van Halen and followed by bands such as Mötley Crüe, Quiet Riot, Dokken, Great White, Ratt and W.A.S.P., quickly replaced other styles of metal in the tastes of many British rock fans." to "By the mid-1980s, glam metal emanating from Hollywood's Sunset Strip, combining more flamboyant glam rock visual appearance and putting more emphasis on lyrical themes about lust and love and spearheaded by Van Halen and followed by bands such as Mötley Crüe, Quiet Riot, Dokken, Great White, Ratt and W.A.S.P., quickly replaced other styles of metal in the tastes of many British rock fans."
Ok, maybe make it a bit less clumsy, but English is not my first language :) StjepanHR (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just one remark not entirely important for the discussion. You seem to wrote: "Many NWOBHM musicians did not conform to the Californian look (attractive, lean, athletic, full of combed hair and make-up); many of them had short hair or were even bald, some others were fat and clumsy." While make-up and combed hair was indeed not typical of NWOBHM, there were some bands sporting that look even then (like the NWOBHM band Girl, which predated Motley Crue for a few years). Similarly, very, very few NWOBHM musicians were bald or short-haired (some of them still sported medium-length hair not unlike the 1960s rock musicians, but really short hair was pretty rare), as it can be seen by observing band images on NWOBHM.com. Also, both glam metal and NWOBHM musicians were of similar built (again, I am not counting exceptions like the singer of The Handsome Beasts) and I don't think (although, as a straight male, I am not the best judge) that most glam metal musicians were physically attractive. If we see the prototypical-glam metal band Van Halen, we have attractive David Lee Roth, extremely average looking (and almost short haired) Michael Anthony, Motley Crue had attractive Nikki Sixx and Tommy Lee and at best average Mick Mars, among the other famous singers (I am now excluding musicians), we had not-very-attractive or average Dee Snider (Twisted Sister), Kevin DuBrow (Quiet Riot) and strange looking Blackie Lawless (WASP), together with older singers like Alice Cooper and Klaus Meine (Scorpions), which were not exactly the stereotypical good-looking-men. Of course, there were also singers loved by women mainly for their looks, like Bon Jovi (my mother-in-law's favourite) and Europe's Joey Tempest (my aunt's favourite), but for every Bon Jovi or Tempest, you had Dee Snider or Kevin DuBrow. The "good-looking glam metal musician" stereotype seems more like something out of Count Raven's "In the Name of Rock 'n' Roll" than as an actual reality. StjepanHR (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lived those years in the 80s as a teen-ager and I can assure you that every rock music TV show was filled with beautiful people singing, playing, dancing or just staring around. Those videos were shot to emphasize a stereotype of beauty and even ugly trolls looked cool in them. A few videos relied on shock rock theatrics (WASP and Twisted Sister come to mind). MTV ruled in those days and metal bands from Europe had to comply to the new standards of style and appearance. Do you remember Judas Priest in full-costume during the Turbo tour or Girlschool with heavy make-up an puffed hair in the "Running Wild" video?
Lewismaster (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is not wrong, but a little bit too long and convoluted. Maybe a third opinion is needed to help us in sorting out this conundrum. I asked it with the proper form. Lewismaster (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I certainly don't think it's inaccurate to say that glam was image-driven and sex-celebrating (and I'm old enough to remember it; don't tell anyone.) But phrasing it like that is probably a little too on the nose. I think the alternate phrasing proposed above is too wordy, but it's going the right general direction. Maybe something like "Glam metal, which often emphasized a band's appearance and featured lyrics about love and sex,..."? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick intervention and for your suggestion. I'll wait for my fellow editor to agree with the changes to be made. Lewismaster (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks for the polite discussion to both :) EDIT: I only think that "love and lust" would be more comprehensive than "love and sex". Other than I think it is quite good. StjepanHR (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having used "lust" already for the first description of lyrical content, maybe it's better to change word here. Lewismaster (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. I just thought that "lust" has a broader meaning than "sex", but I am fine with both. StjepanHR (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glam metal among the "derivative forms"[edit]

Current infobox lists "Black metal, power metal, speed metal, thrash metal" among the derivative forms. As touched upon in the previous discussion about the glam metal, among the progenitors of glam metal were Def Leppard and Girl (and I would add Marseille's 1979 album as a significant influence on GM and Fastway's 1983 album as a contemporary to the first GM wave in the US). The article even states "The stardom of Def Leppard in the US provided a catalyst for the growth of glam metal". Furthermore, apart from "speed metal", which was actually played by a small number of NWOBHM bands, power, black and thrash metal were only influenced by some of the bands that were part of the NWOBHM, but actually don't sound that much alike, apart from some of the earlier power metal and some melodic thrash (I am NOT including post-1983 debuts by bands like Atomkraft or Blood Money, released when thrash metal was already established in the USA), while most of the early glam metal (early Crue, early-mid 1980s Quiet Riot, Dokken, etc.) actually sounded like NWOBHM bands with American accents. I definitely think that "glam metal" should be added to the infobox, but I am leaving this section for possible oposing views. StjepanHR (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you are writing appears to be influenced by your personal tastes and musical background. Wikipedia is founded on reliable sources and a no original research policy. If you have reliable sources saying that glam metal derives from this movement, provide them. Right now, all other subgenres are referenced in the article as derivative ot the NWOBHM, but not glam metal. Lewismaster (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but now You are accusing me of the same thing You do. I get it that You hate glam metal and I love it, but please leave Your personal taste aside. I also love Venom (for example, my early 2000s band was mostly influenced by that band and I recorded and released a Venom-clone single in 2010), Witchfinder General, Pagan Altar, but also I love Girl, Def Leppard, etc., so there is no bias from my side. The article clearly states: "The overwhelming international success of Pyromania induced both American and British bands to follow Def Leppard's example, giving a decisive boost to the more commercial and melodic glam metal and heralding the end of the NWOBHM." and also: "The stardom of Def Leppard in the US provided a catalyst for the growth of glam metal, just as bands like Angel Witch, Witchfynde, Cloven Hoof and especially Venom generated the music, lyrics, cover art and attitude that sparked black metal in its various forms in Europe and America. Motörhead, Iron Maiden, Raven, Tank, Venom and several minor groups are viewed as precursors of speed metal and thrash metal, two subgenres which carried forward the crossover with punk, incorporating elements of hardcore while amplifying volume, velocity and aggressive tone." Pretty much this means that glam metal is as derivative of NWOBHM as much as the other styles lsited. EDIT: The sentence above is the ONLY mention of black metal in this article and YOu don't seem to have any problem with it, yet glam metal is mentioned twice and You seem to overlook it. Interesting... StjepanHR (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, here are few quotes from the Popoff's book on glam metal:
  • "The UK’s Girl unwittingly contributes to the invention of hair metal..."
  • "Def Leppard’s debut album, On Through the Night, considered the most Americanized, professional, and accomplished of all NWOBHM albums, a pointer toward the next metal trend."
  • "Def Leppard issue their second album, High ’n’ Dry. It’s now viewed, in retrospect, as a well-regarded proto–hair metal album—essentially good heavy party metal."
  • "Key NWOBHM band Tygers of Pan Tang go radically melodic and poppy on their third album, The Cage, placing themselves ahead of their time and confusing the home-country punters."
  • "January 20, 1983: Def Leppard’s breakthrough record, Pyromania, ushers in the advent of “pop metal.” "
StjepanHR (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone of accusation is unaccepteable. I asked for references for your changes to this article and you accuse me of hatred towards a musical genre for which I wrote often and edited dozens of articles. Not very mature. I don't have the book by Popoff, but it is a reliable source and should be listed among the references to justify what was written. Lewismaster (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the book is already among the sources. Lewismaster (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Your revert was extremely rude and immature. I tried to be reasonable, but You accused me of bias, while I provided the very citation that references glam metal as the off-shot of NWOBHM on talk page on 11 August ("The stardom of Def Leppard in the US provided a catalyst for the growth of glam metal.") and edited the main article full five days later, in case comeone has any objections. If YOu really wanted to be polite, You could have put "citation needed" tag or something like that. Or at least, You could have notified me about the removal of "glam metal" among the derivative forms. You didn't do any of that, so don't expect other people to be polite with You. Furthermore, none of the other four genres listed - thrash, power, speed and black are referenced in the infobox, but in the main text, just like glam metal in the citation I provided on 11 August (and the other one I provided yesterday). I am open to mature and polite discussion, but if You keep removing the added content without notification and if you childishly accuse other people of editing based on their personal taste, while I provided the in-text citation several days before I edited the article, You really can't expect the most polite reply from them. StjepanHR (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Countless[edit]

User:Andreldritch insists in changing the intro of the article with the word "countless" and explains its use writing that the number of metal bands in the NWOBHM cannot be counted. I think that this statement is false. NWOBHM bands can be counted and researchers and collectors surely did so. Three sources that I found estimate the number reported, basing it on knowledge of the period and of the collector's market and I think that it is more correct and clear to indicate that value in the intro, insead of using a generic adjective which blanks the fact. Using the word "countless" would mean that no one has an idea of the number of bands, they could be 100 or 12.000, and it is not what the sources say. If there are other sources saying otherwise, they can be used to give more precise numbers. Right now that estimate is the best approximation to the real data and I think that it should be indicated in the intro. Lewismaster (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide sources for that number. I have not seen any actual count. If you really think it is 1000, and not 2000 or 3000 or even 884, please show accurate counts with citable sources. If you can only estimate, then by default you cannot count all of them. Uncountable, countless: either way, we need some more verification of the actual number. If you want to be less specific, then say where the estimates came from . Or say quite simply that "the number has been estimated at" and source it. Trying to get clarity here, that's all. "Perhaps a thousand" sounds very much like a guess. Andreldritch (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of bands can be traced only by their recording activity and the vinyl market. Malc Macmillan in his book "The N.W.O.B.H.M. Encyclopedia" (2012) lists 540 metal bands which recorded albums and singles or appeared on compilations in the period of the NWOBHM. He writes at page 25 that "only now we are beginning to come to terms with the sheer quantity of amateur-hour acts who contrived to make their mark on the vinyl world during the NWOBHM era." He also writes that "new discoveries continue to be unhearted, albeit at an ever-decreasing rate", because "certain pressings were extraordinary limited, with some bands selling their records through tiny shops or at the occasional local gig." This means that the number of 540 bands listed in his book was exceeded at the time of publication and that it was very difficult to recover every record of every local band. For example, the incomplete website nwobhm.com [1] lists 114 acts more than the book and it would take the count to 654 (although I would not consider it a reliable source). I think that a realistic number would fall between 540 and 1000. In conclusion, I would not use the word countless, because at least 540 bands were counted and listed by a reliable source. To avoid missing that information in the intro, maybe you can simply write "more than five hundreds". By the way, I did not write that sentence and this draft of the intro, which was heavily edited at the time of the FA review. Lewismaster (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhere between the two of You on this issue. Please mind that English is not my native language, but to me it seems that "countless" would imply "too many to be counted", but the reality is that they can't be counted not due to sheer number of them, but because of the following reasons:
  • some of the bands split-up without any releases, thus making it very hard to find any trace of them
  • similarly, there are many issues of the bands with the same name and it's sometimes tough to diferentiate them
  • there are different opinions of which years constitute "New Waave" in NWOBHM (1979-1983 period is the most common, but I have seem anything from 1976 until 1985) and some people include bands formed in 1984 and releasing their debuts at the time and some exclude them
  • there are different opinions on what constitutes "Heavy Metal" in NWOBHM - personally, I follow "if it was considered heavy metal/heavy rock at the time, it is NWOBHM" idea (which is also followed by beforementioned NWOBHM.com and Metal Music Archives, Popoff and Mac Millan), but some people (most notably the so-called Metal Archvies) exclude some bands that were considered to be NWOBHM at the time, but don't fit the modern definition of metal (Chevy or Praying Mantis are considered to be hard rock/AOR by them and Shy glam metal). Plus, even if we all agree on the definition what constitutes HM in NWOBHM, there is still an issue of the bands without existing recordings.
  • there are even different opinions on what constitutes "British" in NWOBHM - some exclude Northern Irish bands, some include them. Technically, Nothern Ireland is not Britain, but New Wave of British Heavy Metal sounds more tolerable than New Wave of Heavy Metal from United Kingdom. Same with Jersey. Also, there is EF Band from Sweden that is often included in NWOBHM as they moved to the UK in late 1970s.
All this supports Lewismaster's opinion.
However, I don't agree with "By some estimates, the movement spawned as many as a thousand heavy metal bands". It implies that there are at most about a thousand NWOBHM bands, while that number was already exceded by a reseach done in, for example, "Nwobhm/ Hard Rock- RARE" Facebook group. I know, I know, Facebook group is NOT a reliable source, but the fact is that even if it isn't officially published number, there are already well over the 1000 number and the list isn't up-to-date (some of the bands featured on their page are not listed in the list). I think it would be the best to write something like "By some estimates, the movement spawned AROUND a thousand heavy metal bands" (and, of course, provide valid citation). If the number ever gets exceeded in a published source (for example, if the guys from the Facebook group ever publish their research), the article should be updated with the new number. StjepanHR (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Diamond Head, Venom and Raven, remained underground"[edit]

I am not sure these three bands are the best examples of underground NWOBHM bands (and there is no source listed to back it up, nor I could find any - the closest ones are something like "haven't reached their full commercial potential" or "were less successful than XY" and I actually found some sources mentioning their good commercial performace):

  • Diamond Head had significant commercial success: Borrowed Time (UK #24), Canterbury (UK #32); plus those two albums had several singles charting in the Top 100; This is a commercial performance comparable to Tesla or Stryper (although both of them had longer successful career) or Winger
  • Venom (along with Leppard, Maiden and Saxon) is considered to be one of the "Big 4" of NWOBHM and had some charting success: At War with Satan (UK #64 and Sweden #48) and Possessed (UK #99), which is better than bands like Pretty Boy Floyd and comparable to WASP; plus, they performed at Hammersmith Odeon in 1984, not a sign of an underground band
  • Raven: Rock Until You Drop (UK #63), Stay Hard (US #81) and The Pack Is Back (US #121), same as Venom

I am deliberately comparing them to the US heavy metal/hard rock bands of the same era, none of which is usually described as "underground", just to prove the point.

If there is any reliable source to back those three being "underground", I am fine with that, but as it is, is seems very untrue to me. StjepanHR (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, define your meaning for underground or commercial success. IMO, commercial success means that a band sold at least a few hundrerds thousand copies of each album and single. No album of the aformentioned bands even reached silver status in the UK (60.000 copies). The aformentioned bands were also virtual unknowns for the general public and their appreciation was limited to the restricted circles of headbangers and specialized magazines. Leppard, Iron Maiden and Saxon had commercial success and were somehow recognized by the general media, the others were not and remained underground.
"Venom (along with Leppard, Maiden and Saxon) is considered to be one of the "Big 4" of NWOBHM" - who says this? Lewismaster (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this article, it isn't up to me (nor You) to define anything. There is no source to back the "underground" part up and that's a fact. I agree with what You wrote that only Leppard, Maiden and Saxon had huge success. However, IMHO, the artists are not divided into superstars and underground ones. Wikipedia uses the definition: "In modern popular music, the term "underground" refers to performers or bands ranging from artists that do DIY guerrilla concerts and self-recorded shows to those that are signed to small independent labels.". I think that defition is pretty much spot-on. Probably close to 99% percent of the two or three thousand NWOBHM bands fit that description. However:
  • Diamond head was signed to MCA Records at that time and their most successful albums had dozens of different issues.
  • Venom were signed to Neat Records that, while independent, was hardly a "small independent label". Plus, they headlined "Aardschokdag" in 1984, and played in front of thousands of people in the UK and all around Europe. Indicatively, they were featured as one of 10 bands on "Giants Of Steel" compilation by Roadrunner, alongside hard rock/heavy metal giants Judas Priest, Accept, Metallica, Dio, Black Sababth, Motorhead and Mercyful Fate.
  • Raven were also signed to Neat Records and later switched to Atlantic Records, which is neither small nor independent. Plus, they were also on the Roadrunner compilation mentioned before.
To conclude, all this indicates the three in question are not exactly "underground" bands by Wikipedia standards. Considering the fact (with which I mostly agree) that "their appreciation was limited to the restricted circles of headbangers and specialized magazine", well, of course that heavy metal and hard rock bands would be appreciated by headbangers, as that is the name for fans of that type of music haha. I am not exactly sure what is a "specialized magazine", but all of those bands had albums reviewd by major publications, such as Sounds, Kerrang! and Melody Maker.
The "big 4" part was a throwaway comment (and I doubt You could find a book citations about it), but NWOBHM.com guys agree with me: [2] StjepanHR (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The citation that you use for underground music has no reference at all and qualifies as original research, so it has the same value as mine or Yours opinion. To find more ample and researched definitions of the term, see [3],[4], [5]. Access to mainstream media (radio, TV shows, MTV, ecc.) and commercial success are considered fundamental elements for a band to emerge from the underground into the mainstream. The three aformentioned bands were never commercially successful, had very little appeal for the general media and are known to a restricted number of heavy metal fans. If You compare them to the big ones of the same period, those three bands toured rarely outside the UK, often as support acts and in small venues, not stadiums. Only Vemom had a flash of true notoriety around 1983-84 essentially for their image and Satanic lyrics, just to disappear in anonimity soon after. Neat Records is a small independent label for sure, with only 50 albums published in 10 years, no licenced acts and a roster of NWOBHM wannabes, which left the label as soon as they could. Music for Nations and Roadrunner Records were the big European independent record labels of the 80s for metal. Lewismaster (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to sound rude, but if You consider the citation on the "underground music" original research, than claiming that Diamond Head, Raven and Venom are underground bands is also an original research. Out of the three references You have provided, none of them even mentions any of these bands. I will still take a look at them:
  • musicianwave.com is certainly not a scholarly source, but even if it is, it says "Underground musicians seek tremendous artistic liberty while also rejecting the mass media." I don't think a single NWOBHM band rejected mass media, like ever. It's just that most of them didn't make it to the mass media.
  • Stephen Graham actually agrees with the citation of Wikipedia: "The term “underground music” as it’s being used here connects various forms of music-making that exist outside or on the fringes of mainstream institutions and culture, such as noise, free improvisation, and extreme metal." As an example of an underground metal band, he provides Lord Foul, demo-only band, and none of the other artist mentioned ever came close to the success of Venom or Raven, much less Diamond Head.
  • soundoflife.com is also not a scholarly source and pretty much repeats the same as musicianwave.com, plus it says exactly the same as the Wiki citation You claim is original research: "Similarly, the music is usually created by unsigned artistes or those signed to smaller independent labels.". So, now we have a citation for that original research haha
That's about the sources, not the other stuff:
  • You mention Neat Records, which wasn't really a SMALL independent label. No label being described ([6], page 4) as "seeing chart action" But, even if it was, Diamond Head and Raven were singed to major labels, not even big independent labels, which should automatically eliminate them from any discussion on underground music.
  • "those three bands toured rarely outside the UK, often as support acts and in small venues, not stadiums". Uf, I have a really hard time even understanding this. What do You define as stadium? Wembley? Old Trafford? San Siro? Well, I doubt even Saxon played those. Very, very few mainstream artists ever play in stadiums as the main act, only the absolute top of the tops, like Maiden, Bon Jovi, Metallica, etc. I doubt You could find a citation backing the claim that a band needs to fill a stadium to be considered mainstream and not underground. Plus, I don't see why is the popularity outside of the country needed not to be mainstream? Have You ever heard of the following names: Mitar Mirić, Mišo Kovač, Kemal Malovčić, Braća Bajić? They were superstars in Yugoslavia, yet nobody knows them outside of the country, except expats from Yugoslavia.
Their concert background:
  • Diamond Head ([7]): true, they often played as a support act, but mostly to absolute top of the game bands, like AC/DC and Black Sabbath. Alone, they played in The Granary (Bristol, a legendary club), Birmingham Odeon (capacity about 2000) two times (plus three more times as a support act), Octagon Centre (capacity 1500), Marquee Club (officialy 700, but around 1000 in reality) three nights in a row, Regent Theatre, Ipswich (1500, in a town with slightly over 100 000 inhabitants), O2 Apollo Manchester (3500, supported by lesser-known Tank), Pier in Colwyn Bay (around 700-800 in a town of 35000). There are likely more, but this is just to give You an idea. No underground bands regularly plays alone in front of 1000+ people.
  • Info on Raven is harder to find (not the concerts, but if they played as a headliner or as a support; and info in their UK concerts are scarce), but they played Paradiso Grote Zaal (grote zaal is main hall, 1500) in Netherlands, Mayfair Ballroom (1500) and Marquee Club, and also frequetnly outside of the UK, sometimes as a support, sometimes as a co-headliner with a band of similar popularity
  • Venom played throughout Europe as a headliner (supported by then lesser-know Metallica) in places like Volkshaus in Zurich (1600), Palatenda (5300!), Espace Balard (unknown capacity, but Def Leppard played their Paris concerts there at the height of their popularity)¸; in the UK: Hammersmith Odeon (3500 at the time) two times in 6-7 months, Mayfair Ballroom (1500), etc. Info on their UK concert is scarce, but this should give an idea.
Additionally, I really don't understand logic behind "they were not superstars, so they were underground". To me, this seems like a huge logical fallacy similar to Red herring, as there is also a huge area of semi-successful artists that fall somewhere between top mainstream and underground. Word "alternative" is usually used. Not a scholarly source, but this definition is really down-to-point and usable: [8]
And to conclude, I still don't see a reference backing the "underground" status of these three bands :)
StjepanHR (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your last reference it is stated that "underground refers to something that is hidden, secret, or not widely known. It is often associated with activities or movements that are not part of the mainstream or popular culture... Underground music, for instance, refers to genres that are not widely known or played on mainstream radio stations." Wouldn't you agree that this can be applied to the three bands mentioned above? And that Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Saxon and Motorhead had more media exposure, financial success and were more widely known? It seems to me that you want to forcibly associate Diamond Head, Raven and Venom with the status of those other bands, clinging to a semantic quibble. They had their short moment of notoriety and quickly fell into oblivion. Lewismaster (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it is written nowhere that Diamond Head, Raven and Venom are underground bands. "Remained underground" means that they never reached the mainstream consciousness like the band mentioned in the sentence before did. Lewismaster (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, You are "assuming" too much and again being offensive. Just like when You reverted my addition of "glam metal" in "derivative forms" without even bothering to notify me, despite me providing a citation on the talk page a week earlier, and then accused me of "being influenced by my personal tastes and musical background". Ad hominem attacks don't work here.
Now, point by point:
  • "Wouldn't you agree that this can be applied to the three bands mentioned above?" - I wouldn't agree. My arguments are described earlier. They are neither "hidden", "secret" and they WERE played on radio and covered in major music magazines (even those dedicated to the popular music as a whole, not just hard rock music). They were often promoted on BBC Friday Rock show, BBC being the main radio in the UK. You again brought MTV, which is irrelevant for British bands (plus, I am not sure that Raven wasn't aired on MTV, as they had charting success in the USA).
  • "And that Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Saxon and Motorhead had more media exposure, financial success and were more widely known?" - More of a red herring logical fallacy. Both Maiden and Leppard were more successful than Saxon. Should we move Saxon into "underground" section as well? And also, The Beatles sold more albums than Maiden and Leppard combined, so I guess we should move then into underground section, right? It can go both ways: "Venom was more successful than Iron Pig or 7 Years Itch, so it makes them mainstream." See how ridiculous Your argument "band X is more popular than band Y, so band Y must be underground"?
  • "And it is written nowhere that Diamond Head, Raven and Venom are underground bands. "Remained underground" means that they never reached the mainstream consciousness like the band mentioned in the sentence before did." - "Remained underground" pretty much means what I wrote. You are now clinging to semantics and making a U-turn on Your previous argumentation. Venom is arguably the closest of the three to a real undeground band, and even allmusic ([9]) describes their two most successful albums as "flirting with mainstream success".
I don't really want to discuss this any more, as You seem to ignore basic scientific principles - citation of sources. I have quite a few scientific articles published under my name (and have done uncredited work on some) and I can assure that Your type of argumentation wouldn't work anywhere in academia, to whose principles Wikipedia adheres. Or You found at least one relatively reliable source describing these bands as "underground"? The closest I could find is something that bands like Venom influenced future underground metal (which is 100% true), but not that they themselves were underground. Underground means more than just "didn't have as much commercial success as some other bands". Both Raven, Venom and Diamond Head released albums entering the national charts and played to relatively large audiences all the time, plus Raven and Diamond Head were signed to major labels. StjepanHR (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for Venom: "Maiden and Leppard went on to arena success, and Saxon and Venom toiled for years at club and festival level" - book "Sabbath Bloody Sabbath" by Joel McIver ; plus A History of Heavy Metal 'Absolutely Hilarious' by Neil Gaiman says something like "Venom were big in Europe, but never made it in the States" StjepanHR (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again a flexing of muscles and beating of chest, as my arguments are ridiculous and yours are academically sound. Citing sources, you argue that it is written nowhere that Diamond Head, Raven and Venom were underground bands. It is witten nowhere that they were mainstream bands either. Actually, I think that it all returns to my first request to define underground and commercial success and our ideas diverge here. I think that a line should be drawn between the bands which had significant commercial success and public recognition in the mainstream media and those which did not. Your idea is that a few apparition on radio and TV and to have reached the lower parts of the charts, all these things obtained by Diamond Head, Raven and Venom in the timespan of 2-3 years before oblivion, is enough to separate them from the many other groups which published less and remained local. I can't agree on that. They may have had a glimpse of recognition, but Diamond Head disbanded in 1985 and the other two bands "toiled for years at club and festival level", like many other NWOBHM acts. Do you really want to compare Saxon with Venom? The first reached the British top 10 with their albums, gained multiple gold and silver certifications in the UK and was signed to a major from the start, the second auto-produced their albums at their independent label studio (Conrad Lant was the leader of the band and a studio technician there) and recorded only once (not very often!) for the BBC Friday Rock Show. This debate is getting stale, so I asked again for a third opinion. Lewismaster (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, refrain from accusation of bias and similar things and I will refrain from "chest thumping" as well. Do You really want to compare Venom to Iron Pig? One had charting success, both in the UK and abroad and played in front of thousands of people, the other three coverless caseette demos and split after two years.
I am repeating once again - the bands are not divided into "extremely famous" and "underground", there are a lot bands in between. All three bands had regular reviews in Melody Maker and Sounds, two of the main journals at the time, with Diamond Head's name appearing on the cover in October 1985 ([10]) and their album "Canterbury" had an ad over a whole page in Sounds ([11]). Venom had interviews and both album and singles reviews in Sounds, and Melody Maker ([12]). In addition, Venom was featured in two top-20 lists of 1982 albums and were mentioned in their yearly review ([13]) and they had considerable number of appearances on weekly top lists in Sounds. Also this ([14]) is indicative. There is an ad for the poster-selling. There are about 70 posters by 40 or so artists, two of which are Venom's. The other artists featured were Wham, Iron Maiden, Tina Turner, Black Sabbath, Dio, Europe, AC/DC, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, etc. Both Sounds and Melody Maker were "mainstream". You wouldn't have Iron Pig or Pig Iron reviewed there.
But I agree, the third opinion is the best solution here. StjepanHR (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  • Comment: Saw this at 3O. The above seems like mostly opinion/original research. Do WP:IS WP:RS normally use the word "underground" to describe the subject? If so, list the sources, this will be the best case for using the word; if sources cannot be provided, it fails WP:V, and the description in the article should align with the best WP:IS WP:RS. Please no walls of text, refs with simple descriptions will be enough.  // Timothy :: talk  20:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stated my opinion in the very first sentence: "I am not sure these three bands are the best examples of underground NWOBHM bands (and there is no source listed to back it up, nor I could find any - the closest ones are something like "haven't reached their full commercial potential" or "were less successful than XY" and I actually found some sources mentioning their good commercial performace)"
    I have added the "citation needed" mark in the main article a couple of days ago. The only book reference to any of these bands being underground is a book that cites this Wikipedia article (and NOT the other way round). StjepanHR (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would remind you that the sentence in discussion is in the intro of a very long article and should summarize the third paragraph of the "Decline" section, which is amply referenced. The article is about an underground musical movement that promoted the popularity of heavy metal in the UK during the first half of the 80s, with very few band becoming recognizable enough to be remembered by the general public. Heavy metal in that period was not yet mainstream and its extreme forms even less so. In the AllMusic article on heavy metal [15] you can find the term "mainstream" used to indicate chart-topping pop metal bands and "underground" for more extreme forms of music, such as thrash metal, death metal and black metal. The bands in discussion played some proto-thrash-black metal [16][17][18] (extreme for the time), had their short moment of celebrity among British metal fans and disbanded or disppeared from the general media in the second half of the 80s, supplanted by more extreme (and highly successful) American bands. In his reviews of the Diamond Head's albums, Martin Popoff called the recordings done for MCA "commercial disaters" and wrote that the band never had "the chance to define its sound and reach its potential" [Popoff, Martin (1 November 2005). The Collector's Guide to Heavy Metal: Volume 2: The Eighties, p.97]. He uses the term "underground benchmark" for first album by Angel Witch, a band whose popularity was similar to that of the aformentioned bands in that period (p.21). If you want I can unhearth from my books and magazines many other times when the term "underground" was used to indicate non-mainstream outfits and albums. Apparently User:StjepanHR can't be convinced of this dichotomy based on commercial success and musical genres and wants to divide the bands in many (how many?) categories based on magazine reviews, posters and who knows what else. Lewismaster (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uf, more of the same. You have again failed to provide a single reference. Problems with You statement:
    1) You called Raven and Diamond Head "proto-thrash-black metal", which is misleading, since their most successful albums were not even pure heavy metal, much less proto-extreme metal: Diamond Head's Canterbury (album) is prog/hard rock album and Raven's most successful albums were glam metal.
    2) The allmusic references for individual bands fail to provide any mention of the word "underground", plus have this for Raven: "Their first album for the label, Stay Hard, was a commercial success" and this for Venom: "At War with Satan, a concept album about a war between heaven and hell (guess who wins), arrived in 1983, followed in 1985 by the more streamlined Possessed -- the title track managed to make its way onto the Parent Music Resource Center's "Filthy Fifteen" list. Both albums flirted with mainstream success"
    3) Again, while Diamond Head failed to reach the popularity of, let's say Iron Maiden or Saxon, they had their albums charting at 24 and 32. Hardly a complete disaster. Also, THREE of their singles charted in UK Top 100 singles. Arguably the most famous modern hard rock band, Ghost from Sweden, had only one song charting in the Top 100 in the UK singles chart. Having three singles in the Top 100 is an incredible success.
    4) Angel Witch was nowhere near as popular as Diamond Head, Raven and Venom (DH, R and V). While all three had charting success, Angel Witch had no albums on charts. Plus, this is still not a reference for the three bands in question, but for Angel Witch, a completely different, and less popular band. Indication for that is that they never played alone in the venues in which DH, R and V played alone. They played Hammersmith only as a support for Max Webster and April Wine, established 70s acts, while Venom headlined in the similar venues: [19]
    5) To conclude, there is still not a single source calling any of these bands "underground".
    EDIT: 6) Popoff used the work "underground" 19 times in the book You have mentioned. None of the 19 uses were connected with the three bands in question.StjepanHR (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you want I can unhearth from my books and magazines many other times when the term "underground" was used to indicate non-mainstream outfits and albums." - No, I don't want that. I want You to unearth when the term was used for the three bands in question. StjepanHR (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One additional source ([20]): "‌Metal For The Masses”: Or, Will Metal Ever Be Mainstream Again? (And Why We Should Want It To Be...)" by Andy R. Brown, senior lecturer at a university. The title is obvoius, and it lists Iron Maiden, Saxon, Girlschool and Def Leppard among the superstars and Diamond Head, Raven, Samson, Tank, Tygers of Pan Tang and Venom among those moderately succesful in the 1979-1984 period. So, while NWOBHM was mostly underground, the three bands in question were all among the 10 most successful bands (Diamond Head at 5th place, and Raven and Venom at 9th and 10th, but Venom's biggest success was in Sweden and Raven got signed to a major label only after the period in question, as the scientific paper states). If we take there were about 2000-3000 NWOBHM bands (and I would include Demon, Girl, Praying Mantis and Rock Goddess among the "moderately successful"; Shy and Wratchchild only had charting success after 1984, but we can include them also amond the "moderates"), that means all bands are in the top 0.4-0.7% of the most successful NWOBHM bands, invalidating the argument that "NWOBHM was mostly an underground movement", since those are the bands outside of that "mostly". StjepanHR (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that those bands remained underground, because the NWOBHM was an underground movement and heavy metal was not mainstream at the time of their peak and decline. All of the bands from the NWOBHM, with the exception of Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Saxon and Motorhead for different reasons, had little to no consequence in the general media and public consciousness and were not widely known. Do we need references to measure the poularity of those bands? The Oxford English Dictionary define the adjective underground as "relating to or denoting a group or movement seeking to explore alternative forms of lifestyle or artistic expression; radical and experimental", which fits most of the NWOBHM bands, including DH, R and V. Mainstream are "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are shared by most people and regarded as normal or conventional." Not fitting to most NWOBHM bands, with the exception of the few which had more exposure and success. Lewismaster (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's agree that we disagree. I initially wanted to propose the rewording from "Other groups, such as Diamond Head, Venom and Raven, remained underground, but were..." into "Other groups, such as Diamond Head, Venom and Raven, while reaching limited chart [or charting?] success, never achieved the popularity of beforementioned bands, but were...", but this turned into quite an argument.
    • Again, I agree with You that NWOBHM was mostly an underground movement (this would apply to pretty much any genre, as 99% of the glam metal or nu metal bands never achieved mainstream status), but those bands were in less than 1% (or even 0.5%) of the most successful bands in that movement, so a general statement wouldn't apply to them. Secondly, I hardly see any of the bands being "radical and experimental". Diamond Head pretty much always played quite commercial hard rock/heavy metal, with few scattered tracks that influenced speed metal, sort of like Judas Priest. Raven quickly transitioned to glam metal, arguably the most commercially successful metal genre. Only Venom could be described as "radical" (even though they were heavily influenced by mainstream pre-NWOBHM band Motorhead), although it also quickly alternated thair sound in order to achieve commercial success.
    • "heavy metal was not mainstream at the time of their peak and decline". I disagree with this. I doubt You could find a time when heavy metal and hard rock music was more popular than at the time in the UK. For example, Kerrang! is described as the "first mainstream music magazine devoted to heavymetal" in sources such as Popular Music Culture: The Key Concepts by Roy Shuker. By their second album, Venom got no less than four pages (or 10% of the magazine) dedicated to them (issue 29).
    • on the definition of the "underground music": for example, "Sounds of the Underground" goes on for few pages trying to define it without actually giving a clear definition. However, all the bands referenced (Earth, Sun O)))), etc.) never even approached the popularity of any of "our" three bands bands.
    User:TimothyBlue? StjepanHR (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We disagree on most things.
    • Heavy metal in the late 70s was very unpopular for the British media enamored of punk and new wave and had very little space on radio and TV. It gained visibility during the NWOBHM and went mainstream in the 80s with American bands and MTV.
    • Diamond Head first and most critically acclaimed album was not commercial hard rock, but more akin to a quite unprofessional take on doom metal (Popoff words). Nothing in common with Judas Priest. They are only remembered because a few years later a widely known band called Metallica covered a few of their songs.
    • Raven most critically acclaimed albums are the first three and they are proto-thrash/speed metal. Their bout with glam was short and a try to ride the mainstream popularity of the genre in the US in the second half of the 80s. They soon returned to thier root sound, but at that point they had lost the support of their fans and their chance of success.
    • Venom were the talk of the town for a couple of years for their outrageous shows and attitude, their fake Satanism and their amateurish music. They flaunted their excessive and extreme image and were an obligatory presence on every issue of Kerrang! around 1985 (I have those issues somewhere in my old house), often as a joke and an example of what a serious band should not do. They received very harsh criticism on the pages of that magazine and their bid at a better sound and musical composition arrived too late, when American glam and thrash bands dominated the scene.
    I requested comments to the editors of the Wikiprojects associated with this article. Maybe someone is interested. Lewismaster (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am talking 1980-1984 period, not late 1970s. NWOBHM lasted from 1979-1984, not during the second half of 70s. I don't think heavy metal as we know it today played by the British bands ever had more success in the UK than during this period. I think we can agree on that.
    • I am talking about their most commecrially successful one, Canterbury, as the topic here is not critical aclaim, which is prog/hard rock. I only mentioned Judas Priest because they had a handful of songs which influenced speed/thrash metal, just like Diamond Head.
    • again, no one ever mentioned critical aclaim, I am talking about their most successful albums, which were glam metal. Even their third album "All for One" doesn't actually sound like proto-speed metal at all, aside from a couple of songs, with more than one hint towards thair future sound. "Stay Hard" s their only proto-thrash metal album, IMHO, while the debut sounds mostly like Saxon on 1.25x speed, with the title track sounding like something from an early glam metal band.
    • actually, I agree with you on this one, although the reviews on their early albums were significantly more positive. But even bad advertisment is an advertisment, isn't it?
    OK, thanks. StjepanHR (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
This discussion has really sidetracked from the main issue: does the content in question have the required sources? Because the text describing these bands as "underground" is unsourced, it should be removed until appropriate sources can be found. WP:CITE specifically states, "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged..." Although I find two of the three sources used to define "underground music" to be fine for Wikipedia (appropriate sources do not have to have citations. Rather, look at the credibility of the author and/or the publisher), that really does not help in this situation because these articles do not mention Diamond Head, Venum, or Raven. Pairing a definition from one source with information from another source to reach a new conclusion--that these bands fit the definition of underground--is original research. Specifically, WP:OR prohibits "any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources". So the definition of underground, although interesting, does not have a place in this discussion or an impact on my recommendation. The content lacks a source, requires a source because it is challenged, and therefore should be removed. Rublamb (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_wave_of_British_heavy_metal&oldid=1195084446"