Talk:Cradle of Filth
|
|
Who is the Wikipedia newbie who wrote Cradle of Filths article and sub-articles? They musta been really lazy and copied and pasted album reviews from a third party web site. Either that or are just an over-opinionated twat that never read the NPOV. All the album pages need to be deleted and the main article needs to be rewritten. Arm
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sodomizing The Virgin Vamps is an Unauthorized Album. Should it be listed?
It is live, however it has tracks on it that other studio albums do not.
http://rateyourmusic.com/view_album_details/album_id_is_98883
http://www.cradleoffilthuk.co.uk/music.html
Maybe their DVDs should be listed? The BBC Documentry? What about Live Bait For the Dead?
| Contents |
New album
The new album is out now. they will also have a song on the Res Evil II sound track.
Oh, and uh....
CRADLE OF FILTH ARE NOT AND WERE NEVER A BLACK METAL BAND. Do they sound even remotely like Black Metal to you? No? Didn't think so. "Vampyric Metal" (what the hell?) does not exist. Anorexia Nervosa is Melodic (keyboard dominated, nonetheless) Black Metal. Cradle of Filth is not. Also, Symphonic Gothic Metal doesn't equal "Vampyric Metal". Just call them Heavy Metal. Or better yet, don't categorize them at all.
- There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed, and Dani Filth's subsequent response. But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or 'vampyric' black etc. Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist. How else would any other form of metal started out if it hadn't've stuck itself out and carved out a new name? Sounds more just like a good-old fashioned "Cradle-rant" to me than a topic for discussion. -Shipton 03:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"There's at least one section in there where it states their validity as a Black Metal band is disputed "
And yet the opening states that they ARE a Black Metal band, regardless of opinion.
"But any metal website or magazine or any other source you find will inaugurate them as some sort of black metal, where it's melodic black or symphonic black or 'vampyric' black etc."
Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre. And if it's websites we're talking about, try the following:
http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=24
"Also, 'vampyric' metal exists if it is created by someone, so if fans of Cradle of Filth have so dubbed them that, I guess it does exist."
By that logic, why not go to other band articles and label them whatever genre you feel like? If Cradle of Filth are Black Metal, why aren't New Kids On the Block Ultrafast, Candlelit, Groin-Destroying Sludge Grind?
To be fair, their style is/was pretty unique, but not sufficiently to pioneer a genre.
And subjectivity aside, here's a quote in reference to the Black Metal article.
"Black metal is a term. It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands, nor is it the job of Wikipedia to explain that black metal is a lifestyle, religious choice or anything else. The job of this article should be to explain what the term black metal can be used to refer to. If there is a possible dispute over the meaning, the differing ideas should be explained clearly, with different opinions attributed to different persons who hold them. This is part of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Tuf-Kat 08:19, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)"
In a similar fashion, stating that a band is Black Metal when going on to state that there is a debate about it is effectively taking sides.
- Aye, and the black metal category also states that "black metal" is wholly ambiguous. What you're ignoring in your own statement is " It is not place of Wikipedia to explain that it is a style which includes and excludes certain bands". www.metalstorm.ee calls them "black symphonic," formerly "melodic black," as does MTV, and if you want I can compile a larger list. Furthermore, your statement "Sure, if your idea of a metal magazine is expensive toilet paper that hails AC/DC as the originators of the genre," is not only irrelevant (since the quality nor intelligence of people who call them black metal is equally irrelevant, the fact is that the bulk of people call them that), it's only furthering the principle that this whole arugment is not only POV but just a "I-hate-Cradle-of-Filth" rant. I should end on the note I didn't write the first line and am not responsible for any contradictions that other people may cause when they add things. It will eventually get smoothed out, that's the whole purpose of wikipedia. Then again, melodic black or black symphonic (depending on the album) is about as close as you'll come to describing them. The key word here: black. On the whole, though, that's a rather minor element. The point of the band is to make music, not try to usurp a genre. If all you're going to do is debate their authenticity, then please supply your opinion in full detail as well as a solution rather than just "they're not black metal."
The "black metal" classification
Because tastes differ, and figuring one kind of rock from another isn't like comparing, say, rock and rap, where the contrast is more pronounced, I revised the opening paragraph to represent a more NPOV explanation of their genre. ZPG0705 14:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Jesus is a Cunt
Should controversies regarding the infamous Cradle of Filth "Jesus is a Cunt" t-shirts be mentioned here? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 00:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Can't fathom why not, so long as you keep it NPOV and describe the controversy factually and whatnot. ZPG0705 00:13, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Nymphetamine
The new album has been out for quite a while and it's hard to argue it's either "true black metal" or a return to form (I'm talking Dusk... and her Embrace period).
- Allow me to add that the purpose isn't to make the argument as to which is correct, but instead to provide an NPOV dissertation of the topic. If you feel the description of it as "true black metal" or as a "return to form" is either incorrect or POV, rewrite to provide a full presentation of all the facts, opinions included. Just keep 'em neutral.