Talk:In Flames

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


Formed when exactly?[edit]

"In Flames is a Swedish melodic death metal band from Gothenburg, formed in 1990. Since the band's conception in 1993" ... "In Flames was founded in the year 1993" ... 130.233.243.229 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding heavy metal in the lead[edit]

I see we don't have a genre thing for them in the lead and it just says "is a band". I think having heavy metal in the lead shouldn't be a problem. Yes there is a debate on their exact sub-genre, whether they're melodic death or alternative metal, but there is no argument one whether or not they're heavy metal as both of those are sub-genres of heavy metal. Ximmerman (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not trying to add to the genre war that seems to go on with a lot of bands... but In Flames, being a leader of the Melodic Death Metal movement... their music may have many different elements, but they are still Melodic Death Metal (if you read the description of Melodic Death Metal) their sound still fits in with it, its just a more progressive sound. the vocal style has very little to do with the genre, they still play very melodically and Anders still for the most part uses a metal vocal style. you can't change their genre, after all they were a pioneer, they are in a genre of their own (which would be melodic death metal, for the most part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.60.221 (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ending the "alternative metal" discussion once and for all[edit]

I believe that people simply need to end this drama about the genre. If you don't like the new music, don't listen to it. I personally love all of it, and I saw In Flames live on the 14th of November, this 2008 and it was amazing. That is all. (199.126.174.197 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not saying they're melodeath anymore, that's gone, to say the least. But let me just put something out there: WHAT KIND OF ALT-METAL BAND INCORPORATES BLASTBEATS IN THEIR MUSIC???????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.103.212 (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently, THEY DO. Listen to Disturbed's song "Haunted". There seems to be some blast-beating going on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.198.78 (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've never apparently listened to Slipknot either. 72.72.198.78 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for example; Reroute to Remain incorporates traits of alternative metal, meaning it's a cross between melodeath and alt. metal styles, not just one or the other, so "blast-beating" can still exist while it is still alternative. 72.72.198.78 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They use both styles if you ask me. Alternative metal's been prevalent for six years in their style, so obviously it's a dominant one. They are still melodeath, but they have alternative metal as well. Metalcore, what the hell... I don't see where any of that's coming from. Friden's scream is not traditional for melodeath, but there's still that hint of growl coming from the back of his throat. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, they're alternative metal now. It's obvious in their newer music, and many websites (which are reliable sources) define them as such. I don't see the problem with them being listed as alternative metal, because IT'S THE TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inflamesisalternativemetal (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The complete re-write[edit]

Well, it took me a couple weeks longer than I expected, but I got it done complete with cited sources. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch and researched the band as if I had never heard of them before. Upon doing research I discovered that the old article contained quite a bit of libel. You might notice some big changes in the re-write, but I assure you that I did not add anything to the article if I could not find various reliable sources supporting it. Also, I did not add opinions about the band's genre, I only added facts. Wikipedia articles are not forums and are not the place to write useless debateable junk like "some of In Flames' older fans think that they have sold out with their most recent albums". Anyways, I hope this re-write helps re-educate a few people about this band and if you have any questions about the re-write feel free to ask. By the way, I also rewrote the In Flames discography page and Template:In Flames to coincide with the rewrite of this article. --Leon Sword 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, it looks great. Alot more informational and ( .Y. ) well it's great, good job. -- Shatterzer0 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I Like this article, although i pretty much agree In flames are sellouts, its not really something you should place in an encyclopedia article. But a mention about their genre change would be nice.123.252.188.96 13:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a problem with saying that In Flames changed genres; it's very debateable. I agree with most other people that In Flames doesn't play the same as they used to, but I also agree with most other people that In Flames is still a melodeath band, especially since In Flames is one of melodeath's pioneers and thus they set/are setting the standards of the genre. Currently the article has a good section that explains some of the changes the band has made musically without being POV and it's cited. I don't think we need to add a POV statement. --Leon Sword 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the article --Childzy ¤ Talk 10:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believed Carcass pioneered it with At the Gates and Dark Tranquility to lesser extents and In Flames simply popularized it. Camalus (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo(s)[edit]

Leon Sword: Why did you revert the logo? I changed for several good reasons: a) the old one looked bad; b) it was inconsistent with almost every other band article, ever; c) it is too wide; the infobox just stretches with it. Can we please change it back? = ∫tc 5th Eye 19:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of telling you why on your talk page, but since you posted this message here first, I'll respond here. A) The original image is more consistent with the rest of the logos visible in the article. B) I do believe that there is not a policy on Wikipedia stating that every Wikipedia article should be created the same as the rest. C) The image is not too wide, I set the pixel size to be pretty much as wide as the infobox. D) Wether an image looks bad is a matter of opinion, because I think the image you uploaded looks worse. E) It is redundant. --Leon Sword 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this image is consistent with the rest of the logos in the article. But there's a problem with having logos in the article in the first place, as has been discussed in other articles (notably Tool's article): having logos in the article body without any explanation as to why they are there is a violation of fair use because they don't have any context to go with them. Therefore those logos ought to be removed.
  • True, the articles don't have to be consistent, but it would be nice.
  • The infobox is 250 pixels wide. I just checked by printscreening the template page in Photoshop. Therefore any images wider will stretch it.
  • Reverting an edit like that without discussing it first here is kind of an asshole thing to do. You do not "own" this article.
= ∫tc 5th Eye 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're calling me an asshole for reverting your edit without discussing it first even though you made the controversial edit in the first place without discussing it here first. 5 pixels wider than the original size of the infobox does no major harm, and I've seen infoboxes on GA articles that are stretched beyond that. The bit about the logos not being related to the content is false, because if you haven't noticed every section talks about a certain time period which also has a respective logo. The image caption mentions it, the image description page mentions it, and the user can see the relation between that time period and the respective logo. By the way don't throw the You don't own the article thing again, assume good faith. --Leon Sword 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright fine; but I still stand beside the fact that the logos are not discussed explicitly anywhere in the article. I would also like a second opinion. = ∫tc 5th Eye 21:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that I just re-read WP:LOGO and all logos in the article meet the criteria for inclusion into the article. Furthermore, WP:LOGO states that if an historical (old) logo is used the caption should mention this, and they all do. --Leon Sword 21:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by non-owners for purposes of criticism and commentary." There is no criticism or commentary of the logos in the article whatsoever.
"Where possible, logos should be uploaded in PNG format. JPEG format should not be used as it is lossy and results in a less professional appearance." It would be nice to have kept the old PNG-format logo that we used to use in this article. The black backgrounds are kind of unsightly, especially the bad anti-aliasing jaggies in the old logo. = ∫tc 5th Eye 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the logos in the article qualify under purposes of commentary. I have been considering converting the logos to PNG format, however I'm aware that if not done right it will mess up the logo. If you can convert them to PNG without degrading the image of the logos please do so. --Leon Sword 21:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally can do that. I've done several PNG logos for Wikipedia already and used to have some really high-quality copies of all three logos on my computer somewhere… let me see if I can find them. = ∫tc 5th Eye 21:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check these out:
  • old
  • mid (kinda iffy, because it doesn't have the Soilwork-logo-esque chopped-up style to it)
  • Used & Abused style
  • keep the new one I made?
= ∫tc 5th Eye 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very nice, I definately can't do that (I'm a newbie in image editing). The old one is very nice, but aren't the letters supposed to have a border? The mid one is missing a lot of detail, but it has a good outline. The Used and Abused one is unnecessary since the band only used on that box set. As for the new one, the height is very small and makes the logo hard to see. I don't think there's a policy against removing so much detail from the logos, so that doesn't matter too much. Could you however come up with a "taller" version of the current logo? That would be great. By the way, you can upload the new images over the current images, that way you don't have to set up three entire new description pages. --Leon Sword 00:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks… I can definitely add a border to the old one and maybe some detail to the mid one. I had the same feelings about the Used & Abused logo but threw it in there for good measure; I don't care if we don't use it. I can also fix the new one, no problem. Also I'm pretty sure I can't upload PNGs over the JPGs since they will have different file extensions, but the old ones will get deleted eventually and it won't be a problem. = ∫tc 5th Eye 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I forgot about the file extension thing. --Leon Sword 19:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

Ok who the hell thinks this is melodic death metal? They play this stuff on the freakin radio, thats the first evidence that this is not anywhere near death metal...they may have been remotely close to melo death a while ago, UNTIL they sold out to the mainstream...now they sound like regular rock they play everwhere. Please dont insult real melo death (amon amarth, carcass, etc) with this crap, CHANGE THIS!!! Please, someone compare any Amon Amarth (a staple of melo death) with any song from In Flames' new cd...and find me 1 similarity...the vocals (harsh v. soothing), screams (scratchy v. soft), the guitars (heavy v. light), and the overall tone of each song (flesh-ripping v. "this will sound good on the radio and to the public").

sorry to bring this annoying subject up once more. But on a majorety of metal pages ive read they state In Flames as Modern Metal rather than Melodeath, and i think its more acurate than melodeath. thou i wont change a thing with out aproval by anyone. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In Flames is melodic death metal. That is all. Kl4m 09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern Metal" is a blanket term used to describe a style of metal, it is not a genre. --Leon Sword 03:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to call In flames melodic death metal is rather confusing, they dont sound a thing like ´´real´´ Melodic Death Metal bands for instance Amon Amarth, Arch Enemy or Dark Tranquillity. Maybe some of you should open your eyes to the truth In flames isnt Melodeath its even more fitting to call them metalcore —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 20:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
In Flames is one of the pioneers of melodic death metal along with Dark Tranquillity and At the Gates, so there is no other band that plays more "real melodic death metal" than In Flames. It's a genre they helped pioneer and they are making up the rules of what the genre is as they go along. --Leon Sword 03:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what they may have done early in their career, In Flames does not define the genre based on whatever new album they put out, any more than Metallica is expanding the definition of thrash metal - both bands have simply drifted away from the genres they originally contributed to. It's obvious you're a big fan, and it's cool that you enjoy their new material, but it's pretty demonstrably not DM, melodic or otherwise. Can we get some objectivity here, and a consensus edit on the genre? --DestroyYouAlot (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I like old and new IF, but they are definitely not a "melodic death metal" band anymore. I agree that they pioneered the genre, but that does not mean that they still play within the sound that they helped to pioneer. Their new music, be it good or bad in anyone's subjective opinion, is not death metal anymore. I'd say that around Clayman or Reroute to Remain, they became more of a melodic metalcore band. I believe that they are still good and metal and all that, but to claim the "death" tag and separate them from other bands more similar in style honestly is a bit misleading. MXVN (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sure didn't age well. Did you listen to battles? 185.233.255.237 (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't metalcore! You only think they are metalcore because you are looking back on those albums through a modern perspective, but the fact is Clayman predated melodic metalcore, it was just melodeath with some influences from alternative metal, and Reroute to Remain further lacked any metalcore elements, the alternative metal elements just got turned up. If you pay close attention though, you can hear alternative metal elements even on Whoracle. The only reason it sounds like melodic metalcore is because melodic metalcore takes a ton of influence from In Flames! Ganondox (talk)


but listen to the music, lets just take come clarity since its the most recent, i cant hear a single Death metal riff in that album. And if they keep lowering the bar then soon we can call soilwork and Sonic syndicate Melodic Death Metal too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmage Daggoth (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Sword- Lunar Strain, Jester race and Whoracle are melodeath, but their newer stuff isn't. Someone please change the genre to metalcore for everything but Lunar Strain, Jester Race and Whoracle. XXMurderSoulXx 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the biggest metal site says they aint metal no more.....they help pioneer the gothenburg sound..leon get ur facts straight..Carcass was the ones who started it by adding melodic elements to death metal, http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=11 Band statement: "Dark Tranquillity is the longest standing band from the famed Gothenburg metal scene". At the gates disbanded, In flames along with Soilwork sold out and turned Nu Metal. How can you call tracks like Cloud Connected etc Death metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.188.96 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you guys should really do some hard research before you make such big claims. First of all, Anders does not rap in any of In Flames' songs and I think that even you guys will agree that no In Flames song has hip hop rhythms or feeling to them, so you can't even consider In Flames to be a nu metal band. Second, metal-archives.com is not the biggest nor the most reliable metal website. That website is user edited/influenced and it is very biased; you can't possibly expect people to take your argument serious when you're using that website as a reference. Third, Carcass didn't release their "melodic death metal" album until after In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates were already established. Carcass was not the first melodeath band and their style of melodeath is not the same as the Gothenburg melodeath style of In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates. Fourth, the group of people who play in Dark Tranquillity may have gotten together in 1989, but they formed under Septic Broiler, a band which didn't play melodeath. The band that you recognize as Dark Tranquillity didn't come until later. Fifth, At the Gates may have broken up, but the core of the band went on to form The Haunted, a band which mixes thrash metal with some of the melodeath elements of At the Gates.
Please stop throwing all this flawed arguments that In Flames is not a melodeath band anymore. I will be the first to admit that their newer albums, especially Come Clarity aren't exactly The Jester Race Part 2. However, melodeath has evolved, just take a look at all the other early melodeath bands. None of those early melodeath bands sound like they used to, yet if you look around, you'll find that most people and music databases still consider those bands melodeath bands. Dark Tranquillity has changed right alongside In Flames and with every album they release they keep progressing towards a more symphonic/gothic metal sound. At the Gates may have broken up, but it's successor, The Haunted doesn't sound like the classic melodeath band that came before it. The Haunted has taken what At the Gates started and progressed towards a more thrash metal sound. I could keep throwing names of all these melodeath bands that no longer sound like they used, but it is pointless. You need to get used to the fact that melodeath has evolved for better or for worse. By the way, it seems that at least one of you is confusing melodeath with death metal. --Leon Sword 02:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, melodeath evolved into metalcore. Theres still plenty of melodeath bands that sound like old In Flames, At The gates, etc around now. The truth is, In Flames is nolonger melodeath. XXMurderSoulXx 22:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soilwork and Sonic Syndicate ARE both melodeath, the only of these three bands which is in anyway metalcore is Sonic Syndicate. The fact you think people are just starting to categorize Soilwork as melodeath and that melodeath is defined by having death metal riffs is astoundingly ignorant.

Carcass may have pioneered Goregrind before they progressed into Death Metal, but they were still the first to actually record an entire album under the MDM sound. Dark Tranquility and At the Gates may have also been considered pioneers and also been Death Metal with the twinge of melody before Heartwork, but they weren't full fledged until after Heartwork. Also, the last three In Flames albums are closer to Rock if anything. Camalus (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Hip Hop rythms listen to the track Touch Of Red. It sucks that they got a stupid sheeplike fanbase with people like Leon Sword. Just listen to Amon Amarth and that is real melodic death metal or In Flames Lunar Strain. Leon sword is a fanboy some just report him for inaccurate details. - As my contribution to this argument, I'd like to point out that while many of the people arguing for the genre change are rather spelling-challenged, Leon's arguments simply do not hold water. In Flames [i]are[/i] an influential band, but they are not by any means the bell-weather that gauges how MDM is defined. A simple examination of the genre name (Melodic + Death Metal) should indicate quite clearly that In Flames' output since [b]Reroute to Remain[/b] is no longer appropriate to be labeled as such. This is not a judgment of the band's quality since they made the changeover, it's a statement of fact. Someone made a comparison using Metallica earlier, which is highly applicable to this question. Metallica helped pioneer thrash, but they no longer perform thrash metal. Slayer on the other hand are still, regrettably, a veritable thrash metal band. In the MDM genre, Arch Enemy have evolved their sound at times but are still recognizably a melodic death metal band. In Flames are not.

And for the record, Carcass' [b]Heartwork[/b] is without a doubt the first melodic death metal record, although it is of a different style than the At the Gates/Gothenburg-style. - OlympicSharpshooter, Metal-Archives.com moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.44.201 (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to say that Touch of Red is Nu Metal? Have you even heard what Nu Metal sounds like? I bet you guise on Metal Archives don't even know what normal heavy metal sounds like anymore because all you listen to is Death Metal and Black Metal. Oh, and saying "Leon sword is a fanboy some just report him for inaccurate details." proves that you are a jerkass who should be reported for being a dick. You don't report someone for being "inaccurate" in the discussion section, you report people for harassing other users, like you are doing. While you can debate what he says, he actually made some good points and is by no means sheeplike. You are just butthurt because he pointed out the obvious bias on your website. Now stop being arrogant and discuss this like a normal person according to wiki standards. As for the actual argument, even if it is strictly Melodeath In Flames still has clear elements of Death Metal up through A Sense of Purpose, and is still Melodic, so you are argument needs a bit more explanation. Also, even if they aren't melodeath anymore they were still definitely a melodeath band in the past, so it should be cited on the page, at least with a note for "earlier work". 139.192.36.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Unanimated? Their album, In the Forest of the Dreaming Dead was released in 1993 as well, I think that you don't have to be well known to pioneer something. In fact this is a useless debate, there were many bands that played Death Metal with "Melody" at the time such as Amorhpis, Callenish Circle, Centinex, Chastisement, Crimson Death, Dark Age, Edge of Sanity, one way or another they all helped shape Melodic Death Metal to be what it is, and there have been many different styles of Melodic Death Metal in recent years, many amalgamation's, one way or another all these bands would soon change their sound (you can't just keep recycling your work), including In Flames, but hey does that mean they aren't Melodic Death Metal? I wouldn't say that, they still have it in their music, yes, there has been a lot of different influences in their style such as Metalcore and Nu Metal (Nu Metal doesn't necessarily mean you Rap in your music) in recent years... but if you seriously can't find similarities between present In Flames and old school In Flames then you probably should listen to it more, at least that's what I think. In Flames is still Melodic Death Metal. They still have a strong thrash metal influence to their music, even on A Sense of Purpose, and of course lots of influence from Heavy Metal music (Iron Maiden) Kryptic666 (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames is not Melodic Death Metal. Period. I don't understand how this is still up for debate. First and foremost, Melodic Death Metal is not a genre, it is a sub genre, that combines elements of death metal, heavy metal, and occasionally thrash metal. Carcass, At The Gates, In Flames and Dark Tranquillity pioneered the sub genre by combining these elements. Saying that In Flames decides what is and is not Melodic Death Metal is also saying that they decide what is, and isn't, heavy metal, death metel, and thrash metal, and they do not. While Dark Tranquillity's sound has evolved, they still retain a style of Melodic Death metal. In Flames evolution took them up a different path, toward hard rock, I would even go as far as to say heavy metal. But in order to play melodic death metal, you need one key thing, and that thing is death metal. Every album post-Colony has lacked that key element. Melodic, sure they are. Metal, i'll give them that. Death Metal, not a chance. That being said, per the definition of Melodic Death Metal, In Flames is no longer a Melodic Death Metal band. Xzana —Preceding comment was added at 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least the previous two posters have missed the fact that this is not a forum. Literally no-one gives a shit about your opinion. Find a reliable source for whatever it is you want to say and come back. If you can't, just don't come back. There are plenty of places for you to waste your time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote the wikipedia page for Melodic Death Metal. "Originally the genre combined the harmony style and groove melodies of heavy metal with the harsh thrashing sound and vocals of death metal." Originally. "Later the genre evolved due to many different influences, a notable evolution in the genre being the addition of keyboards." However, In Flames still retains all of those elements. To say that it's not Melodic Death Metal period just shows your lack of understanding of Melodic Death Metal as Melodic Death Metal isn't Death Metal, they are very different. That's just my 2 cents...Kryptic666 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this has been blown out of proportion a little bit by now. However, I still feel compelled to point out that the quoted page for melodic death metal does in fact allow for many outside influences to come into the genre. For instance, Dark Tranquillity has incorporated influences from all over the music scene, and yet in many ways still manages to hold onto a bit of that old death metal sound. In Flames does not, though. Thay have taken in outside influences and have also simultaneously dropped the death metal aspects from their sound. Again, I do not say this as a good or bad argument, but simply one of what I believe to be truth. Yes, melodic death and death are different, but the newest music by In Flames and Soilwork really isn't either one. I know that people like to keep bands tagged with the genres that they helped to create, however that does not make those tags the most accurate. I do not believe that the article should eliminate the "melodic death metal" assignment altogether, but should at least add another one for their more recent works. MXVN (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

umm... yeah i only have take this life and come clarity on my itunes... take is kinda screamy... but i wouldnt call it death metal... come clarity is just awesome... this is more... Metal... as for the subgenre i would say... Heavy Metal... Cuz it aint power metal, speed metal, maybe 1/12 death metal, not too much thrash... not glam at all... kinda like rock almost... what you think? Papersith (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

       Question: Why the HELL are posting about the genre of a band that you only have 2 songs from on Wikipedia? And the
       And the article is not about what you think or speculate (even if you abuse ellipses) about the genre. 
       It's about proof and reliability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.89.2 (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New album[edit]

Something needs to be put in about there new album, they are already half way through recording and have pre-released one of thier new songs which can be found here http://www.vivalabands.com/cd.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.157.147 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about the new album already in there. I would have added more but In Flames have been awfully secretive about their new album so there is not much more that could be added for now. However, as soon as reliable relevant information starts showing up you can be assured it will show up here. By the way I have yet to see a confirmation that the "Abegnation" song will even be on the album. --Leon Sword 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit editing the 9th studio album to "A Sense of Purpose" until you can provide proof that is the album name. Thanks --Kobkobkob —Preceding comment was added at 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nebraskan* What about Gothenburg (metal) as a genre? In Flames, along with Dark Tranquillity invented this genre, and it is kept alive today by bands like Amon Amarth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskan (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some of the Studio Diaries you can hear Abnegation being recorded, and they have also released the final version of the song, that's going on the record, with stronger melodic vocals and cleaner production http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXe8PZ9P3qc

Joe Dull (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

umm... yeah i only have take this life and come clarity on my itunes... take is kinda screamy... but i wouldnt call it death metal... come clarity is just awesome... this is more... Metal... as for the subgenre i would say... Heavy Metal... Cuz it aint power metal, speed metal, maybe 1/12 death metal, not too much thrash... not glam at all... kinda like rock almost... what you think? Papersith (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneered melodeath?[edit]

This is not sourced, and not wholly true. Carcass played a huge part with Heartwork. I have a source for that right here. http://www.maximummetal.com/columns/tales/37.asp--Wick3dd (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Carcass was one of the first bands to release what is now considered a melodeath album, but what they did barely scratched the surface. In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates were the bands that truly pushed further the genre and made it what it is. These three bands are the most often referenced to as the pioneers of melodeath, this is a pretty well known fact and I do have multiple sources available supporting that. Also Carcass was not the first melodeath band nor did they produce the first melodeath album, in fact, both In Flames and Dark Tranquillity recorded their debut studio albums at the same time Carcass recorded Heartwork. Furthermore, Sentenced, who was also one of the first bands to release a melodeath album, also happened to release their North from Here album in 1993 and At the Gates also happened to release an album that year. Anyways, Carcass was very much like Sentenced , they experimented with different genres, stumbled into melodeath for a while but then moved on. Both Carcass and Sentenced contributed to melodeath, but their contributions were small when compared to the contributions of In Flames, Dark Tranquillity, and At the Gates. Carcass and Sentenced would be much more appropriately mentioned as pioneers in the melodeath article, not here. --Leon Sword (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Metal?[edit]

It's listed on 2 of their albums, but it's not "allowed" on the band page, why? Alternative metal describes a large change in the band's style during the latter part of their career, and yet it's not even listed. Anyone want to explain why?72.72.222.152 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll put this into this section, as it seems appropriate: I'm removing the "alternative metal" tag until a decent source can be found citing it. And it does have to be decent: I have two sources, Essi Berelian's "Rough Guide to Heavy Metal" and Garry Sharpe-Young's "Definitive Guide to Metal" which place it firmly within the melodic death metal genre, but make no mention whatsoever of alternative metal. Prophaniti (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then please redo the genres for sountrack to your escape and reroute to remain, as they both clearly state alternative metal as genres..72.72.195.197 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely antiquated to describe them as simply melodeath though they've used alternative metal along with it this entire decade. I know that some of you fans of melodic death metal (I am one) don't want to admit that mainstream alternative metal has infiltrated their band, but it has. That's not a bad thing. In Flames uses a well balance of melodic death metal and alternative metal. This is not a blasphemous thing to say. -MetalKommandant (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is, because they keep reverting it. zaruyache (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.215.178 (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter! The infobox doesn't support the genre field anymore. = ∫tc 5th Eye 23:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the albums reflect the band's main genre. And Reroute to Remain, Soundtrack to Your Escape, Come Clarity, and A Sense of Purpose have alternative metal style with the melodeath. Mathematics, you dumbasses. 4 out of 9 studio albums? When you retards state that In Flames doesn't use alternative metal, you're ignoring the partial styles of almost half of their albums. Get a life, really. *sigh* -MetalKommandant (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre, again![edit]

Yes, yes, yes. They're melodic death metal I know, I know. What I'm writing this for is to account for the *OTHER* genres that this band uses, or really the only other genre this band really plays; alternative metal. They have one album (soundtrack to your escape) that is completely alt metal, and some of their other albums show traits, influences, and whole musical sections where alt metal is prominant. And yet still, still it keeps getting reverted. Let the genre wars begin? Or else give me a reason why alt. metal should not be in the genre box. Zaruyache (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source and we'll have no problem. Rehevkor ✉ 01:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go check out the source on soundtrack to your escape. Also; generally when a band releases an album with a completely different genre than their usually playing style on it, the new genre gets added to their genre box to signify their dramatic change in style. Generally speaking. I don't think In Flames are too good for that. Zaruyache (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to check any source that is not attached the the item in question. People aren't psychic. Cite it or it'll get removed. It's not hard. Rehevkor ✉ 01:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that better? Zaruyache (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The link just gives an error. Also consider using the cite web template. Rehevkor ✉ 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would understand the argument if it was only one album where the band explored alternative metal, but it's been prevalent since 2002... I think this decade should be acknowledged in the genre. If we need a source to say that In Flames is alternative metal, then there are a few album pages that need to be rewritten: Reroute to Remain, Soundtrack to Your Escape, Come Clarity, A Sense of Purpose. Since you know, In Flames' style seemingly hasn't changed in 14 years of albums. (sarcasm) >.> -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Part of one album", I think, is a bit incorrect. "Parts of four albums" is more accurate... That's why it's correct to describe In Flames' later works as alternative metal, since it's one of the reasons why In Flames is successful in commercial metal. It's been part of the discography for six years, there's an obvious change in style for the majority, and unless that's added, the In Flames article and all subsequent albums mentioned are contradicted.

But, nonetheless, it's Wikipedia. Therefore, hypocrisy does not surprise me in the very least, sadly. =( -MetalKommandant (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal? WTF![edit]

I accept that they've got incontrovertible elements of Alternative Metal, but Nu Metal? Seriously? Where are the traces of Hip Hop, Rapcore and Grunge required to identify a band as being Nu Metal, then? Are they part of the Nu Metal scene? No, of course not! Nu metal is bands like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, Disturbed - the music sounds totally different! I've got nothing against Nu Metal, but In Flames are so far from being Nu Metal, its insane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.47.5 (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever keeps adding Nu Metal to the genres, please stop! You continue to do so without any kind of consensus on the discussion page. What, are you one of those annoying newbies who doesn't really know what nu metal is? If you keep on changing it, then I'll keep on reverting it. No offense, but you're just plain wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.47.5 (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. We don't need to mention the Alternative Metal elements. So long as there's no suggestion that they're Nu metal, I'm happy. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.47.5 (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of a New Album[edit]

I deleted the uncited lines saying they're working on a new album, since there weren't any sources sited and the Official Website didn't say anything of the sort. Feel free to put it back up if you have a link. En.Loss (talk) 3:44, 03 September 2010 (UTC)

We have this as of writing. Rehevkor ✉ 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Blast[edit]

All the data was deleted from Nuclear Blast and when you search them on news you find this link of new dates(http://www.nuclearblast.de/en/label/music/news/details/74370.in-flames-announce-new-tourdates.html) from the A Sense of Purpose Tour. In linked bands theres only In Flames in it,but when you click on the link the page says that Data could not be found. does this mean they are no longer signed by nuclear blast or just a informatic mistake? BTW. Im kinda new over discussion pages so i dont know how to put my username and all that. but my user name is Danyxy13 and i registered on the Spanish wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyxy13 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source picks up on this there's not much we can do here. It'd be original research to put anything in the article based on your finds here i.e. we can't jump to any conclusions. Rehevkor ✉ 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well i guess i was sure about it lol :P in flames is in century media now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyxy13 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.107.239 (talk) [reply]

Are/is[edit]

I'm aware that British articles are written with "are" preferred over writing "is" when dealing with organizations (i.e: are a band) but for Swedish articles on bands, what format would it apply to in that case? I'm seeing a bit of inconsistency to be honest, some bands have it "are a band" while others as "is a band". • GunMetal Angel 06:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography[edit]

Anyone feel like adding a discography and chart positions? Skinsmoke (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding introduction paragraphs[edit]

any idea, i previously added the band members but it was reverted. Nicrorus (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I didn't have a problem with having the band members there, although I don't think the instruments are necessary. A mention of Strömblad having left recently, having been the founder of the band, would be appropriate too. Maybe a sentence on how they've gone from melodic death metal to whatever it is they are now? A sentence about having won four Grammis to date doesn't seem unreasonable either. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sentences describing'em as one of the pioners of the Gothenburg metal who later would be know as melodic death metal and a descritiopn of the sound of the band don't seem innapropiate either, anything else missing? Nicrorus (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the article that says they were pioneers of "Gothenburg metal", but mentioning than they helped to pioneer melodic death metal would be fine (as that is mentioned in the article). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because that i said that they were one of the pioners, still, i don't see what's wrong with pointing wich instrument is played by who in the band. Nicrorus (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary information for the lead. If someone wants to know that, they can easily click on the Members section. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first i saw as a fault that the introduction line were so poor, but i looked up other metal bands and i found a similarities in the simple introductions paragraphs, maybe the reazon is to keep the metal articles different from the pop/rock articles. Nicrorus (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Genre[edit]

Their new stuff isn't melodic death metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.116.227 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why "alternative metal" is also in the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble archiving links on the article[edit]

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames is melodic-death metal band.Please sto with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.22.232 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre again[edit]

Genre of the In Flames musical style-You guys really don't know something about metal music..In Flames is melodic death metal band...for death metal are typical extreme vocals..which that is not in heavy metal..poor guys-learn something about it first,then start with editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.22.232 (talk • contribs) 15:00, July 20, 2015

Rather than giving your personal analysis, what you need to do is point to a published source that says In Flames is only melodic death metal, or mainly/primarily melodic death metal. Otherwise, the general classification of heavy metal works just fine, especially when Template:Infobox musical artist says that genres should be general. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that,In Flames was and it still would be melodic-death metal band. Death metal is not any genre of heavy metal.It is individual style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenixSVK (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death metal is certainly a sub-genre of heavy metal. Have you read any books on the topic? All x metal genres are sub-genres of heavy metal. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The musical style of In Flames..[edit]

Hello! well I'm sorry for that what I said..it's makes me sad..but back to the thema..you're right guys,they playing heavy metal also..but in start it was melodic-death metal band..also those older albums say it all..we should find compromis...I think for the main title there should be wroted it is melodic-death metal band..in genres there should be heavy and industrial metal! What do you think about it..? FenixSVK (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any argument about the musical style of the band must point to reliable published sources which discuss the musical style. Do you have any of these in mind? Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...[edit]

Hey guys ! why bands like Slayer or Metallica are trash metal bands ? But that's sub-genres of heavy metal ! Go and change it right now ! FenixSVK (talk • contribs) 20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The genre included in the lead section and the genres included in the infobox and/or the musical style section are two different things. There should only be one genre in the lead and it is often used to summarise all genres a band has been called. In this case, both melodic death metal and alternative metal are based in heavy metal, so heavy metal is used in the lead to summarise even if no one calls In Flames a traditional heavy metal band.--MASHAUNIX 14:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·== Protected edit request on 6 August 2015 ==

Change "heavy metal" in infobox genres to "melodic death metal" because that is what the sources cited there call the band. Then, change "melodic death metal" at the start of the lead section to "heavy metal", because the band's later input is considered alternative metal (also backed up in the infobox) and heavy metal can be used to summarise both styles (melodic death metal and alternative metal, as both are subgenres of heavy metal). --MASHAUNIX 17:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with melodic death metal. Both cited sources for the "heavy metal" genre actually say "melodic death metal". In fact, cite number 3 from 2009 also says melodic death metal, so it should be shifted forward to join cites number 1 and 2. I'm not so much onboard with alt metal or heavy metal, because the Metal Storm source does not discuss why the band might be classified as alt metal, and the AllMusic source only has alt metal in the sidebar genre section, which we don't use because it is unreliable, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Similarly the Metal Monk review (which is archived here) does not explain why the band might be classified as alt metal. So I'm not seeing from these sources, or the one cited in the article body, that the band ever made a genre shift from melodic death metal to alt metal. If such an argument is published elsewhere, it should be brought forward. But I'm not seeing it. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic review on Siren Charms states that the band shifted away from their melodic death metal style for "progressive alternative metal" sound. Other than this, I also couldn't find anything. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please go through with the infobox change? Right now the genres in the article make 0 sense. The lead says they are a melodeath band, but the infobox lists heavy metal (which contradicts the references given) and alternative metal. It is high time to change heavy metal to melodeath in the infobox; other changes can be discussed after.--MASHAUNIX 14:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sorry for the delay in getting round to this. The protection has now expired, so feel free to make the edit yourselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo[edit]

Someone add a better infobox photo where you can clearly see faces. This current one sucks! Mark Coatsworth (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problems[edit]

I have a citation for some material I wish to add to the article, but the URL is dead. I have found it on Wayback Machine, but it's one of those links that doesn't change when you click from the main page to their bio page.(here's the link [1]) I was going to use it to expand the lead section as shown in the Polish-language version of the article. Does anyone know if you can add an extra note to the citation to let readers know what you'd have to do? I mean, it's valid info, but I want to keep it from being potentially argued over/removed. dannymusiceditor ~talk to me!~ 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

metalcore?!?![edit]

In Flames is not a metalcore (or melodic metalcore) band. Melodic death metal and alternative metal are the only appropriate genre labels for them. This melodic metalcore nonsense exists not only on the main page but on several of the album pages as well.Thrasher1988 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have leverage, you need to point to reliable published sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "consensus" on this page that made them metalcore? I've been looking through the topics on this talk page and it is never discussed recently, so I'm not sure where this came from. Also, the links/citations provided do not say that they are a metalcore band. They say things about how metalcore bands share the same sonic landscape and whatnot, but there is no punk element in In Flames which is what defines something as metalcore. Again, people shouldn't make edits to pages if they don't know what they're talking about.Thrasher1988 (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on In Flames. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on In Flames. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In Flames. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only eight former members, a lot of the information there can already be found at the main article, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The session members can simply be listed in the band members section, and there's then no arguing over where the timeline should belong. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metalpotato: Feel free to go ahead. Klbrain (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, who keeps changing it to N Flaymez?[edit]

Haha, who keeps changing it to N Flaymez?

N Flaymz is a Swedish metalcore boy band,

That's funny. 142.117.125.159 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Broderick[edit]

Anders said in an interview that Chris Broderick is now an official member, and with Engelin still on hiatus, but touring with The Halo Effect, I don't buy that he's still in the band, especially since he skipped the question in 2022 when he was asked if he was still in the band. Tkgaynor (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Flames current genre dispute[edit]

So it seems that some people think that In Flames is melodic death metal again but there are no sources stating that. I feel that unless new sources state this, that the lead should contain "In Flames is a heavy metal band" and that the genres in the infobox (for melodic death metal) should say (early). Who agrees? FireCrystal 04:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Shawn Hurley?[edit]

I saw Shawn Hurley in the former members box. He hasn't played on any of the albums or EPs. Who is he? Tkgaynor (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genre dispute (again)[edit]

I don't really think the band is metalcore, as they lack the hardcore punk elements, and I don't know if Louder Sound is reliable. I got warned for removing metalcore though. Tkgaynor (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:In_Flames&oldid=1216788283"