Talk:Underoath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
This article is within the scope of the Christian Metal WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Christian Metal and its related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is supported by the Contemporary Christian music WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Contemporary Christian music. Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

Archives
May 2005 – October 2006

Contents 1 Genre pt.2 2 Genre 3 External Links 4 Old Underoath 5 POV 6 Underoath/UNderøath 7 Genre, part three 8 Genre, part final (hopefully) 9 Suckeology 10 NOFX Controversy 11 Post-hardcore/metalcore or metalcore/post-hardcore? 12 Deathcore 13 METAL?

[edit] Genre pt.2

I wish to ask what exactly makes UnderOATH a "Christian" rock band. They don't have any christian style lyrics. Therefore, I'm wondering what makes them christian rock. Just because they are Christians does not make their band christian rock. Any answers would be appreciated.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.125.244 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

underOath makes a point to say what they do is for God at their shows, the offical website has many many christian related blogs and stuff, according to the TOCS DVD they and others arround them often describe them as christian, they are on Tooth And Nail/Solid State who are a predominently christian label, they appeared on X worship 2006 a christian alt worship CD, and they were very very open about writing about Christ in their early lyrics. now i am a firm beliver that music in and of its self are not christian and that words in and of them selves arnt christian but in the commonly acceptd term under fits the bill of a christian band to the T Z the 27th 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And on top of the fact that they signed with EMI's Christian Music Group. So, if this isn't a christian rock band then they sure have us fooled.

GoRenGo 06:14, 18 December, 2006

Actually, there lyrics are very very Christian if token from a Christian point of view. Thats one great thing about Underoath there are many different ways you can comprehend there lyrics. But, the actual meaning behind the lyrics are Christian. UO states this on the T&N podcast #2. They say how Define The Great Line is about spencers life journey in finding Christ. download the podcast to see what i mean. Also, I have read in a couple reviews of DTGL in which UO states that "Wake Up" (which u see throughout the cd) is a metaphor or similie or whatever those things are called to "Find Christ". The reason i think people cant except that underoath is a Christian band is that they dont want to admit that they do listern to a Christian Band...

From Music Faith [1] interview:

[Music Faith] First off, can you tell me a little about Underoath for those who haven't heard much about you?

[Grant Brandell] Well, we're a Christian heavy rock band. That’s probably the simplest way to put it.

Case closed. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 09:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This artical is also under Christian Metal WikiProject if that tag is there their being a christian band needs to bein it

Z the 27th 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Underoath is not screamo!!

please sign your comments with 4 ~ that being said I dont think that should be their catagory either but good luck convining other people

[edit] Genre

Underoath has emo screaming/singing vocals. I think that would constitute the band as screamo. To me, Underoath is like post-hardcore meets metalcore meets screamo. Thoughts, please?

P.S. I think it it safe to call Underoath a Christian band, as one member described Underoath as a "Christian heavy rock band" in an interview. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They're not Screamo, end of. Did you even read the Screamo page? Obviously not because if you did you'd know that. XdiabolicalX 14:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. I know that Underoath is not completely screamo. There is a screamo flair, however. You can't deny that. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 06:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing Screamo about them, they don't have the same chaotic aspects or the same instrumentation, and the vocals sound nothing like Screamo either. XdiabolicalX 14:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if you say so. But the singing vocals are emo. Perhaps my assumption would be like calling Linkin Park "crunk" because of their hip hop vocals. Should the article mention the emo vocals? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 01:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important and I'm pretty sure the fact they changed their sound is discussed. XdiabolicalX 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see how someone would call them screamo. Like alot of modern metalcore bands they have some melodic emo parts ,which is kinda like the new meaning of screamo, but why are they listed as melodic death metal. Would somebody explains this to me? Burger king 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Because back in the day (meaning, Act of Depression and Cries of the Past), they were alot in the Melodic Death Metal type, and a tad Grindcore, but not really.

Dude, go listen to some real screamo/emo. Bands like Jeromes Dream, After School Knife Fight, Envy, Pageninetynine. Underoath has no "emo" flair. Either learn about the history of music or stop listening to it. GoRenGo 12:23, 16 December, 2006

I'm a fan of all those bands. LOL. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 09:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Do we need so many of them? I think the only ones of any relevance are the Official site & various profiles (Myspace ect) and maybe the AllMusic one. There's no need to have every interview listed and fan sites, maybe we could link to the Links page of underoath777.com because it has most of them anyway. XdiabolicalX 17:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. At least remove the 'mini-sites' in the external links section. PhilCosby 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Underoath

I've noticed that die-hard fans of the old Underoath (Act of Depression and Cries of the Past days) are quite vehement in their proclamation of the suckiness of current Underoath; and that's fine, that's their opinion. But I'd rather they not spew their current-Underoath bashing on Wikipedia, what with our principles of fairness and objectivity in mind. Also, I waaaaayyy cut down on the Early Years section; I thought it was a little too much for an era when they sold, what, 5,000 copies of their first two albums combined? While in contrast, the sections on their notable history (when they sold hundreds of thousands of albums) were quite stark in contrast. If anyone disagrees with my actions, I am usually able to be won over by good arguments. Roofi's Publicist 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that the early years are the stuff most people like to read about but I'm not too bothered. However I think it's people who have just heard the new stuff (i.e. "OMG EMOS!" ect) and don't like it who are doing the vandalism, or most of it. XdiabolicalX 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming from one who likes both underoaths, it all depends on your taste of music. The earlier albums (AOD and COTP) were more hardcore, extreme, and raw. It is a different sound from the current Underoath. Fans of the Old UO may be negatively attacking the New UO due to their upset that a new screamo-er (correct me if this is not the new uo) band takes the name of the the once metal core-death metal Underoath. The Old underoath may have sold less albums due to their genre. Not many people may find the harder sound of Old underoath pleasing (altough i think its extraordinary). My opinion is that the Old is better than the new. They had more complicated drum rythems (with DOUBLE BASS),beautifully written lyrics, stronger screams, DEATH GROWLS, WAY heavier guitars and wondreful riffs, and they were younger than the current UO. But this is only my opinion. I enjoy more metal, so it wouldnt make sense to critisize on a different genre that im not as interested in. j_manz92 04:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is entirely too much of a silly, nostalia-driven opinion spewing onto the newer underoath sections, about them "selling out", among other things. I have listened to Underoath since Cries of the Path, and I thank the lord that they finally changed, because they were among the cheesiest bands of the post hardcore/metal/anything with screaming genre.71.8.41.143 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Thayer

this page is biased.

Please explain why, and sign your comments. XdiabolicalX 01:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The second paragraph of the Early Years section is reading very POV to me, re: 'Rave reviews' ect. I really can't be bothered to read it as it's not much of an interest especially how much this gets vandalised but does anyone else agree? Diabolical 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, and frankly, I find a lot of the info from that section to be mildly interesting but unnecessary; I feel the article would flow better if we edited some of it (i.e. the numerous member changes, the "rave reviews", etc.). Anyone disagree? Roofi's Publicist 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up quite a bit, the opening was a mess & I deleted a lot out of the Early Years section & changed it to read easier although it would probably be better with a re-write, but it still looks like a school essay with lot's of unimportant explaining. Cleaned up the parts after that too although they weren't too bad. Diabolical 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I pretty much completely re-wrote the whole gosh-darned thing. I cut out a lot of stuff, but I feel that the article is in considerably better shape than previous versions. Feedback would be welcomed. Roofi's Publicist 20:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Underoath/UNderøath

Which? Violask81976 15:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ihs offically Underoath the skandinavian o is for looksZ the 27th 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genre, part three

To those who add the Christian tag to the opening sentence of the article, your contributions are welcome, but the reason we have described Underoath solely as "American Rock" in that first sentence is to avoid arguments and make the article something everyone can agree on. This has also been done with similar "Christian by faith, not genre" bands such as Switchfoot, Anberlin, and P.O.D.. Yes, I realize that Grant Brandell (Underoath bassist) described them as a "Christian heavy rock" band. However, we feel that it's more important to maintain a compromise solution (going into more detail about their genre and faith later in that opening paragraph) than continually dealing with revert wars. Thanks. Roofi's Publicist 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spencer describes Underoath as a Christian band as well. The song "Writing on the Walls" is featured on the compilation X 2007: Christian Rock Hits. That's just scraping the surface. Underoath is definitely a Christian band by faith and genre. Besides, they're too cool for the "Christians in a secular band" junk, aren't they? ;) — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

All excellent points; you're right on the money with all of them. My point is, this has been a divisive issue for months and months and months and I really just want it to go away. I mean, should the opening paragraph of an article with this importance be changing several times a day? I was just trying to find some middle ground that we could all agree on and stop the stupid revert wars. If you want, you could write a little sidebar or something like that at the end of the article (maybe after the Warped Tour controversy thing) describing the role that their faith plays in their music and the extent to which they are promoted in Christian media. That may clear up a lot of the controversy. Thanks. Roofi's Publicist 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Thanks. — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

your right i am tired of this. just because non christians listen to underoath doesnt mean underoath is not a christian band. that is what it seems like. non christians dont want there faviorite band to be christian. underoath is in deed a christian band, wheather you want them to be or not. underoath expresses more faith then alot of christian bands, that are considered christian bands (ex. family force 5). To a non christian underoaths lyrics will sound christian. you have to take there lyrics from a christian point of view. underoath states that they do this because it helps draw in nonchristians and helps them find Christ. Underoath uses metaphors, similes and allegories to do so, such as "Wake Up:, which is said throughout DTGL. UO CLEARLY STATES IN THE TOOTH & PODCAST 2: UNDEROATH INTERVIEW, THAT THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN BAND HAVE CHRISTIAN LYRICS AND TRY TO DRAW IN NONCHRISTIANS. THEY BETTER SUM THINGS UP!

Dude, you don't need to write it twice. Diabolical 00:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

now i dont think christianity is a genre its a religion that being said "christan music" as it is populary described is a movement that the band is a self proclaimed part of. now if a baand that is debated to be a christian band says they are or arnt (see creed) that i think that is how they should be described. Z the 27th 03:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy on how the article is written currently.

[edit] Genre, part final (hopefully)

Since there have been quite a few people who have wanted to put screamo in as one of the band's genres, I thought I might give some of those guys a chance to explain their reasoning. I'd weigh in, but I'm not a big enough historian of screamo to have a valued opinion on the subject. I know screamo's been traditionally frowned upon as a genre for Underoath, but maybe thinking has changed. Weigh in below. Thanks. Roofi's Publicist 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would invite those who oppose adding screamo to listen to some of UnderØath's latest music. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the genre portion of the infobox should probably present all of the genres that the band has used. If somebody can listen to "Writing on the Walls" and tell me with a straight face that it is not screamo, then they could have a great career as a spy... or something similar. --Hojimachong^talk 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with Screamo before claiming that a song is Screamo. Please listen to the tracks on these pages then justify Underoath as Screamo: http://www.myspace.com/chaosisorchid, http://www.myspace.com/saetia, http://www.myspace.com/jeromesdream & http://www.myspace.com/envycore. Also please make sure you have a definite idea of what you're talking about before making silly statements about Spies and such. Screamo is not simply MTVmo based music with a guy screaming at some points. Diabolical 15:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the definition of Screamo that Wikipedia provides;

Screamo is a musical genre which evolved from emo, post-hardcore, more specifically hardcore emo in the early 1990s. Characteristic of the genre are screaming vocals, harmonized guitars, and fast-paced riffs. Breakdowns in screamo songs are often slower and more melodic than in other genres, less of a "beatdown" and more of an opportunity for introspection (and rest for the musicians).

Let's list the songs from DtgL which contain a good amount of screaming:

• Track 1
• Track 2
• Track 3
• Track 4
• Track 6
• Track 8
• Track 9
• Track 10

I am not the most well-versed in musical genres, but in lieu of a genre called "Throaty Guttural Yelling", I'd say the closest definition to what those songs contain is Screamo. It would be great if someone could provide an alternative genre to Screamo which closer resembles UnderØath's music. --Hojimachong^talk 18:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The ones listed on the page, just because it says it's a common feature doesn't mean that everything that features these elements are Screamo. Please listen to those songs. Surely if someone is calling a spade a spade and referencing a well known, agreed upon sample of a spade, you can't then go ahead and call a tractor a spade. Diabolical 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Black Metal features all the same characteristics, right down to the screaming, and even the breakdowns in BM are similar more to Screamo than Underoath are, however this doesn't make a Black Metal band, Screamo. Diabolical 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In a vague sense of the term (ridiculously heavy music with no blues, frozen-computer drumming or demonic warthogs), Underoath is certainly screamo. In terms of the specific genre, however, they're anything but. Screamo is just a term thrown around to the point of losing its initial meaning, while its actual base thrives in the underground (much like punk rock). Whether they're screamo is no longer relevant to Wikipedia, however, as I noted with sources that Underoath is oft-considered screamo, while leaving whether they actually are up to the reader. NPOV rocks. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suckeology

1998- I guess they formed then. that sucked.
1999- They were still around at this point? after a whole year of crap?
2000- No apocalypse?
2001- Still around
2006- Yet another cd. I guess they take themselves to be a serious band or something.
2007- Suspicions confirmed.
Balvarado236 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Balvarado236 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Take your shit somewhere else.--HappyBoy 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Way to be civil, HappyBoy. Balvarado, talk pages are not forums. --Hojimachong^talk 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOFX Controversy

um, all the shit that I have read about what Fat mike said being a rumor are bullshit. At St. Louis, he asked the crowd if they all saw Underoath, and after everyone cheered, he then said "Fuck them, they don't believe in dinosaurs!"

• Ugh, that still pisses me off. I mean, even Christians believe in dinosaurs. I'm a Fundamentalist Born-again Christian, and I believe in them. They're described in the book of Job.--HappyBoy 06:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

what makes me mad is both of you guys and your cussing. please keep these pages clean!! and Happy Boy? you sure haven't been talking or acting like a christain here. if you want to discuss this please come to my user talk page. Let's be civil! **COCOBLUE** Christianity isn't a religion- it's a relationship. ***** I would rather have blind faith than have no faith at all ***** You laugh because I'm different-I laugh because you're all the same ***** 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-hardcore/metalcore or metalcore/post-hardcore?

I'm thinking of changing the article to mention metalcore first, as their latest album sounds more like metalcore than post-hardcore (compare it to Killswitch Engage; the resemblance is almost uncanny!). _xcryoftheafflicted_x 20:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care which one gets mentioned first because they don't really fit into one genre. I think the way it's written now is fine because you'd have to consider Chasing Safety to be some of their latest work, too, and there is not a trace of metalcore on that record. Good job on the intro, though. Roofi's Publicist 15:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deathcore

Really sorry to bring up the whole genre thing again. but i added Deathcore as a genre since Act Of Depression is labelled on wikipedia as Deathcore and they did used to be a deathcore band. so it only makes sense right? thanks for reading 172.214.9.213 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it like that right now. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks. Underoath was definitely deathcore back in the day, but after their first two records completely changed. But I'm fine with it either way. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Underoath is definitely not a deathcore band, in anyway. They also aren't a hardcore punk band. Docbp87 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] METAL?

These motherfuckers are not christian metal. They're not any kind of metal. Doppelganger 20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The older underoath albums (Act of Depression, Cries of the Past, even The Changing of Times) were all DEFINETLY metal albums, even though TCOT swayed more twoards the post-hardcore/hardcore genre. Underoath now is more of a post-hardcore band with metal influences.

And im dead serious, people putting their names down and saying they are former UO members is really pissing me off. It needs to stop.

That's your opinion. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, and we don't change things just because some joe-schmo says so. Underoath is a metalcore band that has went through an entire change in band lineup, and yes, they are Christian metal. Just because you think any band that doesn't sound exactly like Judas Priest is comprised of "motherfuckers" and not metal, we're not going to change anything because of your opinion. Xcryoftheafflictedx 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)