Talk:Disturbed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Genre needs to be referenced 2 references found for genre 3 who is song writter in disturbed? 4 Genre, ONCE AND FOR ALL 5 Genre has been fixed & referenced, warning comment left at top of article 6 Forsaken 7 I'm so sorry, but this has to be done! 8 Tags 9 genre 10 A couple of song I'd like to know about 11 New albums? 12 Composer 13 Proposition for statement 13.1 Source 1 13.2 Source 2 13.3 Source 3 13.4 Source 4 13.5 Source 5 13.6 Source 6 13.7 Source 7 13.8 Source 8 13.9 Source 9 13.10 Source 10 13.11 Source 11 13.12 Conclusion 13.13 Reactions 14 New Propositions

[edit] Genre needs to be referenced

The genre line is now "Hard Rock, Nu Metal, Alternative Metal". Hard Rock is mentioned in the article, Nu Metal is the formal genre by the industry, and if people are trying to put in heavy metal, then it's probable that it is Alternative Metal (although this could have many meanings - same as prog metal?). I'm tired of seeing reverts happening. Most of this is unreferenced original research, as far as I can tell (apart from nu metal, if it's the industry position). Please find some references before changing this again LinaMishima 01:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references found for genre

• official website? claims "Hard Rock"
• Major UK venue says "Heavy Metal"
• Pulse mag says "Nu Metal"
• NME Say "rockers" and "Metalers"
• Rolling stones about defines it properly, though - originally nu metal, now Hard rock, and considered Heavy metal by Ozzy himself. We have a reference!

It's late here, and I can't remember the correct citation format for websites, so I'm not adding the rolling stones conclusion right now. If someone else wants to, feel free. LinaMishima 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] who is song writter in disturbed?

who?

probably Disturbed lol.It usually says on the inside of the CD or on the internet somewhere.I think David writes a lot of the lyrics. SOADLuver 17:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre, ONCE AND FOR ALL

Ok, the article has been totally messed up by "Josboroliv", see history. Before just reverting things, lets settle this once and for all. Lets discuss it out, see if we're happy, and do (and leave) it. I totally agree with what you guys came up with in the past weeks, which would be Nu Metal in the beginning, and a change in their music, gogin closer to hard rock and heavy metal with the later 2 albums. Discuss, let's finish this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, it´s simple they began and did for a long time musics in the Nu Metal Genre, its obvious that they can do some musics in others genres but this don´t change that the band is a Nu metal band. - - User:josboroliv 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

See the references I found above. Technically the issue of which genres should be listed has been finished, all that needs doing is the above working in as properly cited references within the article. LinaMishima 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this article is supposed to show general information about the band, not to reflect your personal dislike of the band. Looking at the history, i see people were already at finishing it for good, when you just came in and with one sweep deleted it all. You should stay out of this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre has been fixed & referenced, warning comment left at top of article

I have added the rolling stone website reference to the article, restoring the genre line in the intro whilst doing so. To be honest, the genre line does look out of place. It would probably be best to work in all the references throughout the document. I had initially added the reference via the ref tag and the citeweb template, but on reviewing the document, I decided to change to a simple link instead. We should probably decide on a referencing style to use for any further references.

More importantly, the article now has a huge warning comment over the first edit screen's worth of text. This asks people to remember to reference statements and respect those that have been referenced. Once we see people no longer edit waring over the genre line, we should remove (or shrink) this warning, as it's purpose will be done. LinaMishima 02:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job. I don't think it is so much out of place, because there is not enough to say for an own pararaph. One question: Why Nü Metal? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, because some prior editor used it that way. The nu metal article explains it's occasional use as being based on the heavy metal umlaut... which seems amusingly appropriate to me. Hmmm, surely a heavier nu metal band manages to go back to being ol' hard rock? :P LinaMishima 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Is obvious that North American never will know nothing about metal, you all are very influencied by the pop shit music you have a lot in your country... continue to see the things like you all wanna see... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josboroliv (talk • contribs) 07:25, August 31, 2006 (UTC)

Then why don't you take part of the discussion and bring some real arguments? And sign your comments. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 08:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're not from the US, Josboroliv? Niether am I, I'm a happy Brit. Personally, I've found most people care more about weather it rocks, than any genre definition. I suggest you chill out, and start looking for a reference to trump rolling stones. Good luck! ;) LinaMishima 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a couple of things... i'm not gonna quote exactly what was said....

but here goes... the comment about pentatonic being hard rock...umm you might wanna tell slash and kirk hammet that they're now hard rock gods as opposed to metal gods since they've heavily relied on pentatonic patterns especially slash... A pentatonic patter is the root of blues...where do you think metal and rock come from???

Black sabbath is Heavy Metal...in fact they solidified after the term was mainly coined by writes when discribing jimi hendrix and later led zeppelin

whitesnake sadly is metal and they would fall under the pop/hair metal genre sam as skid row, motley crue, poison, early bon jovi, etc...

we must realise that metal has evolved over the years and has had many branches under the term "metal" In the 80's we had pop metal, hair metal, glam metal(ie: pantera's origins), thrash metal (anthrax, megadeth, metallica, slayer, etc), progressive metal (rush), death metal making its appearences in DEATH(the band), dark metal with king diamond and mercyfull faith...

So you see Metal has no set patterns or criteria to meet...

Now a days you have a bunch of death metal and black metal bands comming out underground but nothing in mainstream Metal...

Sadly the Hard Rock bands(nicklebacks, creeds, bush, and such) is what we get Korn, SOAD, Disturbed, Tool, Treble Charger...bands like this cannot be put in one category alone....Disturbed and SOAD and tool especially they bombared us with different styles and sounds at all times —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.61.140 (talk • contribs) 23:53, September 1, 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I entirely follow your point, but I think you'll agree when I say that genres are very much arbitary labels, often not accurately reflecting the musical output of a group. Ultimately all that matters should be "Is it cool?" (or "is it good" if you're less of a hippy than me :P) LinaMishima 22:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== "Disturbed was originally founded as a Nu Metal band, but are now regarded as Hard Rock , or Heavy Metal. [1]" == Just Perfect! Thanks User Snowbound Josboroliv 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these arguments about genre are silly. "No, it's not hard rock, it's nu-metal!" There are way too many genres that describe fairly similar music. If you don't believe me, look up "death metal" on Wikipedia. Are there some stylistic differences? Of course there are, but there are also shades of grey and a lot of music that fits into several categories (or doesn't really fit any). In my own usage, I use "hard rock" as a fairly encompassing term and don't split hairs. I would simply describe Disturbed as being hard rock. --Vertigo

[edit] Forsaken

I don't think "Forsaken" should be included in the Soundtracks section, as it was performed by David Draiman alone, not with Disturbed. It was written by Jonathan Davis, not even Disturbed, ad thus, is not in any way a work of the band. Pookythegreat 20:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm so sorry, but this has to be done!

"Disturbed was originally founded as a Nu Metal band, but are now regarded as Hard Rock, or Heavy Metal. [1]"

This is 100% FALSE!!!

Disturbed is not considered as a Heavy Metal band, but more as a metalcore/mallcore/pseudo-metal!

I'm sick and tried of hearing kids calling Disturbed (as well as other "bands" such as Slipknot or Limp Bizkit) Heavy Metal, Thrash Metal, "Extreme Rap-Metal" (like there was such a thing!), etc...

This band is commercial and purposely provocative, which is one of the principal characteristics of Mallcore!

If you please, i would like, without erasing any parts of this article, to clarify once and for all this gigantic mediatic propaganda.

I am adding a statement informing the reader of the article about the dispute concerning the authenticity of the "band"'s musical genre.

I am not modifiying any other part of the article, and PLEASE don't call that vandalism because it is definitely not!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

We've already been through this. Check paragraphs 13 & 14 on this discussion page. Add there if you feel the article is inaccurate. Your edits were reverted. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you might have "already been through this" but apparently you didn't get a single thing from what i've been saying... I'm not changing the genre in ANY WAY!!! I'm only stating the disagreement (because there IS one!) and apparently you seem to absolutely want the band to be classified as Heavy Metal. Honestly, i wished it was classified as Crap Metal, but unfortnately for me, that would be a biased point of view. Stating the disagreement does not give any threat to the neutrality of the article, and is actually stating a FACT, which, i think (and hope), is not forbidden by the rules of Wikipedia! So leave this factual statement alone and do not deny the disagreement there is!

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

--Zouavman Le Zouave 12:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think that this comment, which is degrading to the band, does seriously not belong to the article. In either way, this is something that should be discussed before it is added, especially if there is an ongoing discussion.
I would like to hear some other opinions about this. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 13:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed disputed tags. Why would they be added? - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

I think that two tags should be added to this article. One for neutrality, and one for factual accuracy.

My reasons are:

1) This is an encyclopedia. The article is not made to brag about how heavy the band is, but to state factual statements. The fact that there is a disagreement is a factual statement. Thus, the tag belongs in the article.

2) In this article, the style of the band is stated. This statement is supported by personal opinions of people (such as Ozzy). Why not consider the opinions of people who do not agree with this statement. I am not alone, and MANY people disagree with the statement that Disturbed is a Heavy Metal band.

3) The people making this article seem to be fans of Disturbed. However, this article should also consider opinions that do not come from Disturbed fans. Most of the information given seems to compliment the band, and information that, like twsx says, "is degrading to the band", is deleted. Therefore, there is a neutrality issue.

I am going to re-add the tags. Please do not try to erase them again. Even though you do not like the fact that i disagree, that does not mean you should deny the disagreement.

Thank you for your cooperation,

--Zouavman Le Zouave 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The only person here trying to force his opinion to be a fact is you. The factual accuracy is not disputed, but discussed into detail and referenced. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] genre

Ok, Im just going to try and put my two cents in here. Ive been listening to David and company for quite a while. I own all of Disturbed's albums, including the live one. And I listen to a VERY broad spectrum of music.

Ok, Id have to say that Disturbed would go as Alternative Metal. They arent really Nu Metal, the first album was sorta nu metalish, but from Believe onward its a no. Someone cannot listen to songs like Awaken, Remember, Mistress, Deify or Stricken and think that Disturbed is Nu Metal. And they arent really Heavy Metal in my opinion. That is more of a Iron Maiden, Slayer, Metallica thing. Id put Disturbed in the same category as Chevelle, Tool, Deftones, and the other more metally bands out there these days as opposed to the more Grunge influenced bands like Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Seether or the Nu Metalish bands like Papa Roach, Nonpoint, Linkin Park.

Thats me shedding some light on this. Ill be checking back and trying to help out if I can, but for now Ill leave you. Lamentingvampire09 18:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of song I'd like to know about

What's up with A Welcome Burden and Hell? They're not from the albums, but I'm absolutely certain it's Disturbed. Are these from before they started to release albums, like the demo EP's?--RockMaster 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you actually look at the article, you'll see that A Welcome Burden was on the Dracula 2000 Soundtrack. As for Hell, it was exclusive to MySpace for a while, but I think it's been released on a special edition release of one of their albums. If not, it might be a B-Side on one of their singles. And please, sign your comments.Pookythegreat 12:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to add that. I'll fix it. I looked at the albums, but I never though to look at that. It's right under them too. So, A Welcome Burden is just for the Dracula 2000 Soundtrack? And if Hell is a B-Side, then the articles don't say so.--RockMaster 02:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

could anyone try to find if there is going to be a fourth album my friend told me that it would come out after the tour and he said it would be experience something probaly hell or the monster.so please tell me something.oh and did anyone hear about the shooting for the ps3.

[edit] New albums?

Is there any word of another album from Disturbed? - RVDDP2501 01:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Composer

Who is the Composer for Disturbed? just curious :)

[edit] Proposition for statement

Here is my proposition. I propose to add the following statement at the end of the introduction of the article:

"Other critics regard them as Alternative Metal and many metal fans regard them as Mallcore rather than metal."

Considering the fact that I have tried to do this earlier and that there has been much contestation of the facts by a fellow Wikipedian, I am now citing sources.

[edit] Source 1

(From Ozzfest :: Forums :: View topic - Hatebreed)

grugnur wrote: so according to the "experts", ozzy osbourne is not metal??? neither is disturbed??? iron maiden??? judas priest??? none of these are metal according to the "experts"???

Ozzy - Yes
Iron Maiden - Yes
Priest - Yes

Disturbed - First of all comparing them to any of those 3 is ridiculous and 2 not metal.

[edit] Source 2

(From Ozzfest :: Forums :: View topic - Hatebreed)

grugnur wrote: so according to the "experts", ozzy osbourne is not metal??? neither is disturbed??? iron maiden??? judas priest??? none of these are metal according to the "experts"???

Nope, Disturbed isn't. The others are. Having a few metal bands on a "festival" does NOT make it a metal festival.

[edit] Source 3

(From Rate Your Music)

• Disturbed - The Sickness - country:usa genre:mallcore-nu metal
• Disturbed - Believe - country:usa genre:mallcore-nu metal

[edit] Source 4

(From mallcore tag - Last.fm)

Top Artists tagged "mallcore":

1. Slipknot
2. System of a Down
3. KoЯn
4. Disturbed

[edit] Source 5

(From MP3.com - the source for digital music!)

Yeah, in fact, I have all their albums. Being heavy does not make you Metal. Disturbed are quite heavy, but look, they aren't Metal. Slipknot are quite heavy too, but again, not Metal.

Like I said before, being heavy does not constitute as Metal.

Anybody who loves Metal should know this. Please, think before you speak.

[edit] Source 6

(From Re: Your favorite metal groups?? - Music Maniacs - FiringSquad Forums)

Mallcore shit nu-metal (from disturbed to slipknot to Cradle of Filth), is terrible because the music isn't really re-inventing anything, as some kids who hang out at the bus station might lead you to believe. In addition, these bands are praised for being so "cutting edge" when they are, in actuality, years behind the rest of the metal scene as far as creativity is concerned.

[edit] Source 7

(From Check this - Trivium, Lamb of God and Iron Maiden)

Nevermore kicks major ass. I've just watched the GIGANTOUR 2005 DVD and NEVERMORE blew FEAR FACTORY off the stage.Jeff is an amazing shredder.They also opened for the nu-metal ramblers DISTURBED and hoped to win over new fans. At some shows,the crowd was silent,and at some shows the crowd got into them. I Guess its not easy for a troo metal band to win over a bunch of mallcore kids(DISTURBED fans).

[edit] Source 8

(From Amazon.com: Gigantour: Music: Various Artists)

Forget about Ozzfest, only stupid mallcore and metalcore bands like Mudlame, Disturbed, SOAD, Killsuck Engay, and Agayu headline that stupid tour. Plus, their unforgiveable actions against Iron Maiden have made me not want to go to Ozzfest if someone paid me to. Once you see Sounds of the Underground and Gigantour; you'll never want to see Ozzfest.

[edit] Source 9

(From DarkLyrics.com Forums :: Metal Vault :: Blut Aus Nord Trilogy?)

If you believe Disturbed and System of a Down is metal then I probably hate you as well (not for your music taste, I preach the "to each his own" philosophy, but for your stupidity).

[edit] Source 10

(From No Life 'til Metal - CD Gallery - Disturbed)

Talking about the "Believe" album, by Disturbed:

First of all, this is NOT metal. How they got labeled metal I don't know. Having some distortion on your guitar does not a metal band make! Disturbed are modern radio rock; short songs that lack dynamics, average vocals, with every song being very similar in sound and tempo.

[edit] Source 11

(From Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives) (The page for a thrash metal called Disturbed, but that, apart from its name, has nothing to do with the band in question.)

FYI:Encyclopaedia Metallum is by far the most reliable source for metal bands. The information submitted there must be accepted by several administrators before being accepted, and the information submitted there cannot just be the opinion of two or three random people.

Name of Band: Disturbed
Genre(s): Trash Metal
Lyrical theme(s): Death
Additional notes: "Not to be confused with the mallcore band."

[edit] Conclusion

These are sources that include the points of view of metal fans. I think this is sufficient evidence for the statement to be added. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you for your cooperation, I will not do anything until it is accepted by a minimum amount of Wikipedians.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 21:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions

Please post your reactions/comments here. Please sign the comment.

All of your sources are taken from random opinions of random people. None of them are representing a broad audience or trustworthy instance. Not by far anything that would give any reason, and i believe an admin (which i hope and don't think we will need) would agree. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

These sources are the opinions of Metal fans communicating on (for most of the sources) metal-oriented forums. I am about to add another, very reliable, source, which does not originate from a forum. This last source will represent that many metal fans around the world agree with the fact that Disturbed is often considered Mallcore or "not metal". It is the opinion of many people, and it would be wrong to ommit this information from the article just in order to satisfy die hard Disturbed fans. --Zouavman Le Zouave 11:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I defiantly agree that Disturbed is not Heavy Metal or Nu Metal. Comparing them to Iron Maiden or Judas Priest is ridiculous. But the Mallcore term seems to be somewhat derogatory. While I do not like Disturbed, I would be rather mad if someone wanted to say my favorite band belonged in a genre defined not musically, but by the people that are supposed to listen to it. Especially when this genre is defined by people who seem to dislike all the bands in it. The WP page for Mallcore has two pictures on it, one of Disturbed, the other of My Chemical Romance. These two bands are nothing alike musically and do not belong in the same genre or sub-genre. Mallcore seems more to be a term Metalheads use to describe and insult many new popular hard rock bands, not a real genre. Your sources are all very convincing, but biased. Metal fans who hate Disturbed are not exactly the best group of people to try to place Disturbed in a genre. From the music I have heard of theirs, I would think that they belong in Hard Rock and less so in Alternative Metal, which this page has already placed them in, but again, not in Heavy Metal or Nu Metal. AidanPryde 13:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. While i don't really care about categorization, i think the article should reflect opinions by trusted sources rather than those by haters. As I mentioned to Zouavman (we talk on MSN Messenger occasionally) this topic is in my opinion frozen and not worth pursuing until useable contra sources are found. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Propositions

Twsx and I have talked a lot on MSN Messenger, and we have, more or less, come to the conclusion that a compromise could be possible. He takes a more conservative point of view on the issue, since he would prefer if the article stayed as it is. However, I am not favorable on the status quo for this article. I feel that it would be inacurrate to ommit this information from the article.

I make the following propositions:

• To put the term mallcore in a different way. Example: "is often said to be closely linked to the mallcore culture."

• To put it as a different section of the article, but as having its own, separate section.

• To use a different term instead of "mallcore". However, I doubt there is a word capable of replacing it.

• To use the original proposition but clean up the Mallcore article in a way that doesn't offend the band.

I am looking forward to hear other Wikipedians' opinions and reactions for these new propositions.

--Zouavman Le Zouave 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to exchange the word mallcore, you need a way to mention the disagreement (which without a doubt exists) without having it say "omg this band sux", which is in any way the case as long as "mallcore" is used, since mallcore describes an opinion, not a genre. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So you propose that the word "Mallcore" shouldn't be used in the statement. I am okay with it, since Wikipedia labels it as degrading. Could the following statement be okay with you?

"...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as "true metal". --Zouavman Le Zouave 20:35, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Change "metal" with "heavy metal", and find something for "true metal" as this is very vague. Other than that i guess i'm fine with it. Would like to hear some other opinions though. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I purposely wrote "metal" instead of "heavy metal". I didn't mean to say that extreme metal fans did not consider Disturbed as heavy metal, but that they didn't consider it as any form of metal what-so-ever. As for "true metal", I think I can clear this up a little bit:

""...and there is much debate on whether the band should be considered metal. Many extreme metal fans, for example, would not consider Disturbed's music as what they call "true metal".

Is this okay with you (or any other Wikipedian that might be reading this)? --Zouavman Le Zouave 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I could get behind that statement. It's not a perfect statement, it might be a little non-NPOV with out mentioning someone stating it should be heavy metal, like Disturbed's website or the article on the band at allmusic.com. However, using the term 'metal' with a band like Disturbed, who I think we all can agree is somewhere in between metal and hard rock, will always cause problems, mostly with metal fans. That being said, Zouavman Le Zouave, your statement will work well until a better term can be found, if at all. As far as a better term for 'true metal', how about just using 'metal'. Also, to improve the NPOV, arguments for each side of the dispute could be presented after the statement. Hope this helps. - AidanPryde 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Aidan. I think the "true metal" is ok with "as what they call" in front of it. Since you reminded me that nothing is definite and it all can still be changed or enhanced, i agree with the statement as you have given it Zouavman. Feel free adding it. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we have come to an agreement. I am going to add the statement today either at around 10:00 (GMT) or after 17:00. Thank you for your cooperation, if any changes were to be made, I would gladly participate in the discussion and would be open to a variety of solutions. Thank you again, --Zouavman Le Zouave 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)