Talk:Battle metal

Battle metal? Does this term even exist? And what has Bathory got in common with Manowar? Manowar is definately not Black metal, they are more in the Power or Heavy Metal genre. Isn't Folk or Viking metal more appropriate titles for this article? Shandolad 16:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this genre is not well-defined enough to include it. Naming a genre after a one-year-old debut album of a new band is pretty silly. It would make much more sense to put Turisas in with other black/power crossover bands with folk influences, like Kalmah, Finntroll, Bal-Sagoth, Skyfire, Norther etcetera. Those bands also have a bigger reputation as leaders of their genre than Turisas.

Especially Bal-Sagoth bears a lot of resemblance to Turisas, so if there is such a genre as 'battle metal' Bal-Sagoth should be named as pioneering it instead of this relatively newfound band.

ROTFL

Battle Metal? Such thing don't exist.

Yeah, no shit. Look at half the metal subgenre articles, the same bands will appear in multiple articles for the same material. Metal genre-snobs are worse than fucking techno snobs.

And what do you propose? Do you have any ideas as to how that could be helped? Shandolad 11:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody keeps merging war metal and battle metal. As far as I am concerned, "battle metal" doesn't even exist; but the definition of it here is as far removed from war metal as possible. Children with no knowledge of metal should not be allowed to dictate what these articles say. (EDIT) Well, it appears now war metal merges with black metal. That's certainly much closer than "battle metal".

The first time I heard the term Battle Metal was on the Back of a Bal-Sagoth T-shirt, I think it was just after the release of Battle Magic back in 1998. Bal-Sagoth are definatley poineers of their own sound and anyone who follows suit should be classified as Battle Metal (Turisas). I think its a small but slowley growing scene that deserves a place in Wiki.

That may be, but it needs to be better defined if it is to be included. I don't think that anything that is a sub-genre of black metal could be "cloesly related" to epic metal. As is, the article reads as though it was written by someone who knows little about sub-genres of metal and/or inexpeirenced. I wouldn't believe anything I read in it because of this.24.240.19.71 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the constant talk about "Battle Metal" not existing actually proves the point, that on some level it does. It might not be worth to try to put it out here as genre of it's own - as it hasn't been very well defined anywhere - but more as a sidenote, that the term "Battle Metal" has been connected with a number of bands. I agree that Bal-Sagoth should definetly be mentioned - as should Manowar, but more as what Black Sabbath etc. is to metal/black metal than as founders. The ones who really launched the term was Turisas with their debut, on which Metal Hammer later picked up and started tagging bands -almost randomly - Battle Metal. None of us might consider Battle Metal as a genre, but that doesn't still say that it should be removed, specially because of the term still being widely known.

Merging with Epic Metal

I've edited (anonimously, 82.58.106.137, forgot to login) the Epic Metal article and moved the merging tag to the subsection about battle metal: lots of the Epic Metal bands don't have anything in common with Battle Metal, and a merge in this direction does not make any sense.

Maybe there could be a merging of the Battle Metal article in the Epic Metal one, in its own section: I don't listen to Black Metal, so I don't really know how close the two subgenres are. Or the Battle Metal section in the Epic Metal article could be changed to a line like "Influences from this genre and Black metal gave birth to Battle metal." and move the text in here.

Valhalla 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)