Jump to content

Talk:Kamelot/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Kamelot: Myths and Legends

Is not an official release and Wikipedia is not the place for rumors or speculation. If Kamelot.com doesn't have it then it is not official. Discuss UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 04:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is not on the official website, it is not an official album. There have been no news of any kind about this release, it just popped up on several torrent sites. Furthermore, the back of the "cover" of this album has one song title misspelt ("Future Kings" is called "Once And Future King" and nothing else) and claims it to have been released on a label (No Remorse Records) which no longer exists. Apart from this it is a well done fake, but a fake nonetheless. --I Am The Atheist (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if it's not on the website, it's still an un-official release. Many bands have unofficial releases. On wikipedia, all unofficial releases are listed on the band page. (taking that they are notable. all releases, regardless of their status, must meet guidelines) Undead Warrior (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a notation to the page to allow readers to identify the information is likely false. Unless Undead Warrior is willing to remove any credibility left on Wikipedia. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You really need to familiarize yourself with band pages on wikipedia. A lot of bands, most of them, contain a section for bootlegs or unofficial releases. Just because the band does not recognize a compilation, does not make it a real release. It could have been made by the record company. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not an "unofficial release", it's not even a release. You can't buy it anywhere, it simply doesn't exist in a physical form. It's for illegal downloaders only. Someone has thrown together a bunch of tracks, made a fake cover in Photoshop and uploaded it to torrent sites. Anyone could have done that. Does that really make it notable enough for Wikipedia? And the record company doesn't mention the album on their website, even though it was SPV who supposedly released it. So they won't acknowledge it either.--I Am The Atheist (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
@I Am The Atheist: Agreed Agreed Agreed. Agreed. @Undead Warrior, I don't give a flying -expletive- what OTHER pages look like. I am determined to keep the quality of articles I contribute to high, and not noting that a release is likely fake or a bootleg is a disservice to the reader and to the overall credibility of Wikipedia as a knowledge base in general. I Am The Atheist and I have contributed to many of the same articles independently of one another to great effect so I think he/she will agree with me when I say that most of the band pages on Wikipedia are wildly inaccurate for the reason you just laid out. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is for both of you. Read all these links. I am tired of debating a subject that you do not understand. [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, and if you want to buy it, here you go. Now stop whining about it. It's a real release. Get used to it. Undead Warrior (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, you can list off 3rd party websites and a website where you can buy a bootleg in a language I cannot read. If it were a real release the record label it came out on would have it on their website OR Kamelot would have it on theirs. There is no reason for Kamelot.com to not list it when it lists their entire discography dating back to their first studio album, also mainstream websites like Amazon.com don't stock it when they stock all other Kamelot albums. As well as Foreign CD importers such as cdinzane.com don't list it either when they are in the business of listing rare and out of print CDs - they should have it too. If you used some common sense here you'd get it. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Google the album. You will find thousands of results. No more sites are needed. The album is real. It will remain. If you disagree, list it for afd and watch it be kept. Kamelot.com is not a reliable source in this discussion. Not all bands list comp albums. I've been working on band articles for going on two years now. I know what wikipedia is, and what it should be. The sheer number of G-hits proves the existence. Whether the band did it or not, that is not the question. The fact is that it is a compilation of kamelot songs and the cd does exist. Sometimes cd's are only available in certain countries. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at this. The back is incontrovertible. Undead Warrior (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but we should leave the unofficial tag on it, since it's not a recognized release. Sorry for getting a bit worked up, I just hate when it turns into a undo war. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is unofficial, which means, it was never released by Kamelot itself. I think it's in my and let alone, our best interest to remove it.--F-22 Raptored (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I think it's a bit excessive to list three genres for one band. --Malathion 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Kamelot calles it's music melodic power metal [2]. I think we should stick to that.
Well, as far as it goes, they do incorporate themes from power metal, do not exibit any form of "Progressive Metal". Take the definition of the term "Progressive Metal", it mearly means experimenting in diffrent time signatures. Just take that into consideration.
                                                                  - Alex Legg

--Cristan June 28, 2005

I think the word "power metal" should link to the Article in stead of the reference. The source of this information can already be found at the references part, and I believe it isn't really that interesting.
I think that Kamelot has a lot more progressive and symphonic touches than pure power metal. I consider power metal to be stuff like Helloween and Blind Guardian, which sound much different than Kamelot. I think that the group IS power metal, but a couple more adjectives wouldn't hurt to help narrow down their sound.

Kamelot is much more than Power Metal, they have Goth, New Age, Prog...

As far as I know it's Symphonic Power metal but I could be wrong - --Neo256 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Most people and many reliable sources consider them prog/power so why is the progressive tag constantly being removed? (by one user I might add who keeps levaving me nonsense about nightwish on my talk pages and refuses to discuss the issue with any civility right here where it should be done) Also it is somewhat ridiculous to label something "melodic power metal" although I don't really have a problem to it if it is what they are commonly reffered to as, because power metal is by nature highly melodic.--E tac 04:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a few sites that refer to Kamelot as progressive

If Kamelot is prog metal, then Dream Theater, Queensrÿche, Tool and Rush are Power Metal bands... non sense. I can't even name one Kamelot song that is in the prog realm.
That logic makes zero sense and is totally incorrect except maybe Queensryche, they do have power metal elements especially in their earlier works--E tac 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The best way would be to ask the band directly on its official forum at kamelot.com
What the band describes themself is is not very important. I only included the myspace link to point out that the above person citing what the band refers to themselves can't be used as the sole source--E tac 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
MySpace!! Simply because there is no "power metal" in the categories to choose from. Prog CAN be closer to power than Thrash. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.240.5 (talk • contribs).
And you don't have to list 3 categories on myspace the band chose to add progressive to their description as many other sources have and by your super exclusive definition of prog just leaving it at metal would make more sense if the band wasn't prog right?--E tac 20:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As a result of the brewing edit war, I've filed a Request for comment. --Eyrian 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And yet even that is still being removed by one of the two users who are page guarding without giving a valid reason as to why the info being submitted is incorrect.--E tac 00:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


It is not because some sites say that Kamelot is progressive that the band is. Which songs are progressive? Name one, then name 5 or 10... Even on myspace, there is no power metal option for band genres, and the closest to power is prog, because thrash is nowhere near, nor death, nor black metal. Websites are not 100% reliable. Listen to Kamelot well, and let me know where you hear prog in there.

Ever here of signing your posts? listen to the song "The Black Halo" or "Moonlight" or "Memento Mori" and show me another power metal band who writes songs like these. Did you bother reading about the myspace? If they didn't want to list prog they could have left it at just metal. The simple point is they incorporate a lot of progressive elements into their music for a power metal band and a reader of this artice should be informed of that. --E tac 00:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


I have to agree that Kamelot has a bit of progressive sounds/structures to its sound, especially on the last 2-3 albums (we will hear more on the next one), and that adding prog to its genre description could help to set them apart from the lot. Even Kamelot's power metal sound is none like, let's say, Gamma Ray, Blind Guardian or even Rhapsody (of fire......). I will even dare to say that the band could have a wee-bit of gothic to its lyrical theme, since, in general, power metal is uplifting and joyful, while kamelot sings more about sorrow, pain, sadness, loneliness, anger, and other dark things...... We could label it "...power metal band with progressive metal elements...." to have more emphasis on the "power" genre..... // on another note, I added the announcement made by the band about their upcoming music video and it is always being remeved. I feel that it should be left on the page so that everyone could know about it. Check out kamelot.com in the news section, it has been anounced on feb. 6th, for the song "Ghost Opera". --Necrolog 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


http://www.myspace.com/kamelot Not a reaible site do you even know if this is really run by the band? http://www.progarchives.com/Progressive_rock_discography_BAND.asp?band_id=1486 same here http://www.proggnosis.com/MUSIC_DBArtist.asp?txtArtistID=724 same here They are listing bands that have nothing to do with Prog Metal IE Epica, Nightwish just to name a few http://www.progressiveworld.net/html/modules.php?name=Reviews&rop=K Sorry no this is also bad site unless Epica you see they list Epica as Prog-Power metal. Know if we forget about the fact that they have no solos really in the CD and the fact that there music is not happy sure you can list them as that. It's just to bad they are not a prog metal band or a Power Metal band. So E-Tac when you list these site such as the ones you have. Look to see what other bands they are listing. Becuase they are listing bands that have nothing to do with either Power Metal or Prog Metal.

"The Black Halo" or "Moonlight" Both are Power Metal songs. Both using things that make up Power Metal. "Memento Mori" this falls into symphonic metal like Nightwish. So tell me who those site are a good place to get info when they keep listing bands that have nothing to do with either Power or Prog Metal.

Then tell me how Kamelot is Prog Metal. Because those sites are wrong wrong wrong. I can tell you right of the bat that they no nothing about Gothic Metal, Symphonic Metal, Death, or Black Metal. On top of that they no nothing about Nightwish, Epica, Within Temptation, or After Forever becuase I mean really those are all Prog Metal bands. So I'm supposed to trust those sites that can't even get the style that four bands that I listen to right. Pleae progarchives, proggnosis, and progressiveworld are jokes. turemetalfan Jan 7, 2007


Why are they jokes? because you say so? I suppose you are more knowledgable about this than many collaborators who specialize in the genre. "The Black Halo" is a power metal song? How many generic power metal bands write songs in 5/4?--E tac 00:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


When those four sites can't even tell a Power metal band from a symphoinc metal and Gothic Metal band yes I do know more then the people at progarchives, proggnosis, and progressiveworld. So stop listing them and stop telling people that these sites are right. They are not right they are wrong in everything they are doing. Within Temptation is not is not is not a Power-Prog metal band. They never have been they never well be they are Symphoinc Gothic metal. Nightwish has nothing to do with Prog Metal. And Epica does not have anything that that would put them in Power Metal or Prog. Yet the four sites you keep listing have them those three bands listed. So I'm supposed to trust them.

E-Tac have you even taken a look at those four sites and some of the bands the list? Have you ever even heard some of the bands. Have you listened to Within Temptation? I have and they are not part of the Prog Metal gerna. You keep listing Progmetal web sites run by people who would not even be able to tell a Death Metal band from a Power Metal band. If they could they would list Arch Enemy as a Prog Metal band. My god start looking at those sites more closely. And three songs do not a Prog Metal band make. You might also want to check lastfm.com to. truemetalfan

Maybe those bands are prog metal or contain many elements of it and that is why they are listed, those collaborators are certainly more qualified to make that decision then you, why don't you email each and everyone of them then and tell them how stupid they are and how you are the god of metal who knows more than they do. Where are your published writings by the way? They are certainly are MUCH more reliable then your own POV.
So now it is 3 songs? I thought it was zero now its 3? Many of the groups songs have progressive ellements according to you it was none? now it is 3? How did that all the sudden come to be. No it doesn't make them a pure progressive metal band ut it would make them a progressive power metal band. Why can't you show me a reliable source that says they ARE NOT progressive, not that just doesn't list them as such but that specificaly states that they are not, because many sources and commenters here have said they are progressive with noone but a few hyper elitest metal fans such as yourself challenging it.
And look http://www.last.fm/music/Kamelot says they are a progressive power metal band... I can't believe you are challenging the reliability of progarchives but telling me to look at last fm. --E tac 02:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So you have removed it again without showing any proof that they are not despite much proof to the contrary.--E tac 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I will take that as a you have never listended to Within Temptation, nor have you ever listened to Epica either. I can't believe you are challenging the reliability of progarchives>>> Becuase they are listing a band that has nothing to do with Prog Metal. Progarchives is nto a reliabe site. Nor is myspace, nor is http://www.progressiveworld.net, nor is http://www.proggnosis.com

And I have listed sites many times before. http://www.metal-archives.com/ http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=136&bandname=Kamelot Very reliabe site that shows many differet bands and reviwes and shows what they are part of. http://www.metalmonk.co.uk/reviews/rev_0032.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turemetalfan (talk • contribs) 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Again those sites merely state that it is a power metal band which I am not disputing in the least bit, but they also blend that with progressive metal and have been refered to as that as well so both should be listed.--E tac 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A way to determine whether it's prog or not

Hi guys!

I came here through the request for comments page. I'm musicologist so perhaps it may help, don't know. (Forgive my english, it's not my mother tongue)

Well, I'm not familiar to Kamelot but the few I've heard has let me think of a standard power metal band. But I didn't heard enough to be defitive. However I know there are bands who can combine, progressiv, symphonic and powermetal a band like Adagio is a perfect example of this. Anyway this is actually very simple to determine whether this band has some prog traits or not: The prog aesthetic is generally characterised by a certain number of traits:

  • unconventional and complex song structures with massive architecture including many different sections and subsections
  • Hence the unusual lenght of the songs often exceding 7 minutes
  • The frequent use of unsual scales
  • the frequent use of complex harmony( such as the use of extended chords)not always though
  • The very frequent use of unsual time signatures (such as 5/4, 7/4, 7/8, etc..)
  • the very frequent change of different time signatures
  • frequent or occasional use of complex rhythms (such as Polyrhythm)
  • Emphasis on high instrumental technique

Now if some songs of Kamelot display several of these characterics (and most particularly the stuffs about the times signatures stuffs) then it can decently be regarded as prog at least partially.

Hope I've been of any use

Regards Fred D.Hunter 11:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Neo256> In my opinion the way it is presented at the moment it is perfect.
Genre(s): Power metal - Progressive metal - Symphonic metal
--Neo256 13:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
in my opinion, kamelot songs have these from the ones listed:
  • unconventional and complex song structures with massive architecture including many different sections and subsections (though they dont often break 7 minutes, they usually have many more sections than the standard chorus and verse)
  • The frequent use of unsual scales (they use harmonic minor scales a lot, and sometimes venture into the realm of atonality
  • The very frequent use of unsual time signatures (such as 5/4, 7/4, 7/8, etc..) (this one is the big one. they do a lot of additive stuff. many songs in 10/8, 3+2+3/8, at least one song in 3+3+7+3)
  • frequent or occasional use of complex rhythms (such as Polyrhythm)
(another big one. they have a LOT of 2 against 3 and 3 against 4, and many other polyrhythms in their music)


Ok let me answer to this:
in my opinion, kamelot songs have these from the ones listed:
Don't take it wrong but one thing you need to be aware is stylistic analyse is not an issue of "opinion". It relies on objective observation. In other words such features can be verified. You need to provide evidences. Just because you have the feeling/the opinion these characteristic are included in this music, isn't necessarilly convincing. Please try to provide explict exemples/passages to support your claims, not just vague impressions. Don't misunderstand me though, I'm not necessarilly saying what you claimed is wrong, but the way you worded this comment sounds as if your appreciation was just an impression, not an strict analytic observation.
'("though they dont often break 7 minutes, they usually have many more sections than the standard chorus and verse)
Ok, but can you give a striking example of a song including such kind of structure. May I ask you to describe the structures of the song if possible.
" (they use harmonic minor scales a lot, and sometimes venture into the realm of atonality"
the harmonic minor scale an unusual scale? Well... no offense, but you need to be aware that the harmonic minor scale is by no mean what we can call an "unusual scale"... Actually this is one of the most common and standard scales in tonal music ever. This was one of the most employed scale in classical and baroque music.
As for atonality...well, frankely speaking I tend to doubt that. Use of atonal harmony is very rare in popular music in general including metal and prog. ( Even though I wouldn't be surprised to find some atonality in prog music). But that's pretty rare. Ultimately nothing prevents metal bands to use atonality. But I'd be very interested to hear a very striking example of such atonal use. If you do provide one, this would be a very strong argument to consider this music as "experimental", as atonality is an unusual harmonic language for popular music indeed. But for the moment, sorry but the few songs I've heard so far don't seem to display any single trace of atonality. All the songs I've heard by them are perfectly tonal.
On the other hand, I've noted many people in the popular music world tend to use the term "atonality" in an unproper way. So maybe we don't use the term the same way, leading to a misunderstanding.
"(this one is the big one. they do a lot of additive stuff. many songs in 10/8, 3+2+3/8, at least one song in 3+3+7+3)"
Good! Interesting!If this is correct it would be a strong argument to call them prog indeed, especially if such TS are frequent! Can you mention the passages of songs including such time signatures?
verse of 'karma' in 10/8. verse of 'III ways to epica' in 10/8. verse of 'eden echo' in 5/4. verse of 'descent of the archangel' in 3+2+3/8. chorus of 'eden echo' in 3+3+2. verse of 'lunar sanctum' (melody) in 3+3+7+3/16. intro to 'abandoned' in 6+6+2/14. there are quite a few more, but i think you get the idea.
"(another big one. they have a LOT of 2 against 3 and 3 against 4, and many other polyrhythms in their music)"
Good ! Can you give a precise example of a song, so that I could check? By the way, when you say "2 against 3", I guess you're talking about polyrhythm involving binary and ternary rhythms.Aren't you?
examples: the song 'serenade' switches from being int 2 to 3 several times before entering an ambiguous section which has elements in both. the song 'ghost opera' often utilizes guitar in 2 and drums/keyboard in 3. also, the guitar lines in the verse of 'this pain' and the chorus of 'nothing ever dies' are grouped into 4 groups of 3 followed by one group of 4 (as opposed to simply 4 groups of 4) this is 3 agains 4, as for the first 3 beats of every measure, the drums accent every 4th sixteenth note and the gutar accents every third)
"(another big one. kamelot's songs change a lot. thats what i like so much about them.)"
Ok, songs change a lot...But are you sure changes here mean change of different time signatures?
Because as you probably know, there are many way to involve changes in music. But it doesn't necessarilly mean these are time signature changes.
Anyway, I remember, I've checked a few song by them, when this issue was posted last year. And I've indeed noticed a few time signatures changes . But as far as I remember that was very occasional and brief. Plus that was very common simple changes between 2/4 and 4/4. Which is not particularly impressive per se(I wouldn't call that "prog"). However if I remember well I also noticed a brief change between a 4/4 and 5/4 or something in one of the songs. But that was a year ago or so, I'm not sure anymore. Can you provide very striking examples, please? Fred D.Hunter (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Kamelot does NOT belong primarily in the Progressive Metal genre. There are rarely any complex soloing, timeshifts or polyrythms akin to the staples of the genre in the majority of their songs. There were a few prog-verging tracks on The Black Halo as well as "Elisabeth" from Karma, but otherwise the band is about as cookie cutter Power Metal as they come. They are, after all, seen as one of the PRIMARY bands of the Power genre. Why do people feel the need to insist they are a Prog band? Does "Progressive" somehow imply superiority? Theintrepid (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they are primarily a POWER metal band. There are some prog elements and influences in their songs, but the term 'power metal' sums Kamelot up very nicely. Sadly, some people do think that "progressive" implies more technical (and more complicated) metal so they try and pass off prog-influenced power metal bands as progressive. 207.216.172.198 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ghost Opera video

--About the muic video for Ghost Opera, I took the info from the band's official website, which will be the first video for the upcoming album. The band has not mentioned any name for that album. --Necrolog 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Rumors about Kamelot

--Since this is a factual website, unless there are sources for the material it doesn't really belong here. As a result, I have removed the "Love You To Death" music video reference (non-documented) from the Ghost Opera album and Kamelot pages. UnlivedPhalanx (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Avalon the name of a new live album?

I don't know where it came from that Kamelot has a new live album called Avalon, but I don't see anything on the internet that indicates that. I think we should remove it until there is any proof on the net.

From their website its called "One Cold Winter's Night"

Eternity

The "Eternity" link goes to an Anathema album; someone with insight should write an article on the Kamelot one, too (and a disambiguation page, of course).

The summery

I'm always looking at the Nightwish artical and trying to make it as impressive as that one. That's why I'm asking and going to try to make the first section before the biografie a bit bigger. --Neo256 15:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)



Aspirat primo Fortuna labori Me duce tutus eris Vox populi vox Dei Ad majorem Dei gloriam... Ad infinitum

(translation: Fortune is smiling at our first effort, you will be safe with me as your leader the voice of the people is the voice of God For the greater glory of God... Forever.)

You know just who I am Don't be so distant 'cause When you're lost I am solely there to share your grief

chorus: Wailing your sorrow is only my way to comfort you Reminders of innocent youth Waiting for morrow you're lonely I name your solitude I speaketh the truth

Now tell me all about your pain Down to the detail Don't say it's love Your fragile heart feeds my contempt

(chorus)

Chase the heathen call We belong...you and I Unison in all you deny

(chorus)

I am the thorn in your side That seeks accomplishment Reminding the mortal of death I am the spore of your pride An angel heavensent The master of all I am the urge of the flesh

Musical style/sound section?

This seems common on many other band articles, and with all the prog vs. power arguments, it would seem like the article that could use more info on how the band actually sounds. Googleaseerch 01:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Well I feel power metal isnt the correct genre to classifie such an amazing band as Kamelot. I beleive that it should be a gothic metal/ or so a symphonic metal if that makes sense. It is a very whymisical sound, yet its go thtat industrial not so death metal sound. It is what I would call pretty amazing. But of course Im aprt of the sea of many with an opinion. Who knows hopfully they wont change their genre to much, they seem to be on a role in my eyes!

From the "Brooksinator" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.39.79.250 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Kamelot.com's page-introduction states following: American progressive metal band. They are progressive metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.23.199 (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They are a combination of Power Metal, Progressive Metal, Instrumental Metal, and Gothic Metal, along with a few Power Ballads thrown in. Though I agree they are mainly Power Metal mainly because the majority of their songs are Power Metal. ADD. If you can provide a source from the website stating they are "American Progressive Metal Band", than we (or at least I) Will re-dubb it Progressive Metal.--F-22 Raptored (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
According to me they play power metal with influences from progressive metal and symphonic metal, but it is nothing to be discussed in this talk page. Instead this should be decided from sources, and the only one I know as of now is Kamelot.com. Thus "progressive metal" is what should be there until other source is found. - Aki (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, than they should be known as a prog band.--F-22 Raptor IV 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
This information is being changed without it being discussed. Kamelot has both power metal and progressive metal elements, however, their latest albums have been leaning towards progressive more, along with more symphonic metal. Also, their official site says they are progressive, so we are going against the official website now? If we can't really come up with a solution, it will have to become just heavy metal for neutral pointing reasons.--F-22 Raptor IV 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Most interviews and magazine articles tend to start off with calling them a prog metal band. Which is the better label overall for what they are. GripTheHusk (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
According to the criteria PhD. Musicologist Fred D. Hunter set forth, they are not progressive metal. Allmusic also lists them primarily as a Power Metal band, which is a much more reliable source than their shameless self-promotion homepage. As I stated above, there are a handful of Prog elements in their work, but they are a Power band that incorporates other genres in their sound. I insist that they are Power Metal, not prog. Also, Ghost Opera was as far from Progressive Metal territory as their first, genre-defining albums. It was straight verse-chorus-verse with virtually no time changes or lengthy songs. They are Power Metal. Theintrepid (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic also lists them as a prog band, care to share some sources? Preferrably ones without the mention of prog. Because this is primarialy going against their official page.--F-22 Raptor IV 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1) We can't use their own site because of WP:RS; it's not third party. 2) Rather than making a definitive statement "They are...", why don't you try "[A reliable, neutral, third party source] says they are..."? 3) Theintrepid seems to be boosting Fred D. Hunter's reputation by calling him a "musicologist". Intrepid seems to be following him around and assisting him an awful lot and it further adds weight to the theory that they're working in concert. 4) Find reliable sources for the genre and keep your opinions to yourself, please. 5) Stop edit warring over it now or I will lock down the article. If you have any questions please feel free to reply here or at my talk page. Thank you. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is critical to understand that as Kamelot is pop music, there are no inherent, predetermined "criteria" or fully credible sources upon which to judge their specific subgenre. Popular music genres are, after all, are arbitrarily crafted by those who listen to the music. We must, instead, rely on the information of individuals who are far more qualified at determining genre. This is why I support the resident musicologist's (that is what he IS) position. I am offended you'd imply I'm working in tandem with him. If you must know, I came to this Kamelot page when going through his edits after seeing what he'd done to the Black Sabbath page, since I found his intellect and musical understanding far superior to the typical Popular Music Wikipedia editor. Could you give any other examples of how I'm helping him "an awful lot," please? Frankly, this sounds rather like an ad hom, and I'm shocked it's coming from a mod. Fred had no vested interest in Kamelot anyway; he said he was brought here in response to a query. I'm the one with an interest. Kamelot was essentially the progenitor of European Power Metal in America, sparking hundreds of bands since their iconic The Fourth Legacy. Listing them initially as Progressive metal is as unencyclopedic as it is insipid. In regard to links, here's a couple:

Professional Amazon Review by Jedd Beaudoin Sputnik calls them "One of the biggest names in power metal today" Theintrepid (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Intrepid, we use published sources from trustworthy sites/books etc. 1) Can't trust Amazon reviews as he may have been "on the take" to write that review. 2) Sputnik is a user generated site, much like Wikipedia (Note "edit band" and "edit info" on the site). Fred would have to publish his opinions on a reliable medium and then he himself would have to prove his credentials etc. But right now he's "just" a Wikipedia user. Look at places like NME, Q magazine for a general guidance on what's a reliable source. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sputnik isn't a reliable source, I thought Amazon was considered so but I guess not. If we can't exactly agree on this, maybe we can just call them heavy metal?--F-22 Raptor IV 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
An umbrella term would suffice as it would cover all specific genres and avoid the edit wars. I've never heard [of] this band so I can't have an opinion. Just here to protect the Wiki ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly understand why Sputnik would be outlawed (I noticed that it was noted in Wikipedia, so I wrongly believed it would be acceptable) but could you detail as to why the professional Amazon.com review is not acceptable? Jedd Beaudoin is a published, well known reviewer for Amazon.com. How is he any less acceptable than reviewers from Allmusic? It is my understanding Allmusic reviewers are paid less. Theintrepid (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I would also like to add that the term Progressive Metal is no more an umbrella term than Power Metal. How is one preferable to the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theintrepid (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Re: Amazon reviews. Going by common sense, product reviews are a bit dodgy. If I was a well known product reviewer who had a large audience following, companies would be begging to pay me to say the odd nice thing about their product. While it may be unlikely that he'll get paid by the companies that's still a risk and negates its neutrality.
Re: Prog. metal --> Power metal. Raptored suggested Heavy metal, which, as far as I am aware, is the egg in the "chicken and the egg" story. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This whole reverting thing is starting to get annoying, is there any reason we are saying that it is progressive metal with progressive elements? Which is repeating the same thing twice.--F-22 Raptor IV 14:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be very interested in knowing this too. When someone corrects this clearly unencyclopaedic redundancy it is reverted to "progressive metal with progressive metal influences" again and this simply makes no sense to me. Isn't purposely making the article worse considered vandalism?--Inefficiency (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you implying that this administrator is a vandal, Inefficiency? Assume good faith. You are a new user; how is it that you know so much about Wikipedia? Again, find a source to make those sorts of WP:OR changes. It might seem clear to you but you have to prove things on Wikipedia. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that calling them "progressive metal with progressive metal influences" is redundant, yes, and I don't think it needs to be proven further than the fact that their progressiveness has already been mentioned once and does not need repeating. What genre they are(n't) is another debate completely, and one that I agree needs proof and valid sources. But I think we are closer to reaching some sort of conclusion if we keep the article like this for the time being, listing three different genres instead of two (of which one is just mentioned twice for no apparent reason). This isn't about facts relating to the subject as much as it is about a detail that makes the article more unhelpful, lessens its quality and causes what I view as unnecessary reverting back and forth which takes focus off the more important debate of what genre they actually are.--Inefficiency (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I read it again and you make a good point about the progressive metal thing in the lede and your version is POV; ergo, I've removed the whole sentence. It's original research at best. Also, to satisfy the genre debate above, I have done as Raptor suggested and replaced it with the umbrella term. Will this suffice until appropriate sources are found, and agreed upon, for a more specific term? Thanks and regards. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Demo

In my opinion, the Demo bit should also be removed for the fact it provides very little information and meaning on the wiki page, and has no page on its own.--F-22 Raptored (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of live albums

Please feel free to disagree, but I don't think that "Ghost Opera: The Second Coming" can, or should, be considered a live album. It is a reissue including a bonus disc with new live material. I terefore changed the introduction of the page to two live albums instead of three. This is in line with the allready existing discography. IF someone has persuasive arguments for counting "Ghost Opera: The Second Coming" as a live album, please change BOTH the introduction and the discography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djingis Khan (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kamelot discography

Support split - Discography section is long, and should be split to a new article entitled Kamelot discography. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We can list the albums and their release dates as normal in plaintext, as that isn't particularly space-absorbing, but this giant table with not-particularly-important information like chart positions is what makes it look huge. That could be in a separate article potentially. Music videos, singles, compilation albums, video albums, and live albums also are not that important on the main article. Just Demos, EPs, and studio albums should be listed (AKA their main works), and others could be covered in a separate article (which would also include their main works). Vortiene (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kamelot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Johan Nunez left Kamelot?

It's been circling around for a while, but Johan's Instagram says that he had drummed for Kamelot, and it appears as if he is no longer the drummer. Is this hinted that he had left the band during the first leg of their current tour promoting The Shadow Theory? Alex Landenburg hasn't been confirmed to be Kamelot's new drummer, as he is just doing the live shows as of the moment, so there is yet to be official confirmation from the band if Alex is or isn't the drummer now.

Please do let me know your thoughts on this. HorrorLover555 (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex is not a full-time member of the band, that much is for sure-- all statements by the band indicate that he is hired for this touring cycle, and while Palotai said he hopes Alex sticks around, the drummer situation will be re-evaluated after the touring cycle. As to Johan Nunez, I think there is room for discussion, reading between the lines it certainly sounds like he is not coming back, and the Instagram link could be considered a source, however Kamelot's website and social media still list him as a member of the band. Thinking back to precedent, Khan effectively left the band in late 2010, told his bandmates he was leaving, and they did not announce it for 6 months. Wikipedia lists his date as departure with the announcement/confirmation. Same with Casey Grillo, he left months before the announcement, and was touring with Queensryche while the new album was being recorded. We list the date of announcement. So, considering precedent, while it does appear that he will not return, I have to lean towards leaving Nunez on the page until the next permanent drummer is announced or the band comments further. That said, it is sort of a different situation, considering long-time staples of the band and a drummer who was active for just a few months. So while I lean towards keeping him, I wouldn't object if others felt differently. Jmcgit (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kamelot/Archive_1&oldid=1171024133"