Talk:Type O Negative/Archive 1

type o negative are in no shape or form a thrash metal band. i'm deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.153.160 (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually listened to their first two albums? Or are you judging them only by their later work? It would be hard to support the idea that the first two albums do not have a thrash sound. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There first two albums had a hardcore punk influence. Just because Pete had the band "Carnivore" doesn't make them Thrash Metal at all. The first two album were "punk" & possibly "Crossover" & hell even "Thrashcore" but no way in hell are they "Thrash Metal". STOP CHANGING TO THAT!!!! 14 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.99.106 (talk)

The genres for this article were in constant flux. This is a hurdle that should be overcome before good article status is obtained. The presently listed genres were the ones that seemed to appear most often and be most stable (I've been watching this article for a long time). As such, they were chosen to represent the band unless a consensus is reached on the talk page to change the genres. This is where you are going wrong, you are trying to skip the discussion phase. It is not me preventing you from changing the genres. If you wish to change them, write your best argument here (with sources, if possible) and wait a while (perhaps a couple of weeks even) and see if the other editors agree with you. The only thing I'm doing is making sure discussion occurs because the genre-issue at this article has been a persistent problem. I have an opinion on what you wrote and I'll abstain from writing it so as not to bias the discussion. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I know there's not supposed to be original research, but can someone back me up on the fact that Type O' Negative contains some elements that seem to be influenced by My Bloody Valentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenFehling (talk • contribs) 11:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true. In this interview by Octavia in January 2000, in response to the question "What bands do you listen to?" Steele says, "It's everything from old Sabbath and The Beatles to Devo, Laibach, Cocteu, Twins, My bloody Valentine, Dead Can Dance..." Jason Quinn (talk) 04:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Reading through many of the descriptions, parts of this page almost sound more like a fan's review of the band than an encyclopedic entry. I think some of the descriptions used should be cleaned up, as the descriptions shouldn't be either praising nor condemning, just objective.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.70.171.36 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree with that, this article is ridiculous, especially the opening paragraph, it's calling uncharted songs hits and the writer seems confused about the term goth. 58.106.200.164 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Various Brooklyn lyric refences to trivia.
• Some of the covers such as Pictures of Matchstick Men with Ozzy Ozbourne?
• Track listings for the albumns?

--DamienG 23:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

4/20/05

• "The Origin of the Feces" is NOT a live album AFAIK - ElfQT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.69.176 (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered why that song never made it to number one. It speaks to the very soul of what rock is: 'a pretty rose that stings', 'all pleasure is met with pain' and 'the best you can hope for is to be temporarily less miserable’.

It might be worth mentioning who recorded those covers that are incorrectly attributed to Type O Negative. Those wishing to find them (or at least correct what they have listed in their playlists) would find such information helpful. - Riggermantis 01:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

For anyone that sees fit to incorporate the names of the groups/bands that recorded the incorrectly attributed covers, I have done a smidgeon of research and found that the song Angel was done by a group called theAstralSleep. This is the only page I could find about them. - Riggermantis 02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. about that: is it true they made a cover of Monty Python's "Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life"? I heard a doom version of it once and it sounded al lot like Type O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.58.153 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sal Abruscato should not be redirected to this page, he is the original as well as current drummer for Life of Agony

I heard TON was on SPV now? but i'm not sure... i don't keep up with them anymore... Naufana 00:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true, you can read about it at SPV's website. Avador 02:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=2838 NOTE: This site is considered blacklisted by wikipedia. This note was added after the fact.
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

They may have been described as "gothic doom", but that doesn't mean it's their genre. Just like gore metal = death metal, gothic doom = gothic metal. --Danteferno 22:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If you visit http://www.typeonegative.net/ you get a splash screen that instead of redirecting to the web site home page, directs to the forum. There are no links on the page to direct to any other parts of the web page besides the forum. This can cause problems for unfamilar users who think Type O Negatives web site is just a forum. I didn't find any "home" page to link to. What should we do about this? Should we change the link, add a notice or do nothing? --Arm 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's just a forum, there is no home page.--84.189.1.87 09:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is not just a forum. For example, http://www.typeonegative.net/bio_peter.html And if you navigate around that page youll find links to other pages on the official Type O Negative site. --Arm 05:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Me again. Sure, I know - that's what is left over from the original homepage (ah, can't recall how it was before, need to check webarchives). Their Web administrator is rather being lazy these days than hiding bio- and discographies. Ordinary users are not meant to find these pages you dug unless they followed foreign referencing links, which are in fact outdated. Afaik a new homepage is going to appear someday (again). --84.189.60.95 20:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop crediting the song "Angel" to some German band called Astral Sleep. The song Angel is from a band called "Tears of Passion", the song is on the album "Experience", released in 1995 by Paradise Rising. I got the album, so if you don't believe me you can get in touch: oskorei at web dot de

I don't agree with this description of the band - it certainly can't be called objective. Thay are hard to categorise so how about "a rock band"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

• "a rock band" I don't think so, this band is defiantly Gothic/Doom Metal, they aren't that hard to categorize. Although I would make an argument for just "Gothic Metal"But "a rock band" would be a little vague, seeing as they aren't a rock act. CatLikeThief 18:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Todd: At this point in your career, do you feel it’s fair that the group is considered by many to be a Gothic or Doom band?

Josh: “I don’t know how Gothic we ever really were, to tell you the truth…besides Peter’s tooth implants, which are what I think made us the most Gothic. I mean…what the hell is Gothic anymore? I’m not even sure. Is it pipe organs or harpsichords? Is it putting on black eyeliner? I’ve always just considered us Rock or a Rock and Metal mix. I’ve never had a particular label for us, ya know? I guess it was the Bloody Kisses era and the vampire spoof stuff…“Black No. 1” was like a spoof. We had an interesting thing happen and part of the reason why it was commercially successful was because the Goth kids thought we were really cool because we were doing “Black No. 1” and it was about being Gothic and the people who weren’t Gothic thought it was cool because we were spoofing people who were Gothic. So we got two audiences out of it and I think that made it a more widely accepted piece of work. I think it was a big contributor to it’s success.”

quoted from here --84.137.32.216 17:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Frontman Peter Steele has appeared naked in Playgirl. The band's bio states that the rest of the band "laugh[ed] themselves into seizures after Hickey [found] out through his publishing world contacts that [only] 23% of the magazine's subscribers are female". [1] Steele was reportedly "very disheartened" when he found out about the magazine's demographics, this resulted in the track 'I Like Goils' (Life is Killing Me) to underline his purely straight stance on his sexuality"

i dont know how correct this is since theres a clip of him saying the reason he did it so he could have more female and gay fans coming to there concert.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curefreak (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC). (Curefreak)

Hi, I have already changed the template a little.. making it green and all.

Any thoughts on a change to reflect the Dead Again scripture?

The green looks too dark to me. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sammayel 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's slightly confusing. My thoughts. MOTE Speak to me 07:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does a band get this article over the blood type o negative? I am trying to find blood type, not a sales page for a music group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.75.227 (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• a) Its an encyclopaedic page not a sales page
• b) the blood type can be found under blood type
• c) there is a redirect at the top of the page

Sammayel (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really consider the Metal Archives to be a reliable source? They are being used as the source for TON being alt. metal. MOTE Speak to me 13:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

When looking at the time that Type Formed in, they would fall under alt. metal. Even if the source isn't always reliable, the info is. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been an anonymous user who keeps deleting the information of Type O Negative having doom metal influence in their music. What should become of this? Is their music influenced enough by doom metal for that to be mentioned on wikipedia? I do not want an edit dispute to be the result of this and a possible ban from editing of the articles resulting from that. What are your thoughts? Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's ok that doom metal is mentioned as an influence beside alternative metal, industrial metal, hardcore etc., but not as a genre in particular. On every music magazine/guide and forum they have been described as a New York goth/doom metal quartet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.93.76.166 (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to put up facts on Wikipedia, then do it, but no rumours or no official confirmation has been accordning to Peter Steele's death. The only confirmation is a web site with so called written reply from the keyboardist in Type O Negative, that is not official statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.151.196 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's been confirmed for the past 2 days. Many websites, including the bands own official website state this as well. If you're the one that keeps reverting edits, cease it immediately --Repner1 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's ridiculous of him, but who are you to give out orders? Revan ltrl (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone thinks Type O Negative will continue without Peter Steele, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. 98.220.135.184 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course they won't continue. But in the hugely unlikely event that they did, we wouldn't want Wikipedia to have reported them disbanded. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that they won't make new music, but two members play for Danzig, and I think it could be possible that they would play a few shows in honor of Pete with him singing. Voodoowitchdr (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Template:Unsigned -->

I'm disappointed Peter Steele was removed from current members of the band. Whether he has passed or not, take Peter Steele out of Type O Negative... and there is no Type O Negative. That can be said for any of the members. I think he should be put back to current member, until (and if) they put out another album with a different bass player. User:Michaeltm99 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan ot Type O, but the fact is that Steele's dead. He can't be considered a current member. If and when they announce that they're finished, he'll be put back. I imagine that'll be pretty soon too. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is this connection between the two? Why are they mutual associated acts? Tour buddies doesn't cut it. What am I missing?

I'm agreed there. They're not in the Type O Template either. I'll take them out. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 08:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a HTML comment near the genres parameter of the band info template. I hope to prevent constant flux of the band's genres. People need to understand that the genres of metal are not well-defined and their borders are hazy and based on opinion. So if person X and person Y disagree they can continue to edit war forever over the genres. That is unhelpful to the article and its stability. That said, I have re-instated thrash metal to the genre list. I do not believe this to be hypocritical. It was there previously and deleted during a fairly recent edit. The justification for this is that the band's early work was clearly not "gothic" or "doom" metal but more like thrash. Only someone who hasn't heard there earlier albums would only list "gothic" and "doom" as their genres. Even their later albums were occasionally punctuated by thrashy songs. Type O basically exhibits as clear of an example as possible of evolution from the thrash style of Carnovore to the gothic/doom metal they prototyped. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have also edited the opening sentence, which had defined them as a "gothic metal" band, to label them as a "heavy metal" band (a more general term that includes gothic metal, doom metal, and thrash metal). This is to prevent a logical inconsistency by also calling them "doom metal" or "thrash metal" in the second sentence (and to prevent redundancy). These edits clearly have a logical and style-based basis for change, so I hope that doesn't make me a hypocrite. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds nothing like Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax & the like. It has more a punk feel to it. There's no palm-muting of the strings & no open string fast strumming going on in the album "Slow, Deep & Hard". I would just leave it as Gothic/Doom metal as Encyclopedia Metallum has it. Just to please the loyal fans, you can say "Hardcore punk" but no way in hell is this band "Thrash". Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.228.99.106 (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

  Inconclusive

User 12.228.99.106 (talk) has suggested "thrash" does not apply to Type O Negative and wishes to remove it from the listed genres. Below, please express your opinion or give a comment regarding this issue to keep or remove. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Slow, Deep and Hard is essentially just a doomier version of Carnivore (apparently the songs were originally written for Carnivore, but I can't source this); since Carnivore was thrash, I feel that it makes sense to class Type O Negative as such based on that one album. Of course, my opinion doesn't really hold much ground here; we should try and find a reliable source that refers to TON (or just Slow, Deep and Hard) as thrash. --LordNecronus (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion with infoboxes is that they should only include the most identifiable, uncontraversial genre associated with that band not one based on an album or two (or worse a single song!). If you have to hunt for a band belonging to a certain genre I would say it doesn't belong. There is plenty of room in the body of the article for sourced information regarding musical style evolution of a band over time, leave it out of the infobox. J04n(talk page) 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can get behind having it in the main body of text rather than in the infobox (and it's already in the text anyway, so...). If we're limiting the infobox genre list to the fairly uncontroversial genres, though, does that mean we have to remove doom metal as well? It's less controversial than calling them thrash, but there's still a bit of contention regarding whether they're a doom band or not. --LordNecronus (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is weak keep. So far the tally is roughly 2:2. I'm surprised there haven't been more comments. The proposal will stay open for a while longer (perhaps another week since this will bump the topic up on people's watchlists who may have missed it) but if no further opinions are made, it will be closed as "no consensus". Jason Quinn (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is keep: Songs like "Unsuccesfully Coping", "Kill all the White People", "We Hate Everyone" are thrash songs, regardless Type O can't be reduced to that. Thrash is a part of their sound.

I have been maintaining the article's wording such that the band is still active. As there has been no official word on the issue and occasionally updates are still given on the band's official website, that seems like the best thing to do. User:Alpha Ursae Minoris (who seems to go by the name Shadowking now) has cited an interview with the French magazine Rockhard where apparently it was stated that Type O Negative no longer exists. I was unable to verify this online. Regardless, of what may have been said during the interview, until there is official word about the status of the band, nothing should be changed. Members of rock bands frequently say they are done with a group, only to do yet another album. If the statements can be confirmed, perhaps it's best to switch over but since the end of the band is a big issue, it should have firm references to back it up. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On Rock Hard's website, you can just barely make out that the cover indicates that Issue 106 contains some content about Seventh Void and Type O Negative. An exact quote is now needed to help understand the context of the alleged disbanding. This material should be added to the article, if true, but there's still a matter of how definitively to word things. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better picture of the Rock Hard Issue 106 cover that is easily readable. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since some people apparently question my good faith, I'll scan the said page and you'll try to translate it by yourself with online translators. I could translate it much better by myself but you know guys like me cant't really be trusted... I'll do the scan today... Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said you can't be trusted so please don't be so sarcastic. You posted difficult to verify information. That information is critical to the article. Is it hard to understand that somebody wants to verify it? After all, the comments could have been said very flippantly for all we know. I said above that the material should be added to the article. I'm on your side. "Good faith" never means that the collaborative process should be avoided. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All my apologies for the sarcasm, it was indeed inappropriate, I got carried away, but I really took offence at the way things have been done. Don’t misunderstand me, I see no objection to the fact someone may verify the information I provided. Verifiability is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. And as a researcher, I totally subscribe to this principle. So no it is not “too hard for me to understand that somebody wants to verify it”. I really have nothing against that. And this is precisely in virtue of this principle that I clearly indicated my source. I know the information is critical and this is why I provided a reference. This is not like I didn’t provided any reference.

Beside, such a source isn’t that difficult to get and check. It’s not like it was some obscure fanzine. Yeah, sure it’s french, it a bit more difficult to lay a hand on it, I know… but today it’s not so difficult either to order magazine issues or any books from abroad, with internet or interuniversity library services, when you really want to. I know it because I do. But obviously, this requires to make some research beyond google. Anyway, for simplicity and convenience, I’ll provide myself the passage, as I have nothing to hide (see below).

So what’s wrong with me? Well… what I took offence is the fact that before any discussion or verification you already reverted my edit, as if you were already sure what I wrote was not really credible. Sorry but I’m a bit sensitive concerning issues of civility on Wikipedia. Now, reverting abruptly a fully sourced claim is not the best example of civil gesture I can think of. It was a bit like insinuating that what I wrote wasn’t really serious regardless the “apparent” source I provided. Sure you’ll probably deny you ever implied that. But still there could have been more civil ways to deal with this situation and ask for the source. Whatever… here is the passage in question:

“Rockhard: Peut-on dire que Seventh Void est, plus qu’un projet, un « vrai » groupe?

Kenny Hickey: Oh oui ! Étant donné que Type O n’existe plus, je n’ai plus rien d’autre à portée de main d’un point de vue créatif. J’ai consacré toute ma vie et mon énergie à TON, et je n’ai aujourd’hui plus beaucoup d’opportunité ? »

Here’s a scan of the full page

Now, I agree with your point. This is certainly not an official band’s statement, precaution is still necessary. But this is certainly a serious statement, as it is taken from an interview with two members of the said band and it is quite explicit.Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets agree to move on. I propose the second paragraph of the article be reworded as something like

I think this is a good compromise between the contents of the interview and the fact that his words perhaps should not count as a formal statement. Is is acceptable? Anything you'd like to change? Jason Quinn (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's perfect for me. Thanks. Alpha Ursae Minoris (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There never will be an official statement, the band is over, it needs changed to 1989-2010Whipped91 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that the page says that the official website is still updated from time to time. So? Why is that important? Nirvana broke up about 17 years ago and nowhere on that article does it say that their website is still active, beyond just including a link to their official site, and that's a featured article. So is it really important to note that here? Tubularbells1993 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's qualifying the fact that no official statement has been released by the band regarding their status, which was a big discussion a while back. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I plan on expanding the October Rust article and it appears that "Cinnamon Girl" was released as a physical CD single. This is not indicated in the band template, however. I'd like some insight as to whether or not it was an official single and, if so, did it follow "My Girlfriend's Girlfriend"?

Cale (talk) 08:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)