Talk:Lamb of God (band)

Talk archives:
*Archive One

Infobox picture

Anybody got a good, representative picture of the whole band to replace the picture of randy and willie at the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.138.143 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do... But I don't 'legally own it'. We could get the band logo to replace that? 'cause I don't think having two members of the band as the bands picture is what we should have.

Genre changes must stop

The rediculous genre changing and wars MUST STOP. It is out of hand. The three main genres listed are thrash metal, groove metal, and metalcore. It should stay as that. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The article should be locked up. It is just pure vandalism. People just delete information with sources and put there what they want. What is the problem? This is just an encyclopedia not a forum for LoG fans man! To make some order - why and what is LoG:

Metalcore - One of primary LOG genres. For those who ask why: LoG have completely typical Hardcore riffing, songstructures and compositions (most distinctly on Burn the Priest and New American Gospel) fused with regular thrash/death melodies.

Groove Metal - If you know what Groove (music) is, you agree (cause you can hear it) that LoG use "lots of groove" and furthermore... just read Groove metal Musical traits.

Thrash Metal - Groove metal is a derivative form of Thrash. Metalcore is also derivative form of Thrash. LoG does not have any single song that is pure Thrash metal. A song that is not Metalcore and Groove at the same time. So why label them as a Thrash metal band? It is the same thing as calling them Heavy Metal. Thrash metal is too hypernym. LoG has thrashy riffs, but that is included in Metalcore, which uses Thrash too.

Death Metal It is true that LoG had some "Death" in their music. People and critics generally call it for lamb of god "Thrash", not "Death", that is why they are called Metalcore, not Deathcore. So you can call them Deathcore for yourself, but not in Wikipedia, cause it is pretty typical WP: original research, so Death Metal no way..

I would not discuss the vocals. Blythe uses Black sreaming, Death growling, Thrash roaring, Hardcore shouting and some kind of Randy's Blytheing. Anyway, vocals do not make the genre.

Please do not delete info with sources...Lykantrop ^(Talk) 18:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I took, just now, the liberty of reversing some anonymous change, from 'thrash' back to 'groove'. Adding 'thrash' would be maybe who knows acceptable, but just replacing not, the references would no longer match. Infinito (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Groove Metal yes. Thrash metal...not so much. Metalcore? This is what I'm trying to figure out. Yeah they have some metalcore aspects, but they also have a lot of guitar solos which is not something found much in metalcore at all. They also have much more complex riffs than most metalcore bands. I would say they're Groove Metal with influences of Death Metal. Deathwish238 (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On another note, Metalcore isn't an official genre with a real definition. Read the Wiki page, it doesn't say anything about the music traits beyond a combination of Hardcore Punk and Melodic Death. Find a quality source talking about metalcore...you can't. Deathwish238 (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, I don't see a credible source saying that LoG is Metalcore. All I've ever seen is AllMusic Guide and the Billboards. Neither are music gurus. Out of all the sources the only credible ones are Rolling Stone and Blender. I'm not sure about Stylus. Deathwish238 (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore Agnostic Front or Hardoce/Metalcore Madball use common guitar solos in their later works. A guitarsolo is not so important in Metalcore as in Thrash but it is a common thing in Metalcore. Not every metalcore band uses it, but lots of them do.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this on their amg page: spending much of the next two years preaching their "pure American death metal" at major heavy metal festivals and small clubs alike. I've never heard them refer to themselves as Death metal. Inhumer (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they label themselves; that's akin to WP:OR. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR. It's WP:SELFPUB--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 13:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have said this in other articles before. It's kinda pointless to get so determined to label everything. When you get to genres and subgenres it gets so complicated. I call Lamb of God a metal band. I call Metallica a metal band. I call Pantera a metal band. I don't force myself to get over-complicated and say LoG is metalcore, Metallica thrash, and Pantera groove. It's all metal. Why is it so important to break everything down further? Can't it be a bunch of metal bands with their own unique sounds? Most of the above made valid points, I won't argue that. I just think that when you try to break something down too much you will get many conflicts as a result. P.S. Lamb of God rules! Feral Mind (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is true. Lamb of God, specially the old stuff, rules extremely fucking much. Why we over-classify metal? Because this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia is trying to be exact. You cant tell to people they should keep there just "metal". Nobody would kepp that. If we come to a true resolution (about the genre), we could keep it also without any discussions. This discussions about metalcore are not discussions about LoG beeing metalcore. It is just explaining to other people why is LoG metalcore. If it is clear what a band already is, the disussions about the genre are just to expain it to the others. It has no impact to the article anymore, unless somebody vandalizes it. Nobody discusses what Jimi Henrix or Led Zeppelin are anymore, cause it is clear already, and that is what we want to reach. I dont know but Sacrament sound a bit pathetic to me. It is still one of the best metal today, cause it just still rules, but it is not so pure as Burn the Priest or New American Gospel. It lacks the intensity, progressive song structures and some of these "funny riffs". Sacrament is little bit too simple, melodic and even repetitive compared to the Ashes of the Wake. But that is leally pitty, cause LoG is one of the best metal these days (fucking incredible this americans!!!). I hope they'll just pull together with the new album (and come to Europe!!!).--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes since this is an encylopedia I guess we should cover all that, you're right. I just don't see why some people get so defensive and get so pissed about it. I looked up alot of other bands and almost every one of them has a heated genre war. I also agree that that Sacrament was a disappointment with the exception of "Blacken the Cursed Sun" and maybe "Forgotten (Lost Angels)." Thanks for the enlightenment. Feral Mind (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd change the genre but to me genre isn't that important as I guess LoG fans here did watch Killadelphia DVD when Randy Blythe was interviewed by a radio host about their genre, he goes, f*ck that, as it's LoG music, not to be classified with genres. We shouldn't classify their genre but instead, we ditch it off and let everybody know it's lamb of god's genre and music. I agree with you about sacrament, it's just so pathetic, quite simple. unlike their previous albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztfun (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

hexes and curses

why is there no info on the page about that album? Just curious...

What? Hexes and Curses? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

somehow I am reading about some compilation album called hexes and curse... maybe it is not legit? like I said, just curious...

Nope, sorry, no album by that name. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.soundsbox.com/album.php?al=8336 - ??? I'm confused :(

That's a bootleg. Somebody released it without the record labels permission, so it is illegal. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ahhh... Thanks :)

No problem. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

log is a christian band ill add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakkman (talk • contribs) 08:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Person above me, I hope to GOD you are joking! LoG is one of the farthest things from christian you will ever hear. As I Lay Dying is christian and there lyrics are so far apart from LoG's it's not even funny. Snook666 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.88.247 (talk)

Quick-failed GA nomination

According to the quick-fail criteria, any GA candidate that has cleanup or expansion banners (such as the one at the beginning of this article) must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before renominating the article. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 02:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you take another look? I mistakenly placed the template there, thinking it was a friendly reminder that the page was rewritten, not a quick fail. The article is really good, I just made a minor mistake. Sorry. Please reconsider. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[Copied from talk] No harm done, you can just renominate it immediately. I'm not interested in doing a full review right now, I was just sweeping for quick-fails in the new nomiantions. There's no prejudice for the next review, so renominating it is the best solution. It doesn't qualify for any other quick fail criteria, so don't worry. VanTucky 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to take a more in-depth stab at the article.

• Hyphenated words need not have en dashes, i.e., Slipknot-related, not Slipknot–related. In the same vein, "CD–rom" is producing a red link because it is using an en dash and is correctly spelled "CD-ROM" (all letters capitalized).
• The allmusic references should be as detailed as the rest of them.
• Your primary source for information on the band is the piece on the band's official website. Though I know it is annoying to quote policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability says (and I agree) that "rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Therefore, an official bio is not appropriate to use as a source.Kakofonous (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the dashes, and I had the sources well done yesterday, but sombody reverted some vandal wrong. I'll get to work on other sources for the main. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The official website source is only used once now, for a quote. All concerns have been adressed. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 08:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Clear and efficient writing.

2. Factually accurate?: Referencing is excellent.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Reasonably stable.

6. Images?: Look at the Commons page for the band—I added one picture from there (doesn't really qualify as a substantial contribution) but you should think about adding more.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Kakofonous (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a few more images I found on Flickr to Wikimedia Commons. There are a few more on Flickr but they're not that great. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Genre Changes

I will not change right now, but I must voice the fact that LoG is not Metalcore and this should be removed. Groove, death, and thrash elements are represented in there music. Your reasons for listing them under metalcore are simply to generalized. They contain no clean vocals (apart from occasional spoken word, but this is not singing), no hip hop or rap elements, low tuned guitars and low vocals. There are little to no audible punk elements in their music, either. The styles present during Burn the Priest and New American Gospel, started to fade on As the Palaces Burn, and are not present on Ashes of the Wake or Sacrament. The metalcore tag should be removed.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmunnywhiskers (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You better find out for yourself at first what Metalcore is. It is better to learn something about that, what you want discuss, before you start to discuss.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I do know what metalcore is and i am educated on what I am talking about. Metalcore can be defined by bands such as Hatebreed, Suicidal Tendencies, and Machinehead. Lamb of God is Groove Metal with Elements of Death Metal. I understand your concern for the page, but I would appreciate it if you did not talk down to me as if i don't understand the subject.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely did not want to be offensive so calm down please. Some of your statements just make me wonder, cause they sound like you would have no clue...: Association of metalcore with clean vocals, hip hop or rap elements, punk elements - this things have really nothing to do with metalcore. And if you ment Machine Head - they really have nothing to do with metalcore. So I dont know, if you really know what metalcore is. If you do, why you write that down? And what about the references in the article?--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 10:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have conflicting views on exactly what Metalcore is. For instance, metalcore is in most general terms, a mixture of Hardcore punk and Thrash metal. Machinehead has made great impact on the metalcore genre. I have seen your other discussions on similar subjects, and I'm sorry to say that you seem like a person that cannot be known to be wrong(please do not take this offensively). Your discusssions always tend to convey the message that what you have said is set in stone and not up for discussion. To better understand the genre I would reccomend listening to Stormtroopers of Death and Dillinger Escape Plan. Please do not decide page details and be unwavering. After all, this is a community encyclopedia.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. You have a point in some way. When I discuss something I either try to learn some information before I discuss about the subject and then represent what I have learned, or I dont discuss . When I know enough about the subject I take it as a truth and so I present it, unless somebody tells me a real argument that it is not truth. I have never ever learned anything that would indicate that Machine Head plays something that could have anything to do with Metalcore. Maybe they were imortant for birth of metalcore but it doesnt make them metalcore. I don't know why do you think that this is set in stone and not up for discussion. Fell free to say it is nor truth of you can show reliable sources. Thanks for the tip, but I know Metalcore and Dillinger Escape Plan too.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I almost feel obligated to input my opinion here but it would pretty much be a repeat of what I said above in "Genre changes must stop" Feral Mind (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that Metalcore should be removed. There are more factors that say they are Groove Metal than Metalcore. I mean a band has to be one or the other really you can't nessesarily be both. There are no clean vocals or soft parts whatsoever and there are no harmonized guitar parts so how are they Metalcore? The only Metalcore element they have is the breakdowns but that is only one element. They have many Groove elements though; like harsh vocals, blues influence, some hardcore influence but not so much as to be Metalcore, they have blues-like solos, they have Groove and Thrash-sounding riffs, and people compare them to Pantera alot and Pantera was Groove Metal. But there's no need to change the genre because there are sources that say they are Metalcore and there shouldn't be an arguement started here. And Machine Head has nothing to do with Metalcore. I have no idea where you came up with that. Snook666 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.88.247 (talk)

Rolling Stone Says LoG is NOT metalcore

What else do I need to say? Review: http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/11199056/review/11925656/sacrament

"They've been pegged as "metalcore," but Lamb of God are a straight-up American metal band in the tradition of Pantera and Metallica."

The way I read that, is if LoG is metalcore then Pantea and Metallica are metalcore.

Someone show me another credible source saying that they are.

Here's the rest of the review:

"Sacrament, the Virginia five-piece's fourth LP, carries on much like the Lamb's previous records and is full of open-string chugging, relentlessly forceful drumming and Randy Blythe's bear-in-a-trap roar. There are missteps, such as the drawn-out "Pathetic," which goes nowhere, slowly, and the excessive overdubbing of Blythe's vocals throughout the record. Sacrament hints that the band may be running in circles a bit, but fans of that sort of thing should line up. "

--Deathwish238 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Other reliable sources state they are metalcore. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Which source? The Billboards? I don't know if I could ever call them reliable --72.179.60.150 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic.com, Popmatters.com, Rockdetector.com, Metal-archives.com, etc. Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say Rolling Stone is a better source than any of those sites, in the fact it is a national publication that has been around for 40 years--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence They've been pegged as "metalcore," but Lamb of God are a straight-up American metal band in the tradition of Pantera and Metallica is not an open statement they are not metalcore at first and if it would, it is only one source for this. There are many more fore metalcore.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust the other sources though. Allmusic.com has called Lamb of God Death Metal, I cannot find where popmatters.com calls Lamb of God Metalcore, and Metal-archives called Lamb of God Metalcore along with calling Sepultura "groove/hardcore" and it should be noted that metal-archives.com allows users to edit the content like wikipedia, but unlike wikipedia, it is not sourced or deliberated for corrections.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.123.41 (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

I really would like to see where AMG calls LoG Death Metal. Sepultura is one of co-founders of groove metal and nothing was groovier than Chaos A.D. and Arise in early 90s. After 96 (M.Cavalera left the band) they stared playing very very very hardcore influenced groove metal.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Rolling Stone is not the best source for metal or other extreme music and isn't more reliable than allmusic or even metal-archives (btw, metal-archives surely doesn't allow any user to change genres, only a dozen superusers are allowed to do so).

Why would LoG not be metalcore? Why? Metalcore is so divers, it ranges from The Red Chord to 36 Crazyfists. LoG is clearly both hardcore and metal influenced

here are the links:

• [1] "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement (with Shadows Fall and God Forbid hot on its heels), its hybrid of muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive", [2], [3], [4], [5]

Kameejl ^(Talk) 09:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector, metal-archives, and last.fm are not reliable because they are wikis. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They certainly aren't wikis (MA is moderated by about 20 admins, the genres on last.fm are chosen by a kind of voting system), I know they are no reliable source, i'm not a newby, but they emphasize what popmatters and allmusic say. Just like another dozen of websites. Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic.com calls lamb of god death metal/black metal so if you want to trust them go ahead. But can you provide a link to where popmatters.com says they are metalcore, that would help, because I could not find it.--Gmunnywhiskers (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• [6] "While Lamb of God has spearheaded the American metalcore movement (with Shadows Fall and God Forbid hot on its heels), its hybrid of muscular Pantera riffs and Megadeth-style progressive"

And Allmusic has one tag for death metal and black metal called "death metal/black metal". In this case it refers to death metal. Please look in the archives, and you'll see many (metal oriented) sources state LoG is death metal.

I still haven't got any answer to why LoG wouldn't be metalcore. "Metalcore is so divers, it ranges from The Red Chord to 36 Crazyfists. LoG is clearly both hardcore and metal influenced". Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last.fm does not have a genre system whatsoever. It has tags, which most users use for genre tagging, but last.fm does not have any sort of genre system in place and should never be used as a source. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

LoG is not metalcore. Show me one breakdown. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that LoG don't use breakdowns?--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 10:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok here you go - this is a job that everybody should do for himself - to listen to LoG. But I made the job for you and I made a small list of breakdowns on Burn the Priest and New American Gospel. Ther is the name of the song and the time behind is the time of the breakdown but take +/- several seconds into account.

• Burn the Priest:
  • Dimera - 0:43, 1:24, 1:32
  • Salivation - 0:10
  • Chronic Auditory Hallucination - after 1:43 (4 breakdowns), after 1:50 (3 breakdowns), after 1:85 (4 breakdowns)
  • Suffering Bastard - 1:32
  • Buckeye - 1:12
  • Lame - from 0:02 to 0:18 (6 breakdowns)
  • Preaching to the Converted - 0:53, 0:56, 1:01
• New American Gospel
  • Black Label - 0:21 (very short one), 2:28 (very nice one)
  • A Warning (only very short breakdowns) - 0:19, 0:29, 0:59
  • In the Absence of the Sacred - 0:20
  • Letter to the Unborn - 1:22
  • The Black Dahlia - 1:45, 2:55
  • The Subtle Arts of Murder and Persuasion - 2:40
  • Pariah - 0:44 (with cymbal), 2:21, 2:37, 2:55, 3:13 to 3:16 (with subsiding guitar)
  • O.D.H.G.A.B.F.E. - 2:46, 2:48, 2:50

You can make the other albums for yourself but be sure that there are also enough breakdowns...Lykantrop ^(Talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anyone in their right mind who would consider "New American Gospel" heavy metal. with it's screeching/ low growl vocals and it's rampant kick drum centric sound. Lamb of god is not metalcore btw. They ARE influenced by Harcore Punk however the fusion of harcore and metal that is metalcore is not at all concrete with a band like lamb of god. if anything they are a band that uses Death metal, Groove Metal, Hardcore punk interchangibly. Thus making them difficult to define. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.246.25 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Okay, this section is a mess. Why not just freakin list all the genres that people say they are and source them? I worked this article up to GA and this has gotten out of hand. I think you did a cool thing by adding the section, but it is not properly written and sourced. It should get fixed or just list all this crap in the infobox. Burningclean _[speak] 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You tell me this section is a mess. Ok, am not a native speaker of the english language so fix every unperfect formulation. But that is all what you can do now. It is a sum of about 15 professional reviews from 3 professional websites, which have the same attitude about LoG's genre (ass all professionals have). You say you brought the article to GA? So what? Just that it passed some completely pure criteria? The article IS very very very lame now, cause it consists only a biography. What will a reader of this encyclopedia know after reading your LoG article? An article about a MUSICAL artist? He will know what and when did somebody do somewhere something, but he will have no clue about what this artist creates. Is it what you call a good article about an artist? The biography (until now 95% of your superb article) is competely insignificant. A list of genres?? Thrash/harcore hybride= metalcore, power groove= groove metal. That is a big list for you? 2 genres? Death influences? that is what is the section for. Some mention about some sludge? that is what is the section for. The infobox is not the only place for the genre. You call it "all this crap" cause you don't agree? Not my problem. that is WP:POV. It is all well sourced: Allmusic Guide, Sputnikmusic, Metal Observer. Only professionals. What I did is mostly copying their statements. Not agree with some formulations? Fix them! But you have no rights to delete it from the article or change what the professionals say, otherwise you vandalize it. Almost every article has somebody as you are, who feels like the article is his children and always frighten and scare what somebody as me did to their perfect article. You better calm down, read the sources and accept it, and fix it if you are so nice, instead of premature deleting. And don't tell any terrified "oh my God, just another vandal is trying to write down something, that I dont like to be there!" --Lykantrop ^(Talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made some syntactical fixes to this paragraph with this talk page edit. (Remember that genres are uncapitalized and that ref tags should be arranged in numerical order.) However, all the citations should be reformatted with {{cite web}}; the current format doesn't hold well with good article reviewers. Also, I agree that this needs rewritten; it sounds really POV and even plagiarized. Actually, I'm almost certain parts of this are plagiarized = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think it should be fixed, fix it! Deleting of this it is vandalism. Uncapitalized genres or not perfect format of refs is not a reason to delete the whole thing. And before you start to talk about WP:POV, you better read this 15 professional reviews. Fix all what you want, add tons of new sources, but don't vandalize Wikipedia. And where do you have this god-dam "plagiarized" from? Don't make me laugh!!! Of course it is mostly just copied text from the reviews!! That is what we gotta do man! Otherwise you make WP:OR - one of the most important rules of Wikipedia! Read the WP:5 Pillars too..

Lets see your GA. You "section" is a mess. Metal Observer and Sputnik are not reliable. AMG is not supposed to be used all the time, therefore, not acceptable. Look at other article with style sections (ie. every recently featured band article) By the way, I didn't want this permanently deleted, I want it fixed. If someone were to read this article (alot do) and notice it were a GA, they would read the bio and then come across this mess of a section, and I could lose my GA. Burningclean _[speak] 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You use very poor arguments. MO and sputnik are reliable. What else is, if not professional reviews of music? I dont understand what you mean about AllmusicGuide. You wasnt able to do such a simple thing, just to collect some professional information about the genre until now. I am not saying that the Biography is shit, it is good, but it is just the biography. You just delete the music style and dont tell why. Mess? how? because of capital letters? Be honest - do you thing you can find more reliable sources than these? WHAT is not reliable about PROFESSIONAL a review? Tell me WHAT EXACTLY is rubbish in the section?? It is not me who wrote something, what you dont agree with. I just represent the reviews. Of yourse that it can become much better, if we use some more sources for that, but you can keep it in the article. There is no reason to put it on the talkpage. If you have some personal reasons, they are not a problem of Wikipedia.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rewrite it myself but I don't have the time. Obviously you do. Also, I don't think you understood what I said at all. What I said still stands—even though information was pulled from reviews, the way it is presented in this article is giving a very biased representation by stating that what the reviewers said is true, rather than "some people say that...". And you can't plagiarize material, it's illegal. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you talk about plagiarizing? Are you from the Earth? Are you telling me we can't tell what reliable sources tee? Are you telling me we should not use any sources to not to plagiarize them? You are telling me to make the original research, so you know. From where else should we have the information? How can it be plagiarizing? Do I or Wikipedia or anybody else have FINANCIAL PROFIT from it? IS IT COPYRIGHTED ??? ??? OF COURSE NOT !!! What wikipedians MUST DO IS TO TAKE RELIABLE SOURCES AND WRITE TO WIKIPEDIA EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY. You are telling me that it is prohibited to do exactly what rules tell us to do! How can I disuss some genre problems with somebody who has such arguments as you have??? And you want to move it to the talkpage just because YOU dont have time to fix it? There are also other people than you, who can fix it. Wikipedia coniders the statements of professionals as a TRUTH. Not "people say..". All the profesionals say the same thing, so it has to be presented as a TRUTH unless you show me some other professionals, who tell something else.--Lykantrop ^(Talk) 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't make any sense at all. I'm saying yes, use reliable sources, but don't copy them verbatim. You don't even know what plagiarism is. All professionals do NOT say the same thing, especially when it comes to genres, because they're a particularly touchy subject. Also, please read up on this for me. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So tell me what is plagiarism. What I know is that wikipedians are allowed to copy exact text parts from reliable sources. Professionals have one attitude about LoG. That is what I can read in all profesional reviews. There are no disagreements about the genres. I dont see genres so touchy. And I am really sorry if I make an uncivil impress, but it wasnt me, who made the first offesive uncivil step by deleting well collected information just because of WP:POV disagreements and lack of knowledge of the Wpikipedia-rules. It is not easy to stay 100% civil to vandals.Lykantrop ^(Talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Editors are not allowed to copy exact text parts from reliable sources. Read up on it here and here. Also, removing questionable content is not a form of vandalism, so you had better be careful when throwing that word around. Wikipedia:Vandalism states "vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Nobody is trying to compromise the article's integrity; we're all here to improve it. You don't have full control over what does and does not go into an article. Additionally, I don't know how long you've been around, but it is very true that genres are very subject to debate in all music articles, especially metal ones. If you read enough, you will find professionals that disagree, just like editors here do. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

1.The article plagiarism is not a policy, 2. Read Wikipedia:Plagiarism properly - users may reproduce a section of text verbatim as long as the copied text is clearly set off with quotation marks or indents, and as long as the source is clearly noted. 3. Specially for you I told an administrator to expain it again: here. It is ok to copy text parts (that is what I did). Only large fraction should be interpreted with other words (with no changes of the substance).5.Yes I've seen lots of genre-discussions around wikipedia metal articles. But it does't make the content really disputed. 99% of all this discussions are based on personal opinions of the editors with no sources and knowledge of the rules until somebody writes down neutral verifiable reproduction of professionals' statements. I have never seen some big dispute between professionals. And if I will not find any, the discussion is not about the genre. It is just for explaining it to other users. I never want to be offensive. I didn't start with offense. And I am opened for discussions if you are able to discuss with knowledge of Wikipdia's policies.6.I was neither talking nor thinking about having any full control over the article. I am just correctly extending Wikipedia with the best intetions and I don't see anything defective on the section.  LYKANTROP  19:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Only a few bits of text that were copied from reviews were set off in quotes in the section as it stands. If you don't use quotes, that makes it plagiarism. The person who replied to you was pretty clear on that. Also, there are problems with that section, whether you see them or not. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are NOT reliable. We are trying to reach a consensus. If you add this again it will be vandalism and you can be blocked. Burningclean _[speak] 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just now looked at them—Sputnik Music reviews aren't allowed at all unless they're staff reviews, which none of them are. Allmusic is okay though (I'm not sure about Prefix). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I accept your statements with Sputnikmusic and quotes of course, cause you told me why. But I have only 1 question to you, if I drop everything with sputnikmusic and add quotes: What is poorly written? How is it poorly written and what exactly is poorly written? Which parts/statements don't you (both) agree with? Talk clearly please. Not like "it's mess", "it's crap". How is it mess, what exactly is crap? Thanks  LYKANTROP  10:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to believe what you told to me so I started to delete sputnikmusic refs and so on. I added all quotes to the refs, but there is one thing how you really disappointed me. You are lying to me. I don't like if somebody lies to me. How can I trust you, if you lie?: You said Sputnik Music reviews aren't allowed at all unless they're staff reviews. But that is only for infobox. see below, Sputnikmusic's non-staff reviews are not for infobox, but they are for the article. It is in the list of review-sites, which are not for the infobox. I may use every review for the article. All my reviews are raliable. Even Encyclopedia Metallum would be. The second lie was the whole thing with verbatim reproduction of text. Please be honest in your arguments, otherwise I can't see it as good faith. So I used only pure reliable sources according to policy and added all quotes to the references. There is nothing more that could be problematic in any way. If you think it is "poor written" it is WP:POV. "Poor written" is not a real argument --  LYKANTROP  20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You've cleaned it up all right with psoe and stuff but the sources are still unreliable. If it doesn't have an author, it is more than likley unreliable. And just because it does it still doesn't make it a for certain reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningclean (talk • contribs)

@ Lykantrop:

Please direct us to where it says, anywhere, that non-staff reviews on SputnikMusic is a reliable source. I'll help you out though—nowhere does Wikipedia state that.

I still don't think you know what we're talking about with verbatim copying of statements. It is permissible to copy text from antoher site only if:

1. It's placed in quotations or a blockquote tag.
2. It's referenced.

I don't think I can be any clearer. Also, please do not put this section back until a consensus has been reached. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I am repeating what I said: Sputnikmusic is reliable for the article: Copied text from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums:

Text removed because it was redundant and taking up space. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This says that only some sources should be used for infoboxes. Article are something else. There is a list of websites that are not ok for infobox, but they are still ok for the article. For example Encyclopedia Metallum.

An administrator said: "No, it's not plagiarism to reproduce a section of text verbatim—as long as the copied text is clearly set off with quotation marks or indents, and as long as the source is clearly noted."

My copied text is clearly set off with quotation marks or indents and sources. Addition of the authors is a 5 minutes work (but still is not necessary). Of course I could rewrite the text to be a bit different, so that you cant say it is plagiarism, but there is no need to do it. As long as I cite the source of the text, it is just reproduction. And there are actually only several sentences from the whole text that are verbatim. I already used my own definitions based on the sources a lot.

The other thing is that you are even lying again and again. You said "It is permissible to copy text from antoher site only if:It's placed in quotations or a blockquote tag." No. No rule says that. It is "as long as the copied text is clearly set off with quotation marks or indents, and as long as the source is clearly noted." Not placed in quotations. And you said "Please direct us to where it says, anywhere, that non-staff reviews on SputnikMusic is a reliable source. I'll help you out though—nowhere does Wikipedia state that." Another lie. I told you above "see below" with a link. The Non-professional reviews say that. See above to the text I copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. How can I discuss with you if you still lie? You just twist the definitions as you like it... That is nothing else than non-neutrality, bad faith and POV.

Wikipedia:Copyright problems: "Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced."

That is pretty clear... Ain't it?

You are removing my text with no arguments. Your actions are based on nothing. That is pure vandalism. I could have already put 2 warnings on your talkpages for removing sourced text with a comment such as "poorly written, probably plagiarized", "Unreliable sources, poorly written".

What I did was I added some quality text to the article with the best intentions (sourced, quoted, the best album reviews you can find). I thought: some people will improve it, rewrite it, adjust some unperfect definitions, add better info, delete not so good one, just make the text better. The text is 100% neutral and objective. Later I took also the reviews from the recommended "Review sites" from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and added them. These most reliable sources are saying the same thing as my original ones. But you just came and deleted it with arguments such as "poorly written, it is mess, it is crap, not reliable sources, it is plagiarized". Is that civil? How are your actions neutral and non-POV if even the most reliable and recommended reviews agree with me along with lots of others? As you can see above, no rule or policy is against my sources, verbatim reproduction is not a problem with sources and quotations (as I have it). That it is crap and mess is your opinion. What is in my text are the statements of proffesionals. You have no rights to delete the text and as long as you do, it is vandalism. Even if you think you know about something incorrect, it would not be a reason to move it out of the article.

I don't understand why you keep moving it from the article. If you just don't agree with the professionals, I can't help you. I am accepting every constructive edit of the section in the article, but you have the same rights to move the "Musical style" to the talkpage as I have to move the biography to the talkpage.  LYKANTROP  00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're twisting the WikiProject rules to mean whatever you like. I'm not lying to you, you are misinterpreting everything. There's no difference between being "set off with quotation marks or indents" and "placed in quotations". What I said matches policy.

The text you copied only states what can and can't be included in infoboxes. It doesn't say what can and can't be included in article bodies, so that doesn't help your argument.

The section, as I've stated before, is riddled with bias. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. There's a statement that says "Blythe's vocals are even more focused". It's sourced by Allmusic, which is fine. However, that statement is an opinion, not fact, making it POV. Some people may think that his vocals aren't more focused. Just because a professional says it, that does not make it necessarily true, especially with opinions. There are many more examples of this: "vicious anger of past death metal albums", "searing musicality", etc. The one sentence that says "Some songs are considered as the loudest corner of hardcore, some are called as a simple thrash workout..." is okay, because it asserts that some people say that, instead of this is the truth. Also, you still can't use SputnikMusic non-staff reviews as sources. It's because, even though the review may be well-written, the person who wrote it is anonymous (considered extremely undesirable in Wikipedia) and may be very unreliable. Wikipedia needs to stick to professional, sourceable references. I have every right to disagree with the opinions of professionals, and because of this, Wikipedia should not state the opinions of professionals as fact.

I've been working in WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Metal for quite some time, and I have a really good idea of what sort of statements should and should not be included. Some of that section is fine, but some should be drastically reworded.

It isn't vandalism to try and improve Wikipedia. Everyone posting on this talk page is trying to improve this article. We are pointing out things that need to be fixed in order to improve it. You have stated, "You have no rights to delete the text and as long as you do, it is vandalism. Even if you think you know about something incorrect, it would not be a reason to move it out of the article." Firstly, yes we do have the right to delete text. Here it states "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited". We are trying to improve this section by making changes off the page in order to keep the article free from opinions and unreliable sources. I don't know why you can't understand this. Secondly, if an editor has any reasonable doubt that something is incorrect, they have every right to move it out of the article until a source or correction can be found. It's all very simple.

That's all I have to say. I'm finished spouting policy at you. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still some small "policy things" that should be cleared, but I will go straight down to bussines at this moment. What annoyed me was your attitude (yours and Burningclean's + 2 things). One thing is that generally on Wikipedia it just is allowed to copy text verbatim. The other thing was, that you said my sources are unreliable. Only source that could be doubted is Sputnikmusic. Lets say Sputnikmusic is not reliable. If I delete all Sputnikmusic sources, there would be only 1 sentence without any source. Your biggest arguments were that it is not allowed to copy verbatim and that the text is bad sourced. But it is allowed to copy verbatim (you said the opposite) and there is only 1 sentence that is unreliable sourced, all others have a reliable one. This were your arguments, but they completely don't fit. This and your aggresive reaction annoyed me. You just deleted it, called it crap, mess, plagirized and unreliable. It is reliable (except the 1 sentence) and copying text is allowed. The text wasn't so bad to have such a reaction. That was my main problem with you. I am not gonna explain anything more now -that is just so that you know what my problem was (other of your arguments I accepted). I think you agree that the discusion started totally shitty and goes on totally shitty. I don't see this as a constructive way of a discussion, so I propose one thing. Lets leave all the shit we told behind. No personal shit anymore, no enemy atmosphere, just a pragmatic, matter-of-fact, relevant, normal, calm discussion. If both sides start new friendly discussion, I am sure we can solve it with no problem. What do you say?--  LYKANTROP  22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've copied (not moved) the section back here and suggested some edits with deletions (strikeouts), additions (underlines), and other notes (boldface). I've also changed some refs that were poorly titled or whatever. Also, I don't think using quotes in the refs (especially lengthy ones) is necessary, since anyone can look at the source themselves. I've removed them for now to make editing this section a bit more readable. note: I've only looked at the first three paragraphs as of this edit. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 05:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to ask me to make such an edit. I am in favor of every edit that makes the section better and I am sure that you want to make it better. You can check the other paragraphs and write it down right to the article without any copying.--  LYKANTROP  10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I shall do that. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I thing it is cleared, although the way it happened was a bit uncomfortable. I think that both sides could be more tolerant and both made some mistakes. I am sorry for what you feel I made wrong and I don't complain about what I think you did/said wrong. I just don't want that any negative remains from the past continue, specially if we meet/discuss sometimes somewhere else (you and Burningclean). Thanks for an answer..--  LYKANTROP  11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was stupid of all of us. I'm glad this got cleared up. And now the talk page is humongous :-p = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is missing something I think is elementary. The ongoing dispute is all about genres, so, what is LoG's genre? That's why I've added the following part:

Due to the variety of influences, stylistic elements and changes throughout the bands career the press has chosen several genres and terms to describe Lamb of God's music. Lamb of God has been labelled as metalcore, groove metal, New Wave of American Heavy Metal, death metal, thrash metal and alternative metal. />

We might want to include the Rolling Stone source to point out the metalcore genre is not accepted by everyone but for I think this is OK. Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but this paragraph is just repeating what the whole section says. That is a list of the genres in one sentence. I don't know what is it good for. The information is already there. And the alernative metal tag is totally unessential. I would not include that only because of one source (that even I doesn't work). I don't know...what do you say?--  LYKANTROP  11:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually can't see where does the Burn the Priest review on Allmusic say something about alternative metal.--  LYKANTROP  06:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's tucked away in the infobox on the left side, where Allmusic is infamous for making up total bullshit genres. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 13:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Allmusic's reviews are god sources, but OF COURSE you can't look up to the infoboxes there. I am sure they are not serious. They don't make any differences between metal subgenres...  LYKANTROP  19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Their metal genre system is entirely messed up. They're not refined enough to even make a distinction between death and black metal. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an essential part and it is not completely covered by the rest of the section. The genres in the infobox aren't really covered by the section (where is metalcore? "A strong element of power groove", does that make 'em groove metal?). After reading the section I would expect death metal to be in the infobox. The section mainly mentions influences, almost no definitive classifications given by the press. It's good to compare LoG to Pantera or even Meshuggah and it's good to mention LoG's influences but I just don't think the section is satisfying to users who disagree with the genres mentioned in the infobox (and therefore probably not stopping the ongoing edit war). The part I've added is consistent with most genre clearifying parts in other articles (see Queen (band), System of a Down, Cradle of Filth, Meshuggah, etc). It is 100% objective and sourced.

I would rewrite it to:

== Musical style == Lamb of God was formed as an instrumental band Burn the Priest and included vocals firstly after Randy Blythe joined the band as a vocalist. After they reached the success with the release of 2004's Ashes of the Wake the band is often associated with such terms as the "leaders" of the new wave of American heavy metal and "pure American metal" or "pure American death metal". Burn the Priest and early Lamb of God has been defined by as a thrash metal, death metal and hardcore punk hybrid with a strong element of power groove, which often connects Lamb of God with the influential groove metal band Pantera. Lamb of God has also been compared to Meshuggah without some of their mathematical components. Burn the Priest and early Lamb of God include typical death metal vocals with only a few moments of words that can actually be deciphered. Due to the variety of influences, stylistic elements and changes throughout the bands career the press has chosen several genres and terms to describe Lamb of God's music. Lamb of God has been labelled as metalcore, groove metal, New Wave of American Heavy Metal, death metal, and thrash metal.

Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But at first I really disagree with shortening of the original section. You left only the totally basic information, but the other information is also very informative. The section is already very reduced. But what you added - yeah, there was actually not an open statement "LoG is this and this". That is true. And it is a good idea to add it in the end of the section. I would leave it, but I have some remarks. NWOAHM is not a musical genre. It is a muscic movement as NWOBHM is, not a genre. You can't say "Lamb of God plays New Wave of American Heavy Metal". The other thing is that I totally disagree that LoG is a thrash metal or death metal band (it was a subject of several edit wars). If you say death/thrash/hardcore hybrid it means neither death metal band, neither thrash band nor hardcore punk band. Because thrash/hardcore = metalcore and death/hardcore = deathcore. I am in favour of the paragraph you added. It is a good idea, but it should include Metalcore and Groove Metal. Just so that the section includes what the infobox says for 100%. But not death and thrash. These influences do not make them a band of these genres. It would actually give to everybody a reason to add these two genres to the infobox. You can't put metalcore and groove metal on the same level as thrash and death here. I think that the death/thrash thing is explained in the section enough.  LYKANTROP  19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What I said happened. People add those genres to the infobox. I will change it.--  LYKANTROP  10:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that death and thrash are already explained in the section enough as I said already. Most of sources (actually the most reliable ones) explain that they are death/thrash/hardocre. With lost of groove. That means metalcore eventually deathcore with lots of groove. There are not many reliable sources that call them clearly death/thrash band. If you have some new reliable sources, you can add them to this discussion, but you didn't explain why should we call them as death metal or thrash metal. Having elements or influences from this genre does not make them a band of this genre.  LYKANTROP  07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The genres are not added to the infobox because they are in the section, they are added because people think LoG is playing those genres. To be objective (remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine) we must cite the press. This band has been labeled tons of genres. You might not agree with some of the reviewers, but their interpretation of LoG's sound is not wrong per se. By naming all genres commonly associated with LoG the section is as neutral as possible. And that is what we should want, we want every POV is represented. Then, readers can draw their own conclusion. Just look at the style sections of the articles I've mentioned earlier. If a genre is debated then it's best to mention all the genres (sourced of course) and keep the genres in the infobox as general as possible. Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You use 2 sources for death and thrash metal. this and this. Allmusic has in its biography "pure American death metal" tag. This is a term that was invented by LoG themselves. It is a "motto" or "phrase" as for example "pure american metal" is. It is not making them death metal band. Allmusic is not usable for this statement. The other source is a websitesite made and administred by one software developer. Not even a musical critic. Use some other sources that call LoG a thrash/death metal band please...  LYKANTROP  11:58, 14 April 2008

(UTC)

The thing is, they never called themselves "Pure American Death Metal, they called themselves "Pure American Metal". Thats just another example of AMG pulling something of their asses.Inhumer (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic is good source, your reasoning is flawd. I can find tons of sources for death/thrash as I have shown before. Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic does not say LoG is a death metal band. BNR is not reliable. Metal Observer in NAG review says Thrash/Death, Extreme and something about "energy of power groove". Why don't you include extreme metal? Thrash elements are in metalcore and groove metal too. The As The Palaces Burn review is the same: "Death/Thrash salvo". Does it make them a death metal and thrash metal band? As it is already said in the article, LoG is death/thrash/hardcore hybrid (source). Does it make them a death metal, thrash metal and harcore punk band? Every metalcore band is thrashy and uses thrash-salvos. Every metalcore band uses breakdowns and hardore riffing. Does it mean that every metalcore band is a thrash metal band an a HC band?  LYKANTROP  21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gear

Anyone want to chuck something in about their equipment if they can find any? Pedals, amps, guitars, kits etc --ArdClose (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That is un-notable for the page. Burningclean _[speak] 16:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lamb Of God Metalcore?

This not metalcore, This Band Is A Groove Metal or Neo-Thrash Metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forced life1983 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been debated thoroughly already, and a conclusion has already been reached. Please do not modify the genre section. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 23:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you have the information from?--  LYKANTROP  09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with Lamb of God being called metalcore neither. To me, metalcore isn't even real metal music, and I would say Lamb of God is a real metal band. I agree that they play in the spirit of bands like Pantera and Metallica. Groove metal seems to some up there genre just fine. In there early years there music was more of a death metal/groove metal mix. But later there music had changed to more of a thrash/groove metal sound. Metalcore should definitely be removed. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the dude above me. If they are metalcore than where are the soft/ clean parts? Where are the harmonized riffs and clean vocals? Everyone thinks that these sources like the billboards and all that crap know something about metal when they don't know a thing. They think that just because LoG is a modern metal band that that automatically makes them metalcore. And whoever thought that putting what Campbell said about LoG being a "punk band that plays metal" thinks that is LoG saying they are metalcore, than why don't we call them Prog. Metal because they are always calling themselves Prog. Rock.--65.25.88.247 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone agrees with me too. Lamb of God is to metal to have the metalcore label. Most of your true metal fans are fans of Lamb of God, and most of us hate metalcore. There music doesn't have any metalcore in it at all. They sound nothing like Killswitch Engage or Atryeu, more like Pantera than anything. LoG should be listed as Death metal/grindcore (early), Thrash metal, and Groove metal. I think (I know personal opinions don't work on wikipedia) this would describe them best. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Burn the Priest in big bold letters at the top of the page

Keep putting it there and i'll keep deleting it. Tabloiid (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why??? It's a pretty important piece of information. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 03:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are really funny boy I see. You've admit that you are intentionally breaking the rules now... You are senselessly removing information from the article (see WP:VANDAL and WP:GOODFAITH) and openly intent to make edit war (see WP:EDITWAR) All what you do is prohibited and if you carry on, you are on the best way to be blocked. Take it just as a friendly warning. Best wishes and cheers! :)  LYKANTROP  19:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the way I see it, it is actually whatever christian right-wing conservative nuts that keep coming here and plastering 'OMG THEY UZED TO BE CALLED BURN TEH PRIEZT DON'T LISTEN TO THEM!!1' who are in the wrong and who should be banned from making further edits. ALL bands have gone by previous names, Burn The Priest didn't even last that long, but for some reason it's imperative to show that they used to be named Burn The Priest at the top of the page where it DOESN'T belong? I think if you look at it the RIGHT way you'll see I'm the proper one...

I mean, they mention again that they used to be named BTP right in the first sentence of the History. Isn't one mention enough WHERE IT BELONGS? Tabloiid (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If people are vandalizing it because it says they used to be called Burn the Priest, we simply revert the vandalism and block the users. Vandalism is NOT a reason to keep things out of Wikipedia. Also, the fact they were called that DOES belong at the top of the page, since they did release an album under that name and people navigating to Burn the Priest who get redirected may get confused. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Well", at first you should read WP:LEAD before you say what you think that belongs there and what not. The band released a full lenght album and existed under the name Burn the Priest almost as long as under Lamb of God. They did not "disown" the name (they use it on their homepage very frequently see). I think there was a WP:Consensus about the inclusion of it (as you see how many people reverted you - obviously the IP(s) that reverted "us" are your sock puppets). And as per WP:LEAD we are trying to expand the lead section, not make it shorter and delete significant information. I did not see any complaining christians yet. If you are concerned about christians - I also do not complain and do not see it offensive, although I am a christian. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it should bring neutral information. Users are here not to figure out who should be banned and who not. There is no "RIGHT way", there is only verifiable way.  LYKANTROP  20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be cleared, I will fix it in the article.--  LYKANTROP  09:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre Cleanup

I've removed the links to both sludge and death metal in the genre box. The citation for sludge in the musical style section only stats that one song "Resurrection #9" "slides downhill into a half-time sludge worthy of Earth". While this might be able to suggest some influence from the genre, it does not suggest that LOG is a sludge band. Death metal is unsourced and I removed it as OR. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna remove Grind, as it seems really out of place. Inhumer (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling them grindcore is just ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.25.235 (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been re-added, i'll remove it. Kameejl ^(Talk) 20:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LOG: Nu metal

Due to how pop they are music-wise, I think that they should be considered nu-metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.111.169 (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:5--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nu-metal? Why? When you “invented” it? :( Cannibaloki 00:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lamb of God isn't even metal. They're just posers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.25.235 (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if LoG are posers then all metallers are posers. Who the fuck is not a poser in metal?--62.209.218.100 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because Lamb of God is NOT metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.31.61 (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who of all the melodic or symphonic pathetic gays are more honest metal in today's scene?

Leave this loser alone, he's obviously trolling this talk page trying to prove he's super cool. He doesn't even know how to sign his name, nor does he have a username. LOG are far from Nu-Metal, and everybody knows it. Nickoladze (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Grindcore

Grindcore has been added to the infobox a couple of times now. Last time a comment was added too ("early career as Burn the Priest and on their First album")

OK, there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to grindcore. In the late 80s metal and (hardcore) punk became faster, louder and more aggresive, which finally resulted in death metal and grindcore respectively. These genres have similarities (also clear differences) but come from totally different backgrounds.

Listen to early Carcass/Napalm Death/Brujeria/Repulsion and hear what grindcore is all about. There are very few similarities with BtP or old LoG. Kameejl ^(Talk) 11:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand where the grindcore tag came from. The band isn't grindcore at all, nor have I seen any sources stating so (which is what counts). = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 14:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions grindcore with source. Many sources (for example Allmusic) also say that early LoG is death/thrash fused with harcore, what is exactly grindcore. If I listen to Napalm Death - Yes it is the same style, but LoG is just (much) newer and have clearer sound. Both are just fast aggressive HC with death metal melodies, atmosphere and vocals. Both have HC songstructures and riffing-cadence, with total death metal (sometimes thrash) textures and melodies. They are both HC+death = grindcore. And this has many sources. This is valid of course only for early LoG and BtP. The only difference is that Napalm Death is more primitive compared to some BtP structures.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Writing

This article suffers from terrible writing. I would revise it myself but I do not have the grasp of English that is necessary. Surely there is a Lamb of God fan who doesn't write like a 13 year old or someone who learned English as a second language.Kurasuke (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Speed Metal

I think speed metal should be added to the genre list. As far as sources go, on the DVD that comes with Sacrament, Chris Adler calls them a "Speed Metal Band" several times. Is it alright if I add it to the genre list? Xanthic-Ztk (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion of the band members can only be mentioned in the article body as an opinion of the band members.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)