Talk:Pantera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pantera article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Power Groove

This was stated in the article: "Pantera showed a more extreme style on this outing, leaving behind its glam metal influences in favor of an amalgamation of power metal and groove metal dubbed "power groove" by the band."

As far as I know this term has no connection with power metal as we know it nowadays. Just like Pantera's album Power Metal it was literally about power, not about the genre. Are their any sources that can prove I'm wrong on this? Cheers Emmaneul (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow '92

Pantera did not play with AC/DC and Metallica at the Moscow '92 show. AC/DC and Metallica played the previous year. Wangoed 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say they played at the '92 Moscow show. Nufy8 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Groove Metal?

shouldn't pantera be classified groove metal? almost all there albums are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezzrek (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

They are referred to as groove metal in the article, so I'm not sure what you mean. Nufy8 22:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean as one of there genres.Dezzrek —Preceding unsigned comment added byDezzrek (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
If you mean in the infobox to the right, then the guidelines state that the "genre" field should be general (heavy metal) and not specific (groove metal). Nufy8 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The rule says Aim for generality, not be as general as you can. Scipo 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"Heavy metal" is sufficiently general; overgeneralization would be listing them as playing rock music. Nufy8 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Heavy Metal is far too General. And I don't understand why pantera's genre has to be so general when most bands on wikipedia are more specific, such as some of the assosiated acts of pantera, who are listed as Groove Metal.Dezzrek —Preceding comment was added at 01:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How is heavy metal "far too general"? It refers to characteristics such as instruments, lyrical content, vocal stylings, and overall sound that are common to those considered heavy metal. Furthermore, how can you even get more specific than groove metal? There's just no significant generality to that at all. If you get any more specific, you'll start inventing genres that aren't even verifiable by reliable sources. Nufy8 02:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I also think heavy metal is to general and can be confused with the less general "traditional" heavy metal. We should find consensus on what genres we should display in the infobox/article (as Pantera has played different genres over the years) and find sources to back up the consensus. An alternative is to do what has been done in the Cradle of Filth and Meshuggah articles but I think Pantera's genres is not disputed and we will probably be able to find consensus. Kameejl (Talk) 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
if we label pantera as heavy metal, that would be suggesting that pantera sounded like heavy metal bands suck as black sabbath oriron maiden. pantera's vocals stylings and instruments are different from that of traditonal heavy metal bands. and if they're mensioned as groove metal in the article, why can't they be labeled as groove metal in the infobox. also, there are many other bands on wikipedia labeled as groove metal or post-thrash, so why does pantera's genre have to be so general? by the way, there are many gernes that are more speciffic than groove metal. Dezzrek —Preceding comment was added at 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
This still does not address my point that subgenres such as groove metal or hair metal are as specific as possible. Just take the example from the template guidelines: "Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop." Heavy metal is akin to hip hop, and groove metal, like East Coast hip hop, is a style of that larger genre. Also, pointing to other articles using the template is irrelevant; articles should be written based on established guidelines and the manual of style, not by what similar articles look like. It seems like you guys are arguing that the template genre should be specific. If that's the case, the best thing to do is to start a discussion on the template's talk page so you can discuss changing the guideline. If your concern is that people will mistake the term "heavy metal" for "traditional metal," then I'm sure there's some way to clarify that without displaying specific subgenres. Nufy8 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's clearly time to ignore all rules. Guideline are just guidelines, no policy or law. I feel a more specific genre in the infobox will improve the article, so ignoring this silly guideline (which is ignored by many people in many articles) is justified. If groove metal is what most people want, we can put it in the infobox. Kameejl (Talk) 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how it would improve the article. In fact, I figure it would be detrimental. If we include groove metal, then we'll have to include glam metal. Then I'm sure a case can be made for 80s hard rock. Hell, you can even throw thrash metal in there since groove metal is a derivative, and sources like AMG list them as such. So we'd end up with significantly different genres in the infobox, and to a reader, this would most likely be confusing. Even if you add time periods to each subgenre, you're still left with a cluttered template. What's the point in getting so detailed when all of that is in the article? Why should the Pantera article deviate from the guidelines? Because people want to see groove metal on there and because other articles deviate aren't really convincing points. Nufy8 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Even if groove metal is a sub-genre of heavy metal and you can justify it not being added based on those grounds, most "metal heads" or metal critics would not consider glam metal to be real metal, so "heavy metal", the general window for all things metal, is not specific enough to encompass glam metal. I'm sure there are plenty of Pantera fans, just as the band were, that are embarrassed of Pantera's glam roots, but it needs to be included. The infobox is supposed to be a general summary of the key information of the band and people should not have to read the whole article or even a part of it to know that Pantera were a glam metal band. If someone were to come on this page and read simply "heavy metal" as their genre, they would not be aware that Pantera also played glam metal. Glam metal needs to be added. James25402 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"Most 'metal heads' or metal critics would not consider glam metal to be real metal" – a weasel worded claim that has not been backed by reliable sources. Even if "most" fans and critics don't consider it "real metal" it still is a subgenre of heavy metal, and thus there's no need to add it to the template per everything that's already been said. Let's not beat a dead horse, please. Nufy8 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We really should put Groove metal in the infobox. It is pretty much a fact that Pantera are the pioneers of it. Groove metal IS a sub genre of metal. The only way to settle this properly is to use reliable sources.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, we're officially going in circles now. Nufy8 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to keep putting colons in front, they only need to get up to a certian number, lol. So lets get sources and probably get some for Glam metal, but put (early by it.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The guideline for the template field is "aim for generality". There is no need to clutter up the box with sub-G's and useless refs... referenced content goes in the article...not in the box. Sub-genres just cause headache and woe over everyone trying to put their personal POV into it. First and foremost.. Pantera are a heavy metal band.. plain and simple. And heavy metal is all that needs to go in the box. 156.34.222.133 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol, so let me get this straight....

You tried to invalidate my argument because I used weasel words ON A TALK PAGE? Let's get one thing straight, you have your opinion and I have mine, but a Talk page does not need to be factual, so if I am using weasel words on here, that has no actual bearing on what I am saying should be included in the article. What I wrote on this page was not going to go onto the article in the form it was written in. I'm sure you know that and are just being pedantic, but nonetheless, I thought I'd point that out.

And as far as glam metal going under the heavy metal genre...no. That's like saying metalcore is a heavy metal sub-genre, when it is a fusion of heavy metal and hardcore punk and actually comes under the punk genre. Because it has "metal" in the name does not mean it is actually metal. Bon Jovi were glam metal in the 1980s, are you saying Bon Jovi are a metal band? And The Darkness? No, they are hard rock bands, they always were hard rock bands.

There is no argument over groove metal being a derivative of thrash metal/heavy metal, so perhaps you can get away with not adding it to the infobox, but heavy metal does NOT cover glam metal. Even if you completely disagree with my argument of glam metal not being a sub-genre of heavy metal based on my argument that it is just a label applied to a hard rock band with a certain image, glam metal is still, at best, a fusion genre of hard rock, heavy metal and pop. Fusion genres are not derived from any one particular genre, so you cannot say glam metal belongs solely to heavy metal. If it does not belong to heavy metal, it is separate from it, thus needs to be added to the infobox. I know you don't want to change it, but if you think about it logically, if Pantera played glam metal, which it is well cited on reliable websites that they have (if you want to disagree with that, I can get you sources), then they not only played "heavy metal", but also "pop" and "hard rock", because they fused all three! So either the fusion genre needs to be added, or you are misleading people by not adding in the other genres they used when they played the fusion genre of glam metal.

But honestly, I think you're being ridiculously rigid in your compliance with wikipedia standards that say we should aim for generality. You say it would not help to add glam metal and groove metal to the genre list, but it surely can't hurt anything. It improves accuracy, if nothing else. We would only need to be as general as it is now if there were disagreements as to the band's genre. So far, I have seen very few objections to adding groove metal and glam metal. It may "go against wikipedia rules", but it also contributes in the area of accuracy, which would balance it out. Surely you can see you're the only one who wants it to stay as it is now. James25402 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I completley agree. Basically every band on wikipedia has multiple genres listed. Featured Articles have them! (EX: Godsmack, Megadeth) Keep in mind this page is under no singular ownership. Even if the generality rules applie completley, a co-founder of wikipedia made up this little rule here, WP:IGNORE.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course your weasel worded claim has to do with the article. If your rationale for changing the article cannot be tied to the article itself, then what is the point of having the rationale? If someone were to read this article and ask why glam metal was listed in the infobox, and we told them "because most metalheads and critics don't consider it real metal" and had no evidence to back this up, then that would be as entirely unacceptable as adding a line to the glam metal article that states "Most metalheads and critics don't consider glam metal to be real metal." As for your whole fusion genre theory, you once again fail to provide reliable sources to back up your claims. Wikipedia's policies are very clear on this, and simply adhering to them is not being pedantic, it's being reasonable. I'm not trying to be a stubborn asshole here, so if you have some convincing evidence to show me, then by all means, do so – I'll be more than happy to validate your argument. Nufy8 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
James25402, you are kind of blazing guns here, it really isn't that big of a deal, all we need is sources.
Thank you,
Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, as has been pointed out, this "generality" rule is preventing us from improving the article. See WP:IGNORE, in which case, all things discussed earlier aside, there really is no reason why I shouldn't add those genres to the infobox right now. But I will discuss this with you reasonably before I go ahead and do that.

My "weasel worded claim" was explained in more detail in my last comment, you have dismissed it as having no evidence. Where exactly do you want me to get my evidence from that glam metal is a fusion genre? If you go over to the glam metal article on wikipedia right now, you can see quite clearly that glam metal is made from elements of hard rock, heavy metal and pop music. However, I am aware that this would not be a suitable source to justify it....if in fact it needed a source. You see, citations are only needed if information is in doubt. As any citation for glam metal being a fusion genre would not actually need to be included in this article, as it is not relevant to the band itself, I do not need a citation to tell you that it is a fusion genre. However, if you would like one, feel free to ask and I will run along and find you one.

I actually don't doubt that my explanation for why glam metal should be included wouldn't be acceptable as a reason for adding it, but you're missing the point. If somebody came to this Talk page and asked why glam metal was listed, I would answer with "because it is a cited genre that the band have used". My explanation to wikipedia is "it is cited the band have used this genre". Adding glam metal to the infobox cannot be wrong or questioned as long as the band have used it and this can be cited.

Now, unless you can provide me with evidence that adding these genres to the infobox will not improve the article, I will add glam metal and groove metal to the article as per WP:IGNORE and I will add citations if you want to disagree about any of these genres being used by Pantera. James25402 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument against WP:IGNORE for this case is above. As for the fusion genre, yes, you do need a source because it is in doubt. The glam metal article does not suggest that glam metal is a fusion of other genres, merely that it is influence by and/or shares similarities to them. Therefore, you should provide evidence to back up your claims, as their validity directly affects the article. Nufy8 (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject: Pantera

I am trying to get this started up for this great band. Anybody who's interested can help me and Thundermaster out by adding your name below:


There doesn't need to be a wikiproject for every single metal or rock band.Inhumer (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above, no effort has been made to improve any Pantera related articles so there is no need for a project. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong, M3tal H3ad. I have improved the Cowboys From Hell through Reinventing the Steel pages substantially. I have a proposition for you guys, which I will post later. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

I too have contributed to Pantera related articles and plan to help improve existing ones. I also started an article, Big Vin Records. But I would suggest the Pantera group be temporary if possible. Once we get the articles up to par, we should hand over all responsibilities to WikiProject Metal. Better yet, if possible, starting a sub-group or gather people within WikiProject Metal to help these efforts? There are too many band wikiprojects that aren't active are there for no reason. Bragging rights maybe? Anyway, what do you think about that idea? ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Cowboys From Hell and Reinventing the Steel both have one paragraph so i don't see "substantial improvements". I suggest you get an article to GA or FA before you create the project because there are so many projects created just because people are fans of the band rather than try to improve articles. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well thats kind of the point of gathering people, to get Pantera to FA or GA status. Though I do agree there are too many band wikiprojects that do nothing. Like I said, we should gather people within WikiProject Metal to help with this article. Other related articles are secondary and can be brought up at a later time. The more I think about it, the more I don't like the idea of a wikiproject, lets put WikiProject Metal to use. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 08:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The pages were improved, but some numbskull removed a lot of my edits, leaving only the bare essentials of what I put. They completely took away my vivid descriptions of the album and of some songs. It wasn't POV stuff, just musical traits that any metalhead with half a brain could pick out and enjoy. I tried reverting my edits, but they kept being deleted over and over. But yes, I do agree with you about proposing that we put Pantera into Wikiproject:Metal.

Dark Executioner (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Outside of Wikiproject:Slayer, I haven't seen one band specific do anything substantial. Inhumer (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed my name, because I understand what these guys are talking about. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

If people want to work on Pantera articles together, the best thing would be to form a Pantera taskforce that works under the Metal WikiProject. WikiProjects should only be reserved for large subjects that require lots of attention. For an example of a taskforce, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Nirvana. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly, thats a great example of what I'm talking about. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 08:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
What I said as well. If too few people are interested, a taskforce wwould be a much better idea. ThundermasterTRUC 14:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remake of the Page

Guys, I, Dark Executioner, spent a huge amount of time gathering all of this information. No links yet. I copied it straight from my file on Microsoft Word. The albums are still in all caps. Here is my blueprints: feel free to comment on my work.

First off, you should probably move this to a sandbox. And you need citations. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah its kinda hard to read in the talk page. I would say make a sub-page under your user page and put it there with the citations and and the hole nine yards so we can all get a better idea. ♣DeathRattle101 AKA LUX♣ (verbalizegenerosity) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay guys, I'm going to move it to my talk page and work on it there. Give me about four or five days to find the sources, then come check my talk page.Dark Executioner (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner
Why does this article need to be remade? Even with my personal misgivings about the GA/FA process, I'm relatively certain that the current form of the article would have no trouble acquiring GA status if it went through the system. Assuming you verify the new unsourced statements you introduced, there is still the problem of adding information not all that relevant to the actual subject of the article. For example, the details about side projects and recent bands formed by the members of Pantera are way too in-depth. The majority of the second paragraph in the "Band Tension" section is superfluous; the murder section includes too much individual-centered information (e.g., Niggemeyer's testification and commendation); and the last section has the same superfluousness as the Down paragraph. Mentioning associated acts and projects is fine, but the only articles that should go into that much detail are their own respective articles.
It's not that this article couldn't use expanding, but an entire rewrite? That's just unnecessary. You obviously put a lot of time into this, and I'm sorry if this opposition seems mean-spirited, but the article would be best served by adding relevant, well-sourced information. For example, finding reliable sources that describe Pantera's influence on the current metal scene, and in particular, which notable bands claim to draw significant influence from Pantera, is probably what the article needs most. Nufy8 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nufy8. It needs some expansion and more citations. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken, Nufy8. I too have decided to drop the idea. It would just take up too much of my time to try rewriting the whole page. The whole reason why my proposed remake exists was because I wrote a Pantera biography about two years ago. It also contains information about Phil's numerous side projects, Down, and Hellyeah. This is primarily why I haven't remade the page, because I checked those respective pages, and found the information already there.

As far as PAntera's influence on the current metal scene... Is it mentioned anywhere in the article that Avenged Sevenfold frequently covers "Walk" live? (Even though I don't really like that band due to the annoying and whiny singer) Or that Machine Head wrote "Aesthetics of Hate" in Dimebag's defense after that heartless Iconoclast article?Dark Executioner (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Covers are a good start, but I think our best bet is to find bands that clearly state that Pantera was a big influence on them. Or, another possibility is to find professional reviews of other bands' music that point out obvious influences. I'm sure I've read a few from AMG that mention Pantera's influence, though I can't remember any off the top of my head. Nufy8 (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taskforce

A taskforce has been set up under WP:METAL. Anyone interested visit WP:KORN. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Band association

I hope all those bands are directly associated meaning that a member actually was a part of those bands and not just as a session musician, touring musician, or produced an album of theirs, a band they toured with (even a lot) or happened to be a guest on a song of theirs, etc. They must be part of the band for some time to be associated. For example, the band Redemption is associated because Rick Mythiasin was/is in the band. (also wondering why he isn't listed under band members since he was a member in 1986...) If this is the case for all these bands then I will be satisfied. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know why all these bands were added, I know before there were a few but now there are one too many. I say we go search back for the old list if no one can contest all these bands. Tazz (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allmusic

I have removed the link to allmusic guide on the grounds that it is an insufficient source. The Website is famed around wiki for being inaccurate, lazy, and just plain dumb. I don't know about everyone else, but I would rather trust a junkie with cocaine than every citing allmusic guide as a source for any music related article. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the only reason its considered reliable is because its staff are "professional critics and writers."Inhumer (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)