Talk:Bullet for My Valentine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bullet for My Valentine article.
Article policies
Good article Bullet for My Valentine has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Heavy metal Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, an attempt to improve articles related to heavy metal music. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details on the projects.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] MCR

Just have to say "I brought you bullets, you brought me love" Because I ask you a "Bullet for my valentine" hahahahahahahahahaha... Ok that was just a joke but I must say, BFMV sounds similar to MCR, and their name is like the following of "I brought you bullets bla bla bla..." so, may we write a section about the name or a comparison or something?

Disgusting,don't ever compare Bullet to my chem,there are plenty of differences.And they don't sound like em either,since when does MCR have screams and guitar solos,yeah,i didn't think so.4.235.189.149 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

mcr and bfmv are nothing like each other, i like both bands but i don't see how you can compare them. they are different genres of music. --78.151.148.53 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, but, a similar name doesn't really mean anything, and also, yes, MCR's first album had elements of metalcore but not much. There is some post-hardcore in metalcore so, yes, it's not an invalid point. Thanks for reading. Thundermaster (talk · contribs) 13:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I had post that just for the name and some similar sounds but yeah they are not that similar, Bullet resembles more to Metallica. Jak-Esz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.40.19 (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New album

Maintains some metalcore values but it has a touch of power metal in my opinion. Should I put that in there?

Find sources saying they are power metal. Just because you think it retains elements of power metal, does not mean they do. M3tal H3ad 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination on hold

Leave a note on my talk page when you've dealt with the issues listed below. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If the band formed in 1998, this should be noted in the infobox (rather than 2003).
Well BFMV formed in 2003 but i have noted when their previous band formed in the infobox
OK, that's fine.
  • "Although the offer was turned down, the band secured a five album record deal with Sony BMG." - This implies that the Sony deal was unexpected after turning down the Roadrunner deal - I doubt this is the case. Perhaps reword to "The offer was turned down, and the band later secured a five album deal with Sony BMG."
Changed
  • "the album has since sold 339,000 copies in the U.S. as of 8 November 2007." - Remove the "since", and be sure to update this regularly...
Changed, and will update
  • Matt Tuck --> Matthew Tuck (keep it consistent throughout the article)
Done
  • At the start of the history section, either have wikilinks for all instruments, or for none. At the moment, there's one wikilink for background vocals, and nothing else...
I only linked background because everyone knows what a guitar is but i linked them all for consistency
  • "Playing Nirvana and Metallica songs," - Change "songs" to "covers"
Done
  • "the band released a two-track CD in 2002, produced by Greg Haver called (You/Play With Me)" - Is the name supposed to be in brackets? Also, change "produced by Greg Haver called" to "produced by Greg Haver, and called"
Done
  • wlink for Radio 1 or Newport's TJ's?
Linked both
  • Any idea why Cradle left?
Not at the moment
  • "A second EP, (often referred to as a mini album)" - We can work out what EPs are referred to by reading the EP article...
Done
  • "which was only available in the United States" - Change "which" to "and"
Done
  • "Decibel Magazine" should be wikilinked in the "Signed to a record label" section.
Done
  • "Zombie made the band price match his merchandise ($40 a shirt), although the band were only allowed two pieces...which resulted in and Tuck referring to the headliner as "money-grabbing fucks"." - Suggest rewording too something like "Zombie made the band price match his merchandise ($40 a shirt). The band were only allowed to play two pieces...(new sentence)Because of the poor conditions, Tuck referred to Zombie as "money-grabbing fucks"." Does this make sense?
I understand and have changed this
  • Refs 9 and 24 point to the same page.
Don't know how i missed that :S
  • Is the "Waking the Demon" reference notable?
Nope, removed
  • "we're not into that just being loud for the sake of it"[27]" - Need a full stop (.) here.
Done
  • A table could be created for the awards section, or alternatively you could create the List of Bullet for My Valentine awards list. See List of Powderfinger awards for a demo.
I don't think there is enough content for a separate article at the moment, will see what happens after the next album is released.
  • "Bullet for My Valentine has received coverage in music magazines including being featured on the covers of Metal Hammer and Kerrang, and stories in Revolver, Outburn, Penthouse, Rock Sound, NME, Hit Parader, Total Guitar, Guitar One, Drummer Magazine and Alternative Press.[29]" - Not sure if this is noteworthy
I think it is, plus it beefs the section up
  • The discography is expanding, you could consider a Bullet for My Valentine discography (ref. Powderfinger discography) some time soon.
Will do after more singles
Added 2003 when BFMV official formed

Reviewed version: [1]

Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review :). M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Passed :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thrash Metal

Lol there seems to be a war at the moment. There are elements of thrash metal in their music but not enough to be classified as thrash. Especially their new stuff is not really thrashy. Although that is my personal opinion, what does everyone else think? RPI 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Their genre should be Hevay Metal. Thats it, Heavy. Metal. They are in no way metalcore, at all, listin to other metalcore bands. No.No.No.No. They are Metal. The End.--153.42.135.159 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

hell no. they aren't metal, you idiot. they're metalcore, not metal. there's a fine line between the two genres. bullet is a lot more hardcore than metal, t heir music is more vocally aggressive than instrumentally agressive. besides, if they were metal, metallum would have accepted them a long time ago, rather than labeling them as one of the metalcore bands that you should never try to enter. Itachi1452 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Stay WP:CIVIL in future, please. And Encyclopaedia Metallum is just an amateur fansite, what it says has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia. Funeral 21:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
go look on the 10 Years talk page, and look at how well that reflects on the civil. my responses were sabotaged continuously. (also, if you can, could you do that "the unsigned comment was written by soand so thing? i don't know how). but it's not just that, bfmv sounds like hawthorne heights decided to play heavier music. that's all. Itachi1452 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Metallum may not be a "professional" website, and so it's opinions should be taken carefully, but in cases it can be very useful. After all, a lot of "professional" things like certain magazines are made up of people just the same, most with no better qualifications in the subject. Indeed, I'd say the opinion of someone who knows heavy metal very well is worth far more than someone who simply happens to work on a reviewing website or magazine that sometimes ventures into the genre. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


"listin to other metalcore bands."

That Bullet seem to sound an awful lot like? On The Poison and the EPs at least.

I think we could at least mention increased thrash elements in their music, it's a lot faster and somewhat less hardcore, emphasising the metal part of the sound more than the hardcore part, I still wouldn't call it thrash but it s thrashier. 62.252.193.221 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like to think of them as thrash metalcore,i wouldnt call em heavy metal,there guitars arent distorted enough for that,they do have the speed of thrash though,and the screaming vocals of metalcore.Or rather metalcore that's influenced by thrash,though you really can't call a band the same genre that there influenced by.After all,Pantera was influenced by glam,we all know pantera is not glam.

PS:For those of you say there that Metalcore is NOT Metal,metalcore is considered a subgenre of metal.Now would i call every metalcore band metal?No,underoath is far from metal in my opinion.But plenty of metalcore bands could also be considered metal,lamb of god,for example.4.235.189.149 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


—how about getting a verifiable source for classification? --Sloba (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

They do have speed, but speed alone doesn't quanitfy thrash metal, or even a true element of it. Thrash is more about the riffing style and song layout. Prophaniti (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Look guys, Scream Aim fire is defo a departure from The Pioson, they do now have some elements of Thrash, but not so much as to start calling them a Thrash Metal band, songs like Waking the Demon and Ashes of the Innocent definetly back this up, but its safe to say they are still a Metalcore band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waseyk (talk • contribs) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, BFMV is not thrash metal. Period. They are metalcore (crap). They may have "thrash elements" but they are not thrash. And if you have a statement by them saying that they thrash then BFMV is lying. BFMV is metalcore. Not thrash. Get it straight people. They don't have fast speeds, don't have ultra-distorted guitars or long hair. They are thrash posers, so they're metalcore.PastramiX (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of crap in here: your personal feelings on Bullet and Metalcore have no bearing here. Stop it. Now, as to the actual issue: no, they are not thrash metal, and don't have enough of thrash metal to warrant the tag. This is nothing to do with how I feel about them (for the record I quite like them), they simply don't fit it. The odd element doesn't make you a band of X genre. I have listened to a LOT of thrash, and they're not among them. Unless someone can provide some proper sources citing them as thrash, I say the tag be removed, and will act on this within the next few days if not. Prophaniti (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Thrashcore? It's thrash and metalcore. Will that stop the fighting? 96.242.38.28 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Jack Bauar (I'm not registered)

You can't just make up a genre and add it, that would be original research. Keep it as metalcore, no need to add any other genres. -- FatalError 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] history section/nu-metal

Where it states that the band wanted to follow the nu-metal trends, the examples are Korn and Limp Bizkit. Korn should be used as a valid example as they were the ones that are renouned for starting the nu-metal genre, but also, instead of Limp Bizkit being an example, Linkin Park should be used, as they are better pioneers and the highest selling act of the genre. Furthermore, Linkin Park are currently active where as Limp Bizkit arn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.174 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkin Park didn't even exist in 1997, so how were Jeff Killed John supposed to follow their trends? Funeral 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Linkin Park were formed in the spring of 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.174 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

and Hybrid theory was released in like 1999-2000? So they couldnt of set a trend in 1996-97 M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what nu metal is?A combination of rap and metal,linkin park doesn't use distorted guitars,a common use in metal,in my opinion linkin park is just a mainstream rap rock band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.235.191.138 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullet for my valentine sounds so emo even though i must admit that their newest album has traces of thrash metal riffs here and there. If you listen to their earlier songs like " All these things I hate" then you will understand what i mean when i see why bullet for my valentine should be depicted as emotive as well as metalcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waikin619 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Why is the article capitalized as "Bullet for My Valentine" when Scream Aim Fire clearly shows a capital "F" on "For". Why would they choose a capital for "My" and not for "For" if no cited explanation is available the article should be renamed to reflect the Album. Luke255 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lyrics To The New Songs

I've noticed on Lyricsondemand.com that the lyrics to "Eye Of The Storm" are all but correct. What is up with this. Just b/c people hear the song and think they understand the lyrics are just wrong. You have to have the lyric book that comes with the CD to understand some of it. Personally I've got it and I love it, but if I want to post something about the lyrics and how they go, I've got to type them myself from my lyric book b/c some ppl just can't get them right online...but it's all good, we'll get over it, but to be honest, I love this album...

LilRichard23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.206.83 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Interview

I added a paragraph with some excerpts from Padge's interview at UG but someone deleted it. I think we should at least talk about his new signature guitars??? Here is the link to the interview: HERE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.46.167 (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

His signature guitars have nothing to do with the band. Feel free to add it on his own page. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger Proposal

The article Matthew Tuck does not assert much notability outisde of this band, alot of the article is unsourced original research and the article contains alot of irrelevant info. Guidelines suggest band members are better contained in the main article. Are there any sources for actions outside of the band? Could it be merged here? --neonwhite user page talk 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea. Thanks for reading. Thundermaster (talk · contribs) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally dont support this idea. I also think there should also be pages for the other members.76.88.131.248 (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately notability guidelines do not allow for articles about non notable persons. --neonwhite user page talk 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This Is crap because it has a lot of info on the gear Matt played with so you should put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.173 (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced and non-encyclopedic info. Wikipedia discourages trivia. --neonwhite user page talk 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed

Just Thought you guys should know, I changed Matthew Tuck To Matt, cause' he goes by Matt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.38.28 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which stands for Mathiew..nice job...-sarcasm- btw, who here realises that it doesn't list that Hands of Blood has a music video when it does?

[edit] Bullet For My Valentine: a singular noun

Bullet For My Valentine is a singular noun. It follows the same rules as a book title. Even though it refers to a group of people, it is to be treated as a singular noun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robojedi (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP ADDING GENRES!!!

People have said it before and I'll say now to (again), STOP ADDING GENRES WITHOUT FUCKING DISCUSSING THEM FIRST!

I Just had to remove a genre because some fucktard thought they were Heavy Metal.

(Sorry for Vulgar language)

That is all. 96.242.38.28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Jack Bauar (I'm not registered)

About the genres, they are heavy metal (their newest album was) and, some of their early stuff was Nu metal. Can we agree with that? π₰Å₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯Å₰π 08:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're heavy metal, then they're definitely emocore, too. Actually, IMO they're just emo and not heavy metal, at all, but that's just my oppinion. anyway, I have a source that says they're post hardcore, screamo and punk metal: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note on style guidelines

In british english bands are plural and common practice is to use british english not american english in british related articles such as this. --neonwhite user page talk 14:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strating Date

Body of the article says they formed on 1998. On the other hand the table says that they are active since 1995. Can somebody with sources fix this? Thank you. 00:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe they were previously known by several different names prior to the current one. There is no real ser time when we can say the band was formed. --neonwhite user page talk 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)