Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a25d462bbef8f557

Jump to content

Talk:First-wave black metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mikeblas in topic referencing problems

"Movement"

[edit]

@Issan Sumisu: Do we have a source calling it a "movement"? I always thought first-wave black metal is just the earliest form/sound of the genre (basically speed or thrash metal with satanic lyrics), and then the black metal we now know developed from it. But I dont think its a movement like the new wave of British heavy metal etc --FMSky (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This source calls it a "movement": (also page 58)-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
In addition to that source, I think the name "first wave black metal" already connotes that it's a movement. Also, it has a distinct end in 1991 (since genre's genre's generally don't completely end, they just fade in popularity) and later bands who do play the style have a different genre name applied to them . These all, to me, point at it being a movement as the only possibility. In researching this article, I didn't find anything calling it a genre, so the burden of proof falls more on that idea, movements often have certain characteristics associated with them that are distinct to the rest of the genre. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

referencing problems

[edit]

Hi Issan Sumisu! Looks like your article has a few referencing problems. The "Purcell 2003" and "Mudrian 2004" citations are missing. And "Ekeroth 2008" is ambiguous because the article has several references to it, and it isn't clear which one is intended for the footnote. Are you able to fix up these problems so the article is properly referenced and doesn't show errors? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I hadn't noticed them, they should be fixed now. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the fixes! -- mikeblas (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWBM leading to Thrash?

[edit]

The intro implies that thrash developed FROM FWBM, which is understandable from a European viewpoint, but nonsense to a California. NWOBHM + punk = thrash in CA, concurrent w/Venom’s efforts in Europe. The timeline doesn’t lie.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.169.61 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I guess the California thrash originators were time travelers? 98.192.169.61 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you're wanting primary sources, to back up the secondary source also cited: Anthrax cite Venom and Mercyful Fate; Metallica cite Venom, Mercyful Fate; Slayer cite Mercyful Fate, Venom; Megadeth cite Mercyful Fate, Venom; Exodus cite Venom, Mercyful Fate. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Reply