Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 13 January 2009

Template:Medcabbox

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

Genre?

currently genres are listed as: alt metal, nu metal, heavy metal, and hard rock. I think these encompass anything mudvayne plays. I removed the statement in the intro paragraph claiming that mudvayne is mathcore. Mudvayane has some interesting time signutres but i don't think they are either hardcore enough to be mathcore or metal enough to be technical metal. Perhaps one day if enough bands that fall between hard rock and heavy metal in terms of style, and also use unique time signutres, some one will invent a new genre for them as a subgenre of alternative metal. I think a problem with naming that genre is going to be finding a catchy way of combining the words alternative, metal, technical and/or math. 76.253.125.123 (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Devin

1. Mudvayne is not progressive metal. They don't even have a keyboardist. 2. Mudvayne is nu-metal. LD 50 is nu-metal, as it features occasional rapcore vocals and funky basslines, although they have outgrown nu for a more alternative sound.

Most progressive metal doesn't even have keyboards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.241.134 (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Like what? Every single progressive rock or metal band Ive ever heard has a keyboardist. Dont confuse progressive metal with sounding different than everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.166.2 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about calling them a just a metal band instead of rock ? One thing is for certain they are metal.122.171.21.133 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Its Progressive Metal, Alt. Metal, Hard Rock, NOT Nu-Metal, and not all prog. bands have keys and not many rapcore vocals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.209.197 (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay first off, progressive metal in no ways has to have keyboards. And second, Mudvayne is in no ways hard rock or groove metal. The genres that should be there are Alternative metal and nu metal. Anyone reply because I know some think the same... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanner9461 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Math metal

Looking at the Math Metal page is validation of that. Mudvayne have no musical similarities to Cryptopsy, Atheist, etc. Math metal is an off-shoot of technical metal ( which is a subgenre of death metal). They obviously fit as "alternative metal" or nu-metal (a more controversial pick, perhaps.) But a few fast basslines does not make a genre. --- Danteferno 15:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The drummer of MudVayne coined the term. They probably know what it means. MudVayne is not Nu Metal. They do not show the three characterisctics of Nu Metal. They are probably more largely classified as Alternative Metal. kjarvis86 13:43, 2 jan. 2005 (PST) Isn't most of this plagiarised from www.mudvayne.com? Mudvayne is both Math and Nu-Metal. Math Metal because the term doesn't just mean it has to be Death Metal, Math metal is about using Jazz like drum progessions, atonal guitar riffs, odd time signatures. Mudvayne has all of these. They are Nu-Metal, because this is what the definition of guitar is on the Nu-Metal page. Unlike traditional metal, the overall defining trait of nu metal guitar-playing is the emphasis on mood and texture over melody or complex instrumentation, achieved largely through performance or effect, that is definitely Greg. Here is the bassists In nu metal, the bass is often the main focus of the music, acting often as the lead instrument, setting the bands other instruments as acting as rhythm and also to bind the very diverse hip-hop, rock and electronic sounds. The nu metal bass is often slow and reminscent of hip hop or pop music, strutting a funky, loud sound that could arguably compete with the presence of the band's vocalist, that's Ryan for ya. Vocals, Nu metal bands often feature aggressive vocals that range from melodic singing akin to pop and rock (and in many cases punk and emo), guttural screaming and shouting from various forms of metal music and metalcore types, and rapping, that's Chad. The only part that doesn't fit is the drums, which is what helps make them Math Metal.

Why wouldn't Mudvayne be mathmetal in the song "Solve Et Coagula" it has undecipherable meanings so they should be included in the Mathmetal genre. Left Behind 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Because such thing as math metal does not exist, aside from being a synonym for tech metal. Tech metal is technical metal, with leading acts like Meshuggah. Mudvayne does not have technical skill nor are their songs technical enough to be called tech metal and they do not even sound like it. Nu-metal or alternative it is.

Saying "Mudvayne does not have technical skill" doesn't exactly prove your point. In fact, most everyone (including their critics) agree that Mudvayne are in fact highly skilled musicians. Especially Ryan and Matt. -- Mattrixed 19:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mudvayne may be skilled, but there not technical - except ryan martini (sp?), there totally imprecise, especially the guitar parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.166.2 (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I listen to tech death as well, specifically Necrophagist, but Mudvayne has alot of technical skill in their rhythm section and LD 50 is definitely math metal. The other two aren't though. Anyone other than Victor Wooten who says Ryan's lines aren't technical just proves they haven't listened to Mudvayne. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Mudvayne are Math Metal but that doesn't make 'Math Metal' a genre, just as people labelling System of a Down as 'Armenian Metal' doesn't make it a genre either. It's something of note, though. Notsharon 07:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes no one is questioning that, there are other bands in the Math Metal genre now. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 07:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC) If the singer describes them as Math Metal, then they should be listed as such. To not include them would fall under WP:OR, but as this has been settled by generically saying they're hard rock and heavy metal, it no longer applies. -- Shatterzer0 20:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Groove Metal is Pantera, Machine Head,... Heavy Metal is some Metallica, Black Label Society... but NOT Mudvayne. Alternative Metal and Hard Rock fits best for them. 217.93.206.14 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nu metal

About the edit that said Mudvayne are called nu-metal by fans of heavy and extreme metal: Fans of heavy and extreme metal can be fans of Mudvayne too. "Detractors" encompasses all those who dislike Mudvayne without classifying them as something else. I think "detractors" is a more accurate word to use. -- Mattrixed 09:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mudvayne is Nu-Metal, I think it's inceredibly stupid that they are called Alternative Metal because people are afraid of the stigma that surrounds Nu-Metal. it's not a bad thing, and they are Nu-Metal.

no they are not. do they use turntables? no. do they rap? no. the only nu metal quality they have is the focus on the bass. thats it. they are not nu metal DragonDanceSL 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh funny you should say that. you see ive defended the fact that they are alt metal for a long time now but now that i think about it, the way that the vocals for Dig are set up are almost rap-ish. and the basslines are very complex. Have you ever seen the Death Blooms bass tabs? now i am a very new bassist myself, so i would have to say there pretty hard but others can prolly do it with no problem. but anyway the point is im a little torn between Alt Metal and Nu-metal. The juggreserection 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Go look at Alternative metal's wiki entry. It includes nu-metal as derivative of the genre. -- Shatterzer0 18:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Chad Gray, the ing singer of the band specifically declared that they WERE NOT Nu-Metal in an interview, just because some of the music may sound like Nu-Metal at times doesn't officially qualify the band as Nu-Metal, so stop editing the damn page saying Mudvayne are a Nu-Metal band because they aren't.Justerbuster (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

this band is nu-metal.seeing as nu-metal and alt. metal are one and the same. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal and alt metal ARE NOT the same, if you read the articles. Nu metal came from Alt metal and carved it's own niche so to speak. Alt metal is bands like Earshot, Stone Sour, Seether and so on. Most of these bands tend to be categorized as well with Post-Grunge. The only reason this band is really classified as nu-metal ever is because when they became "well known" (i.e. L.D. 50) was during the height of the nu-metal wave so people (more or less editors and reviewers) decided to lump them all together. It's sad that 8 years after the fact that this band and several other bands who are called "nu metal" but don't deserve the tag are labeled as such because people automatically assume rather than open their ears and minds and absorb the music before they judge. -- Shatterzer0 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative metal

They are Alternative Metal, not Nu Metal. Please stop ing around with the genres. Nickoladze 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Same shit. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Time to face it, Mudvayne plays alternative metal more than any other genre such as Nu Metal or Heavy Metal. Heavy metal refers generally to every kind of metal, but if we get strict, we should clear Heavy Metal from the genre tag, because this is not a Traditional Heavy Metal band, not a NWOBHM band, and not a Heavy Metal Revival band.

This band plays alternative metal, not only for being a vast mix of many genres, but because it even includes alternative rock in the influences...You want examples to argue by themselves? The song Forget To Remember, just to name one. It has riffs straight from alternative rock, and a complex structure which involves the alternative+metal and severe influences.

Now, let's go more complex...I'll name Death Blooms as another exmaple. Is it orthodox to start with acoustic riff and then quickly change to metal riff? No! The structure of both is alternative, so this is another point.

Dig...the alternative treasure. The structure of the song is so unorthodox, parts are not repeatedly played, and also the voice goes along with the riffs, in a groove way. Also through the song, the vocals are more "screaming with rythm" than singing, so that's another point of complexity. Is this a regular metal? No, this is alternative metal.

Enough said. More examples? Find them yourselves.

Progressive metal

In addition to the several news sources cited here that refer to Mudvayne as progressive metal, the band itself also uses this term on its MySpace. (65.10.87.94 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

However, a myspace page is not a reliable source. Indeed, the sources provided are questionable: MTV is not published, and is a somewhat biased source; the Boston Herald source is published, but it would depend on who exactly wrote it; Post-bulletin, as far as I know, isn't a reliable one. Prophaniti (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rochester Post-Bulletin is is the major newspaper for Rochester, Minnesota. (65.10.86.205 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

In which case, if it's published, it would come under the same scrutiny as the Boston Herald. Being published is a good sign, but being a newspapers media/music person does not inherently make them an expert on heavy metal music, as opposed to say a journalist in a dedicated music magazine or book. We do have three sources, but they're all somewhat questionable as reliable sources on this subject matter.

However, I'm not feeling strongly enough about it to remove it or anything. I'm just raising the issue. Prophaniti (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Let’s clear something up: random newspapers are not the best of sources. They can be used, yes, but just look at all the different genres these papers give this band. It’s absurd. Newspapers are published, yes, but take a look at the reliable sources guidelines: they must be authoritative on the subject at hand.

Published music magazines like NME or Rolling Stone are authoritative. Much more so than random newspapers. These papers can be cited in the styles section, sure, but if the infobox tried to represent all of them, it would end up with about 10 or more different genres.

Instead, take a look at WP:undue weight. Sources should not be given more weight than they are worth. So, let’s take a look at the potential genres with this in mind:

• Progressive metal: the two papers are iffy, as is MTV, but all of them together probably works well enough to include this.
• Alt. metal: again, a possibility, because it does have billboard.
• Nu metal: a published book, the single best source of the lot. Backed up by NME , Rolling Stone and Metal Observer , all more reliable on their own than any of the papers.
• Extreme metal: just a single paper, not enough.
• Hard rock: this one I’ll remove entirely, because it doesn’t even actually call them hard rock.
• Heavy metal: all just newspapers, and prog. Metal and/or alt. metal would cover this, so no need.
• Neo-prog rock: another random paper.
• Shock rock: same again
• Thrash metal: and again

So, we’re left with a lot of poorly sourced genres that can stay in the styles section, but nu metal is by far the best sourced of them all, and prog. Metal and alt. metal are probably worth including too. Prophaniti (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem here seems to be that you are trying to force your own POV upon the article, even when your opinion of a band's musical style directly contradicts what has been sourced. Removing genres, replacing sources and trying to force an opinion that only you share is not welcome on Misplaced Pages. (72.153.184.6 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Not quite. That's actually what you're doing: removing my sourced material. Read what I typed: it's all according to wikipedia's rules. It's nothing to do with my POV, and nothing I've suggested is "directly contradicting" sources. It's simply that there are lots of badly sourced genres. Source consensus is prog. metal, alt. metal and nu metal, with nu metal firmly in the lead. That's not POV, that's just the way it is by wikipedia's rules. Please understand such rules before trying to enforce them. Prophaniti (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources given for progressive metal are verified and published. The sources you give for nu metal are primarly online sources, with the last one being a fan review. (72.153.184.6 (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Well that only shows you don't understand the sources in the first place: Rolling Stone, NME and Metal Observer are published sources. They are accepted reliable sources. As such, they, together with the Rough Guide book, vastly outweigh MTV and a couple of newspapers bits. Nu metal is very much the best sourced of the genres. Prophaniti (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Who says that nu metal is the best-sourced of the genres? Nu metal is only sourced as well as the genre terms you've shot down. More sources cite Mudvayne as progressive metal than any of the other genres. (65.10.58.176 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Read my above post: Essi Berelian's book, Metal Observer, Rolling Stone magazine and NME all cite nu metal for the band. That's more in terms of simple numbers than prog. metal, and more in terms of source weight (one published book and three dedicated music magazines outweighs a biased music TV channel and two newspapers by a long, long way). Prophaniti (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Comparing the ghits of "mudvayne 'progressive metal'" and "mudvayne 'nu metal'", you have 146K for nu metal and 33.7K for prog metal. "Alt metal" and "alternative metal" turn up a combined total of about 60K. Rather, articles like this are essentially an admission of guilt. Not to mention that PM agrees. Face it: the nu metal tag has more sources behind it than all others combined. That doesn't mean you can't have other genres in there as well, but omitting nu metal is essentially pushing an agenda. 128.61.56.41 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Thank you not just for the support, but for showing me an IP user can be sensible. Now, I personally don't agree with alt. metal and prog. metal, but the sources are there. As I say, they're not great sources, but all added up they do make up enough. The rest of the genres, as I've outlined, are worth including in the styles section, but to try to include them all in the infobox would be too much. Prophaniti (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prophaniti, you have been warned about this. The sources for "nu metal" are as inconclusive as those for "progressive metal". True, MTV is biased, but so is Rolling Stone and NME. And Metal Observer is not a valid source of information. Those reviews are written by non-professional critics. Please cease from removing any genres from the infobox, changing the genre mention in the article's lead or otherwise attempting to force a genre opinion. There is absolutely zero consensus as to the band's genres, except that it is generally agreed that they perform a form of rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

No, MTV is much more biased because it is a music channel devoted to selling music and advertisements. Rolling Stone and NME are publications. They inherently rank higher. And Metal Observer is perfectly valid too: it is used as a review source because it has a staff body rather than accepting user-submitted reviews. I don't quite understand why you're complaining about MTV though: it's being used for progressive metal, which I'm not attempting to remove.

If you read above, you'll see there's firm consensus: nu metal is very much in the lead, with alt. metal and prog. metal not brilliantly sourced, but enough to include in the infobox. Prophaniti (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. You have been warned multiple times. If you persist in attempting to force your own opinions onto articles, you will be reported. And, for the last time, a user-submitted review website like Metal Observer is not a reliable source of information. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

How precisely am I "forcing my opinion" by adding validly sourced content? Metal Observer content is not user submitted by the way: it has an editorial staff. Please understand a source before dismissing it. Prophaniti (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the page. I've seen absolutely no assertion that it is a notable source of information. Whether or not the content is user-created, it certainly was not created by a notable authority on music genres. This is the main fact that I have been trying to get across, but you do not seem to understand this. From what I've seen, you have been repeatedly doing this with multiple band articles. You've even tried to deny that Hed PE was a punk rock band by claiming that genres should be only sourced through a non-notable metal website that was supposedly created by a journalist of questionable importance. Please list band genres by what has been properly sourced and cited, not by what you believe is "correct". I don't consider nu metal to be a legitimate musical genre, but I don't remove it from articles when it is properly sourced, as it is in this article. Remember, you should only use your own judgment when the subject matter calls for it. Any other time, you shouldn't bother. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

(unindent) Please see WP:Albums, the section on "professional reviews", where it states "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)." Metal Observer has a volunteer editorial and writing staff. It is thus perfectly acceptable as a review site, and thus fine for this particular citation. In addition, you still haven't explained your removal of the NME and Rolling Stone sources. All you've thus far undone of mine is the notion of including "heavy metal" as a genre (which I'm willing to discuss politely if you are) and then your removal of sourced material. Prophaniti (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I did not remove sourced material. I undid your removal of sourced material. I have seen absolutely zero proof that Metal Observer is a valid source of information regarding genre sources. Please stick to the discussion and cease from making accusations toward other editors and continuing to strongarm your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure if you looked at my edit before reverting it: my edit consisted of restoring sourced material. You've still given no actual reason for the removal. I will restore the material one more time. If it's still reverted, I won't be dragged into an edit war over it. Prophaniti (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not understand that saying that "nu metal" is the term most often used to describe the band's style and adding sources like a non-notable review site and two copies of the same mass-published biography is strongarming your POV? Why would you object to one genre being listed as a dominating style, then try to list another as the dominating term? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

No, it's not my POV: I am inserting two published music magazine sources, two accepted review sites, and a published book. In terms of numbers this is the most attributed genre. And your removal of these sources has not yet been justified. Prophaniti (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I've seen nothing that proves that Metal Observer is an acceptable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

I've given explanation, even if you choose not to accept it. And as I've stated before, you're still removing other acceptable sources with no reason. Prophaniti (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying in order to justify your attempts to push your own POV and add questionable sources. If you continue editing articles in this manner, you will be banned. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Editing in what manner precisely? Because the only thing of mine you're currently undoing is the addition of reliable sources. That is, by definition, not POV. The sources are not questionable simply because you perhaps don't agree with them. Last I checked you couldn't be banned for adding sourced content. Removing sourced content, going against consensus and insulting other users, that's more in line with banning offenses. Prophaniti (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prophaniti, as you continue to lie and accuse others, you just dig yourself deeper into your little hole. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

You can say that over and over again as many times as you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that you're the one making the accusations, acting against consensus, making the insults and removing sourced content. I still don't see what it is I'm supposed to be "lying" about in the first place. Prophaniti (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, scroll down to about here and read your own comment back. Now you know what you are lying about. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

(unindent) Erm...no. Still not seeing it, sorry. I see me saying that you are making accusations (strongarming POV), acting against consensus (Landon + me = 2, you = 1), making insults ("rv idiocy", "stop lying to justify flagrant attempts to force your opinion") and removing sourced content (see your own diffs for that one). If you want to live in a reality of your own, then that's up to you, but it has no place here. Prophaniti (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I reverted Landon's accidental reversion to your vandalism. There is absolutely no consensus. It does not make you look good to continue to make up your own reality. You need to stop strongarming your POV. The revision I had was fine. There was absolutely no need to establish "nu metal" as a dominating genre just because you say so. Remember, you are not an expert on the subject. The experts on the subjects don't agree on the genre. So leave it as it is. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Landon's revert was not accidental, hence the fact that he has performed it twice. And yet again: it's not because I say so. I am not the one being put forward as an expert: that's the POV of the sources which you continue to remove. Prophaniti (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only removed poor sources. Stop twisting the events to your own personal needs. You are not to continue to strongarm your POV. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Trolling

I want to report trolling on this page and whoever undid all those citations. This isn't the first time it happened before either and the user who keeps doing it should be punished. Those citations were to worthy websites as well such as VH1.com and MTV.com. The User's name is DevilDriver fan who deleted the citations without talking on the talk page. Also without a good reason since they were reliable sources and relevant to the text.

That guy must be retarded. -Etos 9.october.2007. 18:34 (UTC)

yh tht dude dus seem a lil bit of a faggot he should be burned,his children eaten and finally stabbed by a mongoose named fred who has a brother called terry the badger who kills people with M60 light machine guns

Lock

One used vandalised it. That doesnt mean it should be locked =/ DragonDanceSL 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I more wanted it locked as i don't like this band very much, i thought it'd be funny if it were to remain as i saw it

Too bad for you that Misplaced Pages is not a place to vent your opinions. -- Mattrixed 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bio

the bio focuses on the first album, though not very in-depth, and the make-up aspect of the band. More about their other releases would give more of an up to date image of the band

I do have a question. Does anyone have any conformation on rumors of Chad getting hurt like, in the throat and that's why he changed the way he sings? Like I said i need conformation of these rumors. -Souless 3:16

"Video Analysis" section

I think this section should be dropped entirely or moved to a new article. Most of it is irrelevant to the band itself, poorly written, and somewhat opinionated. If somebody wants it moved to a new article then it really needs to be cleaned up significantly. If no one protests within 2 or 3 weeks, I'm going to remove it. Jesusjonez 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Blatant POV

quote: "The band often showcases Ryan Martinie's jazzy bass playing, and sport emotionally and philosophically in-depth lyrics."

"Many respected reviewers, including Mr X, Mr Y and Mr Z believe Mudvaynes lyrics to be emotionally and philosophically deep, however Mr A does not" is acceptable, this is not.

I'm removing that text - please reference respected reviewers if it's to be re-included. Sorry. GeorgeBills 09:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknames should be dropped?

Surely since the band have abandoned nicknames, and an encyclopedia is not the place to use wild pseudonyms if possible (exceptions would include Marilyn Manson and many others), should we find & replace Chüd and the other nicknames?

Using surnames (or full names?) would seem far more mature to me, more of a respectful nod to the artists than a kind of in-joke (bad term I know) for the fans.

I really think we should avoid using nicknames for discussing early work and real names for later work - with 3 names each for the 4 members over 3 albums this would imply 12 members for the casual reader.

If nobody enters the debate with a good reason not to do this in a week or 2, I'll probably change the names myself. Or if someone changes them in the meantime, all the better.

They shouldn't be dropped because it is part of thier history. If someone comes to this site looking for everything about Mudvayne it should include nicknames

Skewer 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are fans out there that still refer to them as Ryknow, Gurgg, S , d Kud. Its just natural. I say we leave them.the juggreserection 13:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Biography

Does the biography seem like it's been plagiarised? It looks very POV and like it came off from another website.

Seems to be ripped right off of here - http://www.pearldrum.com/m_mcdonough.asp ... Definately could be a copyright violation, somebody should clean this up Senner 15:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Member articles

Three of the four current members each have their own article, albeit a small article. The link for Chad Gray redirects back to the Mudvayne article. Since there are articles on the other members, there should be a Chad Gray article as well rather than a redirect. I'd start one, but I don't know anything about the guy. CardinalFangZERO 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any person who speaks German fluently?

It's because there is one phatty phat German Mudvayne site which even gives their birthdates...I don't know German that well anymore, I finished high school last year and I rarely use it. And about info on Chad Gray and others there is some info around internet, nothing much, but it's better than nothing, though...I don't know what to do, compile the info I have, or wait for a better one...

Should we mention the alternative spelling?

An alternative spelling for the band's name is Mu Dv Ay Ne. Should we mention this, or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Allixpeeke (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think it's necessary...I've never met anyone who actually refered to them as that and since "Mudvayne" comprises of the same letters I don't think it will cause any confusion to the unique individual who recognises them as Mu Dv Ay Ne but not Mudvayne. -- Mattrixed 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

neither is it neccecary to add the lines between: |Mu|Dv|Ay|Ne| The juggsd86 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Bassist?

I think someone should find out about Shawn Barklay and create an artical on it I can't find anything on him. Skeeker 22:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Their original bassist never recorded anything with Mudvayne except some demo CD Kill I Oughta or The Beginning of all things to End. In fact I don't even know if he did that. He never made it big time and judging by the lack of material on him, I'd say he wasn't good anyways so making a page for him would be useless. You should make a page for Martinie since all it does is redirect here since some guy sabotaged his page. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

im pretty sure he quit the band due to drugs . god bless shawn for making the right move and moving on good luck with "SPRUNG" (this is the band he's in now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.78.52 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Images And Member Biographys

I don't know how to put an image on here so it would be nice if someone did one for Chad Gray. And some one needs to make articles for Ryan and Matt, there used to be but I don;t know why there arent anymore. Skeeker 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said some troll deleted theirs and put insulting comments before he deleted it. TheThingThatShouldNotBe212 02:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate idiot people Skeeker 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture

The pic for Tribbett is not relevant any more as the band do not wear makeup any more. Does anyone have a replacement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Notsharon (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Using that argument, I suppose the page for the Berlin Wall shouldn't have a picture of the wall, since the wall doesn't exist anymore. Just because they don't wear makeup anymore, doesn't mean the photo is irrelevant. In fact, it's quite relevant, since to any reader who has not seen the makeup before, it gives them a visual aid. -- Mattrixed 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but i do think this article needs an additional pic. Maybe a group shot or something.the juggreserection 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

New album

Who got the name Shades of Gray and where did you get it. Skeeker  18:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

i dunno where it's from, but it's BS cuz they just announced via myspace that "Our next album is titled "By the People, For the People,"".68.255.187.211 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fan generated album, not the studio album due in 2008. Skeeker  20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

you're right about that, but that still doesn't explain where the name "shades of gray" comes from. i say until we have a verifiable source for that album name it should be changed to "upcoming 4th studio album" or something similar.65.43.218.67 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Skeeker  03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i'd go ahead and make the changes right now but theres an article for "shades of gray" already and i don't know if i can change the title of it or if a new article would have to be created and i don't want a dead link sitting there. i'm also not sure if it should be the 4th or 5th as kill i oughta/tboate was technically recorded in a studio, but was originally an independent release. i think at this point it'd be best to go with "Upcoming studio album", release date TBA/TBD.65.43.218.67 07:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

we should atleast put that it is rumored as Shades of Grey though, so that when people see the name all over the internet they'll know they're talking about this album.Justerbuster (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TBOATTE isn't a studio release it is a re-release with bonus tracks and a new name. I moved the page to Mudvayne's fourth studio album Kill I oughta is a studio album. Skeeker  21:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fourth studio Album

Hello everyone I noticed that someone had changed the Discography so that there was no mention of the fourth album at all, also before they did this it was on there but it was mentioned as fourth studio album Higley rumored as the new game. So what I did was changed it to Mudvayne's fourth studio album under the discography section and put the rumored title of the new game under the new album section of the article with the other rumors (Shades Of Gray, Revalation and serial Killer.) Hope this is alright sence we know that the album will more then likly be out this year one way or another if you'll read the headbanger's blog or view the bands myspace you will see that they have something in there works, also before they had the flash thing on there site the had Recording New Album for there headline before that.

I know this little section i've just written may be jumbled and mispelled but im just trying to get my point across so please bare with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1758 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (musicians) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (musicians) articles
• Musicians work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Heavy Metal articles
• WikiProject Metal articles