Encylopaedia Metallum: An Elitist Breeding Ground
For those who have read my rants for the past year or so, know that blatant elitism in metal is something I find to be completely naive and immature. Fans who feel the need to ostricize other fans of certain bands or genres, and then go on to make broad generalizations is a reserved attitude for many in the underground who mainly listen to less than mainstream acts. I know this because I once embedded myself within this structure while being a regular poster at a popular online metal message board. Granted, I learned a lot about metal, most of which I would not have learned about as quickly otherwise. However, even as a teenager who didn’t know as much about metal as my peers, I found myself arguing the merits of bands whom many rejected based on their universal sound, look and attitude. For example, I remember when Killswitch Engage’s 2002 Alive Or Just Breathing first came out when nu-metal was beginning to show signs of its decay, there was a thread or two created telling everyone how great this new band was, however, many on the board, seeing Adam’s at the time frosted haircut, the breakdowns (which wasn’t yet popularized as “metalcore” back then), and the non-traditional melodies former vocalist Jesse Leach would belt out on every song, characterized KSE as some band trying desperately to hold on to nu-metal, or as some would eloquently call the genre…”mallcore” in regard to the types of people who would listen to it. This example is merely one to describe the opinions of many a metalhead that continue to persist and thrive despite being a part of a genre that gains in popularity.
One such site that breeds elitism to uncanny levels is the popular resource Encyclopaedia Metallum (www.metal-archives.com). This site is run by some folks who also frequented the message board I formerly posted on, with the intention of launching an interactive resource for everything and anything metal. I remember when this site launched I was one of the first few to post bands (I posted under sirmonarch and added such acts as Anthrax, Ozzy, Edguy, Sonata Arctica, Overkill, Saxon etc.), and absolutely loved the whole concept of having an open resource for metalheads to really find true, up to date information on virtually any band on Earth.
Once the site was established though, and their own message board system became active, it quickly became apparent that the negative vibes I had recognized early on, were thriving on this new site, only this time, Encyclopedia Metallum was no longer just some message board, but a highly credited and influential resource for people. Nowadays, metal fans use the Encyclopaedia as an everyday access point (I, admittedly use it quite frequently as well) to such a degree, that its information is considered canon. The problem with this, is that whose who determine what gets added to the metal ranks and what gets rejected are some of the biggest elitists in all of the metal community. In fact, instead of me trying to described exactly what I mean in a few paragraphs, let’s check out some of the bands Metal-Archives refuses to post:
- Ektomorf
- Slipknot
- Avenged Sevenfold
- The Dillinger Escape Plan
- Rammstein
- Led Zeppelin
- Grindcore bands lacking in death metal
- Crossover bands that are too punk
- Ambient bands that aren’t heavy enough
- Ministry (finally accepted in 2006); industrial acts have to be deemed “metal enough” by the moderators
- Glam rock/metal, virtually of any kind
- Blue Oyster Cult
- Uriah Heep
- Bands the mods haven’t heard
- KISS
Now, obviously many of these bands can be debated and debated about their merits as it pertains to metal, but the problem is, how does a site whose content is completely dictated by the whims of the moderators become the be all end all of resources? Why do the opinions of a few dictate to the metal world who is and is not metal?
Now I am not going to sit here and claim that the Archives are outright bad, because I would be a hypocrite if I did so. Those who moderate I can’t say are willfully holding grudges against certain bands, but I can say that the moderators I have noticed do have judgments on certain bands and sub genres, big and small, based on their narrow, and often immature view of what metal should and should not consist of. Is this the world we want judging our music? It’s hard to tell a young fan that Slipknot is metal, despite it not being on The Archives. I have seriously encountered this situation with more than one band, yet many of these newer fans, who have yet to branch out and develop their own ideals, continue to use Encyclopedia Metallum as canon, while bands like Ektomorf and Led Zeppelin are withheld because a certain few decided they weren’t metal enough.
In my final words, I challenge those at Encyclopedia Metallum to realize metal is more than just cut and dry definitions, it is an organic lifeform. To take away major influences such as Blue Oyster Cult and Van Halen and more mainstream heavy acts like Atreyu and Avenged Sevenfold all because you feel they don’t fall within a certain range is outrageous and disadvantageous to educating the more inexperienced fans. Isn’t the point of the Archives to provide us with a complete aquifer of knowledge? Keeping out insignificant Myspace bands with no physical releases is one thing, but keeping out highly influential acts that have had a direct impact on metal (even if they aren’t directly metal themselves) will leave a void of unanswered questions on a site that should be working to have the answers to them all.
Written by CODY
The addendum post is intended to be a conclusive comment on the article. It has no sense to be here and argue with a troll, whö cannot be policed by the blog owner, even if he made false claims about me in his first post just to get his personal vendetta.
To Everyone (besides Witcher)
Feel free to post my “WITCHER IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOUT ENCYCLOPAEDIA METALLUM” entry on any metal forum whenever EM comes up. You can also provide the links of the unproven-to-exist band EM pages that Witcher defended, eventhough they go against EM’s “rules” for their lack of content and sources. It would also be a good idea to link this entire blog, just so everyone will see that EM allows attention-seeking trolls like Witcher into their ranks of leadership (perhaps explaining why the site has such a bad rep in the first place, and not just for the lack of partiality and lack of accuracy.)
*lack of IMpartiality
You can also provide the links of the unproven-to-exist band EM pages that Witcher defended, eventhough they go against EM’s “rules” for their lack of content and sources.
You are not able to listen, are you.
Those are valid bands, because you do not know them, does not mean, that they have no releases.
The proofs are intedded for us, the moderators, so we can decide. The bands fit iur rules, not matter what you think abou them.
What do you know about me? Look at my contrinbution to the site and ny voluntary work for it. That is behind my rank. You would only be able to get the rank of Fred Durst in two seconds.
One of our users about the insane claims:
It’s also funny to see some posters discrediting some of the additions because according to them the fanzines which carried the reviews do not exist – I presume he did a google search and turned a blank, which is perfectly possible because the internet hasn’t exactly existed since the dawn of civilization! And at exactly the same time, their hearts apparently bleed for the non-inclusion of Slipknot. The kind of additions which are being questioned would only have any practical relevance for a longtime metalhead and not newbs who are more concerned about Slipknot than real metal.
I always believed there had to be more than one retard that picks an easy but all together insignificant point in the argument and keeps bringing it up despite repeated warnings that it has nothing to do with the conversation, but thanks Witcher for the proof.
Slipknot was just an example. Not something Cody nor I lose sleep over not being in “The Metal Archives”. Stop bringing it up, you’re making yourself look stupid.
To Nate: There was no significant point in the argument. I have quoted it whole, the sentece about Slipknot was not so important. And who gave you the right to call me names?
Ther other points are just nosensical, if you want us to include ambient and industrial. Besides that, there are some bands you consider metal and we do not. Tough shit. But no reason to start defamation campaigns towards me or the site, which is what some users do here or, in the latter case, the article above does.
Wow, Witcher. How did you even become a moderator of anything? It appears your grasp of the english dialogue is disgusting. Your posts are altogether difficult even torurous to read. I mean that in the nicest way possible, too.
I don’t even know what your posts are about. It’s incredibly difficult to perceive. You’re still going on about the rules and how the website doesn’t have to answer to anyone, because at the end of the day it is people’s choice to view the website. However this is not the issue.
The issue and this topic in general is an OPINION piece about your website. You don’t have to change anything. EM doesn’t have to DO anything. EM doesn’t even have to acknowledge this post.
What you HAVE done, is decide to offer a counter-opinion to our own as an official embassador of the website of which this opinion piece is about. Which confirms that you have some vested interest of the opinions here.
If EM doesn’t have to do anything, then why are you posting here? I don’t understand what your motive is.
If you feel that the opinion piece is untrue, then please defend EM. But you haven’t defended them at all.
Here is a summary of this entire topic:
AMR – ENCYCLOPAEDIA METALLUM HAS CONTRADICTORY RULES IN REGARDS TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF BAND SUBMISSIONS
EM – WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES
AMR – THAT’S NOT THE POINT, THE POINT IS THE RULES ARE STUPID
EM – BUT…WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES
AMR – HERE ARE QUOTES AND EVIDENCE THAT YOUR RULES ARE CONTRADICTORY
EM – YOU IDIOT, WE MADE THE RULES, WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES
AMR – THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING, I AM CALLING INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF YOUR RULES IN REGARDS TO WHAT MANY CONSIDER A RELIABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE OF INFORMATION
EM – BUT WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE THE RULES
ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Are you really that ignorant?
You have yet to defend ANY of the opinion points about your rules aside from quoting your rules…WHICH IS WHAT IS IN DEBATE HERE, not whether you have the right to enforce the rules, not whether EM should be subject to public opinion, but THAT THE BLOODY RULES ARE FLAWED.
If you DISAGREE with our opinion, then atleast back up WHY you disagree, not just quote over and over again what the rules are.
My above definitions are not subjective, they are objective. If your idea of hard-rock is Gun’s& Roses, Poison, 70’s or 80’s rock then no wonder your rules are fucked. You’re perspective is incredibly warped and askew.
Guns&Roses are just straight up rock, with elements of pop and glam. Song composition is predominantly based on simple, evenly spaced time signatures focusing more on “negative space” to create what is often referred to as “Arena Rock”.
You still have not referenced, quoted, or defended my point of:
YOUR SITE IS A DATABASE FOR METAL MUSIC, YET YOU DO NOT DEFINE WHAT METAL IS AS A GENRE.
YOU ATTEMPT TO DEFINE METAL BY ADMINISTERING A SET OF GUIDELINES THAT INTEND TO DEFINE WHAT METAL IS NOT.
YET THESE GUIDELINES ONLY QUOTE OTHER GENRES WHICH YOU DO NOT FURTHER DEFINE.
Inherantly, this approach puts the onus on the administrator, not to decide what IS metal, but to confirm if submissions are NOT metal.
So essentially, your database is not an archive of metal, it is an archive of bands that for one reason or another were not restricted by your guidelines.
BUT I DIGRESS.
Whilst I do get some kind of enjoyment out of continuously proving you wrong, I do acknowledge that you lack the competance to acknowledge or refute the points that I have provided. All you will do is the typical elitist metal-head thing to do, post another 4000 times about one stupid point that had no relevance in the first place, and then go on about how everyone is stupid and not understanding you, and this will be the last time you post.
Typically, in a commercial environment, your PR or EM’s PR is laughable. I would be surprised if you got a job on any customer-facing-level. Although, being who you (more than likely) are, you’re probably shy in real life and wouldn’t even voice your opinion outside of an online forum where your identity and agenda is free from reprisal.
But, I shall give you another chance. Let’s see if you can actually grasp that the disput here isn’t about slipknot, isn’t about you needing to revise your rules. It’s AN OPINION PIECE ABOUT YOUR RULES BEING POORLY DEFINED, CONTRADICTORY, INAPPLICABLE IN A REAL-WORLD SETTING AND RELIANT ON SUBJECTIVITY.
EM NEEDS MODERATORS, because your rules are not complete enough to moderate itself, or to allow easy moderation by the public.
As I have said before. EM is advertising itself as a PUBLIC RESOURCE. Yet you keep defending it as though it is a personal website operated for the webmasters with no intention of serving anyone else.
If you are a PUBLIC RESOURCE, you need to be open to PUBLIC OPINION, lest you fail to provide a relevant service.
Anyways, again, the majority of this you will fail to comprehend, and this page will get dilluted with more waste-ful posts of you re-iterating the same crap again and again.
Sorry AZ, that last comment was a bit over the line, had to delete.
The MA deterrents here are building up straw-man arguments left and right; all of which are filled to the brim with faulty logic, misunderstanding of the rules and false claims about MA.
Look, I know that ‘popular opinion’ is that many bands NOT listed on MA are metal. That is the most pervasive complaint leveled at MA. Well, MA is not a website built around popular opinion. This is explicitly stated on the website. MA is a website run by knowledgeable people who love metal; a few people at the top, a decent number of other knowledgeable metal-lovers below them, and then everyone else has their opportunity to add to the site within the limits of the rules also.
It was suggested that MA should be a metal archive based around popular user opinions. It is not anyone here’s right to tell people what their website should and should not be. Do you think a metal archive should be based around popular user opinions? Good. Go make one. Witcher explained this. So, then it was leveled against him that the website should then not be called an ‘Encyclopedia’ because people will confuse it for a ‘be all end all authority on metal.’ Again, it is explicitly stated in the rules what MA is about and how things are decided. They have the right to name their website what they want. If someone is misled as to what MA is, then it is because they have not read the rules.
It was noted derogatorily that MA is advertised as a public resource. It is. The public is open to use the website within the rules with full knowledge of how things are decided on the website and with knowledge of what the rules say that the website is. It was said that “if you are a public resource, you need to be open to public opinion.” MA is not open to public opinion on what their rules should be and they don’t have to be. Some think that they “need” to be, but really, these people only “want” them to be. That doesn’t mean they have to be. They are violating no universal law. They aren’t tricking anyone. They have their opinion and others within the public have theirs. They are running an archive according to their opinions and this is made known in the rules. Anyone that DEMANDS more is acting like MA is the ONLY archive of metal aloud in the world. It is not. Anyone is aloud to make their own metal archive with help from others. They also have the right to call it an ‘Encyclopedia.’ MA is not stopping anyone. If MA was the ONLY archive of metal aloud in the world, then things would naturally have to be different. That is not the case. Everyone has the right to make their own metal archive. The people at MA made theirs, and it is the most popular. There will always be something at the top, people.
WonderPat – What is it with you guys and your rules? Let me make this perfectly clear…I don’t CARE what the rules state at MA, this whole argument has nothing to do with official policy at MA. The bottom line is that MA calls itself an encyclopedia and demonstrates itself to be as such by requiring relatively stringent guidelines for band submissions (i.e. proper line-up, official releases, etc), yet their sense of judgment is incredibly skewed based on their own narrow view of what is metal DESPITE not being able to justify their opinions with simple explanations as to why certain bands are omitted while others are allowed. We made an example of Witchery in this very section, feel free to scan through and you’ll read that I repeatedly asked him some simple requests of which none were fulfilled. MA does make itself out to be a public domain, yet it continues on as an authoritative regime despite it wanting to be accepted as an encyclopedia. Either you justify your actions, or you don’t pretend to be a site for the public. It’s really quite simple. I am not trying to force the site to do anything, I am merely giving my critical viewpoint. Believe it or not, this tends to happen to popular entities, it’s called scrutiny. It’s just kind of pathetic to see those defending it to react in such a juvenile manner as a result.
And by the way, there were no strawman arguments from us, because we made accusations and assumptions and REQUESTED Witchery to prove us wrong, and his response was that he didn’t feel he needed to. This, in fact, is where the fallacies come into play my friend.
owned
Again, a member of MA/EM has come on to defend…what? I’m not really sure.
You posted and posted again on whether you have a right to apply the rules how you see fit. However that has never been the argument.
Are you people at MA/EM that stupid?
Really?
As Cody said, the majority of this topic has been about scrutiny of MA’s application of rules and guidelines. Not whether they have the right to practice them.
You keep justifying the rules, by essentially saying it is a personal website for the webmasters’ own opinions and tastes. Yet you advertise yourself as a reliable source for the public.
How can opinion be a reliable source?
Tell me that!
Again, you don’t HAVE to change anything about MA/EM, but YOU chose to come on here and defend the website yourself. But you haven’t illustrated ANY of the points that this topic has been about.
You’ve essentially repeated what Witcher said half a dozen times, already.
If you really feel the need to come here and rebut our points of view, or defend MA/EM atleast have the gall to actually address the points that have been raised.
Not keep defending an issue that was never a point of contention in the first place.
Hopefully more people read this and realise how ridiculous the admin/moderators at MA are, and how much their “credibility” stands up.
“MA is a website run by knowledgeable people who love metal” – WonderPat
How do you figure? You don’t seem knowledgable, neither do the people who created the MA rules. As I’ve said a number of times, you haven’t even produced an adequate description of what Metal music IS. Yet you proclaim yourselves to be a metal archive.
It’s just laughable isn’t it?
“You don’t seem knowledgable, neither do the people who created the MA rules. As I’ve said a number of times, you haven’t even produced an adequate description of what Metal music IS.” – TBAM
Who’s to judge what an ‘adequate’ description is? Metal is a varied and complex genre of music. It would be impossible to provide a definition that would please everyone and that everyone would agree on. However, there are specific musical elements that practically everyone can agree are ‘metal’ elements. If the majority of a song is comprised of these elements, and if these elements are not out weighed by other non-metal musical elements, then most would agree that it is safe to call the song ‘metal.’ If a band has at least one album comprised mostly of songs that are mostly metal, then it is accepted into MA. So, a good starting point is to define these ‘metal’ elements, so that they can be weighed against the other musical elements that show up in songs. You say that MA has not produced an ‘adequate’ description of what ‘metal’ music is on their website. Well, after investigating this claim, here is what I have found out –
To a considerably noticeable degree, you are right. A simple, easy-to-understand definition of ‘metal’ cannot be found in the Rules or in the FAQ. And, the question in FAQ regarding ‘why not x band, etc.’ was responded to with a .gif of a smiley getting tomatoes thrown at it and no real answer. I agree that this reeks of elitism. However, the question IS answered in the Rules here –
“We do NOT accept the following (this is our decision, please don’t argue this):
* Mallcore, also known as “nu-metal” by some (ex: Papa Roach, Limp Bizkit, Drowning Pool, Slipknot)
* Metalcore, unless it’s clearly more metal than core (e.g Shadows Fall, The Red Chord, Mastodon are OK: Avenged Sevenfold, Atreyu, Bullet For My Valentine are NOT). If you are uncertain, best avoid metalcore bands altogether.
* Glam rock (ex: Poison, Whitesnake, KISS)
* Classic rock (ex: Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep)
* Progressive rock (ex: Yes, King Crimson, The Flower Kings, Spock’s Beard)
* Hard rock (ex: Guns ‘N Roses, AC/DC, Alice Cooper)
* Hardcore (ex: Earth Crisis, Converge)
* Grindcore (and all its variants; noise, crust, etc) with little to zero metal influence (ex: Anal Cunt, Libido Airbag)
* Punk (ex: The Misfits, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols)
* Gothic rock (ex: Bauhaus, Sisters of Mercy, Fields of Nephilim)
* Industrial (ex: Nine Inch Nails, Rammstein, KMFDM, N17)
* Cover/tribute/gimmick bands (ex: The Iron Maidens, Catch the Rainbow), unless they start as such and eventually write their own music”
So, there we have a list of music that has been though to be metal buy some, but that the moderators believe is NOT metal. Reading further, one can see that the Rules also address genres that may or may not be metal. Here is a list within the Rules of genres that many bands have been labeled under in the past, but that are ambiguous enough that every band labeled under one of these genres may NOT fit into what the moderators believe to be metal –
“* Heavy/traditional/80’s metal, hard rock, rock or a combination of these. Many of so-called “heavy metal” band submissions ended up being rock, glam or even mallcore bands!
Also, there is a difference between prog rock and prog METAL. We’ve even had near-mallcore bands listed as such.
* NWOBHM – a lot of 80’s UK rock and AOR bands got lumped into the NWOBHM category, even if they weren’t metal
* Melodic metal – often another term for “hard rock”
* Grindcore – Death/grind = OK. Noisegrind, crustcore, jazz/grind, heavy punk/hardcore, etc. = Not OK.
* Metalcore – Be VERY wary. Most of these get rejected, simply because they’re hardcore with some metal influences. That doesn’t make a band metal!
* Progressive/avant-garde – Could mean anything, really
* Gothic metal – some people confuse goth music, darkwave or Depeche Mode soundalikes with gothic metal, for some reason
* Crossover – can have the same problem as metalcore, although they generally aren’t rejected as often
* Stoner, sludge – same as progressive. There is stoner rock and there is stoner metal.
* Industrial – if it sounds like Rammstein or Nine Inch Nails, forget it
* Dark metal – could mean anything…
* Shred – varies from metal to borderline hard rock to jazzy rock”
So, now the reader has an even better idea of what may not be up to this website’s metal standards. But still, no solid definition of ‘metal’ is anywhere to be found (though a lot of people take a crack at it in the forums). Ultimately, I believe that the reason for this IS explained in the rules, though admittedly not as clearly as many would like –
“None of us here think we’re a supreme authority on all things heavy metal. However, since someone has to draw a line somewhere – after all, if we accepted just about anything it wouldn’t be the Encyclopaedia Metallum anymore – we’ll have to be the one to decide whether or not your submission is valid.”
As quoted, I believe the reason why there is no clear-cut definition of ‘metal’ on MA is because the moderators know that this definition is up for debate, and that any definition they give will be controversial; they stated that they are not claiming to be the know-it-all experts of metal, and because of this, I believe that they decided not to attempt to give the ultimate definition of what metal is. The moderators know that standard definitions of metal and general information about heavy metal is easily available online and elsewhere. The moderators most likely assume that those visiting MA are already aware of at least some of this information and that each visitor has learned a general definition of what metal is. With this in mind, the Rules and the FAQ are working off the assumption that the reader has learned a general definition of what metal is and that they know some level of information about metal. So, the Rules and FAQ are there to clue the visitors in to where the moderators on MA draw the line as to what metal is and isn’t; they are displaying where they draw the line in the ‘grey areas,’ under the assumption that the visitor already knows the ‘black and white.’
Now that this has all been established, if any of you believe that MA still should provide their own definition of what metal is, then you are free to contact the moderators and make this suggestion. Please do so with respect and consideration, and do not level any claims at the moderators as being ‘elitist’ or ’stupid.’ I believe that they will show you the same courtesy if you show it to them. If they, on the other hand, wanted to make a suggestion on how you should modify your website, they would then be expected to come to you courteously and respectfully.
Now, I don’t want to counter all that, I don’t have the time right now. But this?
“Industrial – if it sounds like Rammstein or Nine Inch Nails, forget it.”
I can understand NIN, but Rammstein is most definitely metal.
Cody’s right. That site is elitist central. Slipknot, Rammstein, Ektomorf… they should be added on there. I don’t like Slipknot or Ektomorf (love Rammstein) but they all definitely have metal qualities. Slipknot is a metal band. There’s no such thing is mallcore and jumpdafuckup. Those are just stupid terms for stupid people that don’t want to accept the fact that they can’t love all metal. You’re never going to like em all. I saw a post where witcher asked what genre Slipknow falls into. Well, as I’ve mentioned many times on this site, CARTER (frequent AMR contributor) made up a good name for the angsty Slipknot style: “Fuck You Metal.” Throw Lamb Of God and Devildriver in there too. I’m sure there’s an army of other bands that will fit in there as well. Angry lyrics about not giving a fuck about… seemingly anything/anyone, abrasive vocals… what more do you need?
However, KISS is not metal, so I’ll give you that. That band is an embarrassment. Just look at Peter Criss. Whiskers? C’mon, pal. I’ve headbanged harder to Bonnie Rait.
“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” The semantics of the concept are being argued into nothingness…. Metal has a particular range of beat and melody. Metal has a particular range of emotion and expression. The ranges, however, are in the definition of the listener. Subdividing the ranges goes from Objective to Subjective in short order. The titular site is merely a case study of its author’s opinions.
(BTW, nice blog.)
“However, KISS is not metal, so I’ll give you that. That band is an embarrassment. Just look at Peter Criss. Whiskers? C’mon, pal. I’ve headbanged harder to Bonnie Rait.”
From what I can tell, Kiss is metal. Shitty Glam-Metal, imho, but still metal.
Why do you care so much if they’re elitists or not? Do I think Slipknot and/or nü metal should be added? Yes. However, I am not going to piss my pants about it. It’s their site and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. MA is an amazing (read the best) resource for metal – either use it, or don’t.
Why should they have to change their name [away from encyclopedia] because the site doesn’t include groups you think are metal? Actual encyclopedias don’t include information on everything ever – get real, if you don’t think MA is a encyclopedia of metal I really don’t know what to tell you.
Lyric – Read what I wrote and the corresponding comments, we have already gone over all of this. Sorry, I just don’t want to re-engage in this debate again.
MA does not accept this, that, the other thing…etc. etc. snore, yawn…
Honestly, your debate is a bit thin here. Many bands have influenced the metal scene, and to be sure not all of them are truly metal in merit. The aforementioned goth rock, glam rock, grindcore, industrial, hardcore and so on genres have all made significant impacts upon heavy metal’s soundscape, but undeniably the majority of these bands do not warrant inclusion.
Lets’ take a look at nu metal, for one often contentious example.
Nu Metal can trace its roots to many late 80s and early 90s metal and rock bands. Anthrax’s flirtation with rap on the 1987 EP ‘I’m the Man’ via their track of the same name, and their more famous track ‘Bring the Noise’ with Public Enemy, released in 1991 on ‘Attack of the Killer B’s’. There is also avante-garde experimenters Mr. Bungle who fused a whole cornucopia of eclectic sounds and styles in their career, and also vocalist Mike Patton’s other band Faith No More, which fused funk, hip-hop, metal and other styles for their breakthrough album ‘The Real Thing’ (1989) and subsequent hit “Epic”. There’s prog rockers/metallers Tool, who released the ‘Opiate’ EP in 1992 and then their full-length ‘Undertow’ in 1993. And who could forget Rage Against the Machine as well, who mixed in funk, metal, rock and rap into their sound, beginning with 1992’s self-titled ‘Rage Against the Machine’. Then there’s Primus, a thrashy funk metal band who debuted with the album ‘Suck on This’ in 1989.
What’s more, save for Anthrax (who are among the earliest innovators on the above list), these bands were all exclusively from California. And these bands had dipped their respective fingers in so many various style of funk, hip-hop & rap and other experimental cookie jars that by 1994 Korn released their self-titled album and it was the first album which could truly be called “nu metal” as we know it today – and again, they were a California-based band. And then BAM right after that, Machine Head switches gears and adds in rapped vocals (from CA), Coal Chamber forms (from CA), Limp Bizkit (FL) forms and meets Korn (CA) while Korn is on tour, and so on and so fourth.
And yet, these bands are all in various shades of metalness. Some, like Anthrax, were just fucking around a bit with rap. Some, like Mr. Bungle, were just fucked up. Some, like RATM, Primus and FNM were more focused on a fusion of hard rock and funk and had metallic overtones, sure, but they (well, 2/3 bands) also had rapped vocals featured prominently – ie, not metal at all.
These outside influences to the basic metal/hard rock formulas these bands were in no way metal – and indeed, many were not even from the rock genre – funk is from jazz and RNB, rap/hip-hop is from electronic music, and so on. And while these certainly broaden musical horizons, this late 80s/early 90s Californian music scene really had little to do with true-blue metal. It was an isolated style which eventually bloomed across North America and puttered out by 2003 or 2004 at the latest.
On a personal note, I would be lenient enough to say many of these bands are decently metal enough under my own opinions. However, I can say with all fairness that I can see why these bands would not warrant inclusion to a database built upon the idea that only true metal need apply. Yes, most definitely there are metal elements in all the above bands – likewise, in most of them more than 50% of their style comes from a source other than metal, and thus disqualifies them from inclusion into MA.
Yes, the name “Encyclopaedia Metallum” is a bit ironic, but the guidelines clearly outline the intentions of what is included and what isn’t – and you did read through them all when you signed up, [i]riiiiiight?[/i]. And since the site is privately owned and operated, too fucking bad and boo fucking hoo to those who are butthurt that Rammstein or the Sisters of Mercy or (*shudder*) Atreyu isn’t included. It’s totally up to site discretion.
And to those aforementioned Wikipedia users who use MA as a guideline, well, if they were half-informed as they should be as to what they are talking about, they would have done the appropriate investigation necessary to gather neutral information for Wikipedia (and thus would have read the guidelines for MA and realized the context of things on that site) – after all, that is what any good contributor does. And that is what the MA mods and users do, under the established guidelines and in the appropriate context, of course.
*sigh* MetalCrusader, you along with every detractor on here are focusing on the list compiled, it seems, instead of acknowledging the whole point of my argument. The list I gave were just merely items jotted down as food for thought, I am not saying that every goth rock band or every ambient band should be considered metal. My whole point, which was thoroughly discussed already in great length here in the comments section, is that MA is judged on the whim of a select few individuals who really fail to give any real justification for their actions. Why do a number of the bands in my list not qualify as metal? Ektomorf and Slipknot are clear cut examples. I have had multiple people from MA come on here, and also from what I have read on the message boards there, defend MA but then go on to say that sometimes the mods are a bit too critical. To me, without a reasonable expectation of what metal actually is, clearly stated on the site, all of MA’s rules as posted are bullshit and are completely at the whims of those in charge. As was stated here, telling the world what is and isn’t allowed is not enough. I stated this fairly accurately WITHOUT personally attacking the site, nor do I stress out about an article I wrote in friggin September, so why you feel the need to call me a whiner is beyond me.
You made a well written argument here, but its wholly flawed, especially when you start to insinuate that rap based vocals some how bring down the “metalness” of a band. This is the BS I am talking about. What do rap vocals have to do with how metal a song is? Why is RATM not included in the site, because they contain rapped lyrics? What about the instrumental content? RATM is far heavier and more technical than Faith No More and also far less poppy, yet Faith No More is on MA. Deep Purple is WAY more hard rock than RATM (how RATM is merely “hard rock” as you state, is beyond me), with only a handful of songs that would be justifiably classified as metal, the same thing can be said about RUSH, yet BOTH of those bands are on MA while RATM is not. Can you explain that? I bet you can’t with any semblance of reasonability. Also, while this has no direct bearing on the argument at hand, I have to state that funk is and always has been, as a musical genre, a sub-genre of rock music. Was it incarnated through jazz and R&B? Sure, but as a musical identity, it’s classified as rock music. James Brown, the Godfather of funk, has clearly stated that Little Richard, a rock n roll legend, is the foundation of funk in rock music beginning in the 50’s. So to state that funk in metal somehow lowers the overall “metalness” of the music is laughable.
Thanks for coming by and showing interest MetalCrusader.
My argument certainly is not flawed. I fully disclose that MA is a private website, and thus the creators of said website are welcome to do what they wish with their time, energy and money. The context of that site is that bands have to be 50% or more metal in their style to warrant inclusion — period. And while on a personal level I would be a little more lenient with the submission guidelines were I in power, the idea of the Metal Archives is that true metal only need apply, and that’s that – and thus far they are doing a stellar job of separating the wheat from the chaff.
As for rap-based vocals, you obviously are uninformed as to the origin of them. Rap vocals originated in poor, inner-city African-American ghetto street/block/house parties. Originally, a Master of Ceremonies would make toasts and boasts and the like, and get the crowd excited about the party. Eventually, music was added via turntables, and the toasts got more lyrical and poetic in nature. From there, you might have two MCs having an impromptu word-battle, and eventually this led to the formation of hip-hop/rap as we know it. Rap vocals have NO roots in rock-based music. None. Nada. Rap vocals in metal thus make the music decidedly //less// metal by nature of the vocal style used.
As for your example of RATM, you are selectively referencing what I said – the first time I mention them, I did so individually and said they had “funk, metal, rock and rap… [in] their sound”. The second time, I mentioned them and two other bands in passing and said they were “more focused on a fusion of hard rock and funk and had metallic overtones”. I never once stated they were “merely hard rock”, so your argument is rather moot here. Moving on…
Heaviness, technically and the lack of poppiness is by no means only applicable to metaldom; certainly grindcore could have all three of these qualities and grindcore is by no means a metal genre. Or goth rock could have these three qualities and still not be considered metal. Or so on. Just because RATM might hold these qualities against certain bands which you have decided to use in your example doesn’t mean that RATM deserves a spot on the archives. I mean, RATM is heavier, more technical and lacks the poppiness of the new Nightwish album, therefor RATM deserves a spot on the archives? Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
As for funk, I am out of my league in regards to the specific quote you are using, but taking your word on it I will still hold that funk influences in metal do lower the metalness of the music; regardless if funk is rock-based or not it’s //not// a style of metal, simple as that. Can a band which mixes funk and metal be in the Metal Archives? Certainly. Doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily that case though.
As for Slipknot, I will say this. Slipknot is and always has been a highly experimental band, mixing (in no specific order) industrial, metal, jazz, disco, rap, modern rock, and various other influences into a hodge-podge of a band. Certainly, one might say their firmly established ideal of having many members – who thus have many influences – is a large part of this. Is the band metal enough to be on the Archives? Hard to say. A good example is thier first CD, ‘Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.’, which to this day is likely their most abrasive and metal album. However, it also suffers as being their most experimental, with some rapped vocals, jazz sections, a disco song and so on. I personally think that it should warrant their inclusion on the Archives, but like-wise the utter weirdness and avante-garde-ness of that album is certainly a major block from their inclusion, with good reason. Of course, as stated, I would likely be more lenient if I were in charge, but that is not so and I am mostly fine with the way things are — as are the vast majority of people there, which is all that MA can hope to do: satify the needs and wants of most people, most of the time. To please everyone is an unrealistic goal, most definitely.
And, I never once called you a “whiner”, to your discredit.
You guys are really butthurt. The rules are fine, because allowing non metal bands because they were an ‘influence’, or ‘are almost’ metal enough leads to a slippery slope.
“And since the site is privately owned and operated, too fucking bad and boo fucking hoo to those who are butthurt that Rammstein or the Sisters of Mercy or (*shudder*) Atreyu isn’t included. It’s totally up to site discretion.” You are calling me a whiner here. Not a big deal, but your words insinuate it. Moving on…
Nice overview on the history of rap, and indeed you are correct for the most part, but your argument is still very much flawed. Rap is a lyrical form of music performed with a backbeat. That’s it, where and how it originated is a moot point. Your argument states that having rapped lyrics waters down the metallic qualities of the music, but the last time I checked, metal had a “beat,” therefore, it can be rapped over. In fact, if you know so much about hip hop, you’d know that Quiet Riot, Queen and many other rock and metal artists were favorites to be sampled during rap battles in the aforementioned streets because of the heaviness of it. With all that said, do you also believe that operatic singing, chanting, folk singing, and other such vocals that do not have origins in rock music, limit how metal music is? Does the same concept also apply to instruments? The last time I checked there was no definition of heavy metal on MA, therefore determining what vocal patterns and instrumentation is allowed (which includes hip hop), is completely up in the air.
This same idea applies to funk, jazz, blues, etc. 50% is all that you can have? How does one determine what is 50%? Atheist has jazz-like influences, but their music is played with heavy distortion, riffs and beats that are considered death metal. Do we count a portion of their music as jazz? How much blues is in Black Sabbath’s music? Do you know the figure?
And Slipknot’s primary sound is metal, there is literally no way to bend that considering there are far less metallic bands that made it on MA. If you want examples of bands on MA that are far less metal sounding than Slipknot, Deep Purple and RUSH are perfect examples. There is no reason why Slipknot should not be in the archives, the only reason it’s not is because of a lack of appreciation for the band by many mods and members alike on MA.
Well that was certainly an entertaining read… while I have no intentions of recycling the argument, I would like to add one additional comment.
Like Witcher has so consistently pointed out, EM is indeed the birthchild of a selected few who are incidentaly also paying the bill, thus having no obligations before anyone.
That being said, the Archives are very much dependent on the people submitting new content. The same folk, who are bashed till exhaustion every time they come to a disagreement with the site’s dogmas. Now, I don’t think EM will fall into obscurity any time soon, but the amount and quality of content is bound to be hampered from this sensless misantrophy. Furthermore, I think the regular woes with ’some faggot hacker with no life’ crashing servers/uploading trojans/whatever is not completely without connection to this attitude.
So I see the main issue really not in EM’s understanding of ‘metal’ or the (un)justness of their rules, but in the ‘fuck you asshole; you’re not worth a shit here’ mentality.
The issue is one of the inherently abstract nature of definitions. All the discussions verge on the borderline bands or otherwise “heavy” bands, yet everyone would be able to conjure a list of bands who are very obviously metal. In essence the question is akin to explaining what colour is to a blind man – we know what metal is through experiencing it. Imagine reversing roles here and trying to define metal to yourself effectively – I can’t. Some things are difficult to exclude, yet are obviously (to my mind) not metal like grindcore, hardcore punk etc. Instead of deciding that its a worthless term I still think I know more or less what metal is, yet its hazy at the edges, but the metal-archives has always said it would rather not be too bothered with the hazy edges as far as I am aware.
Some other things worthy of consideration are that a band only needs one metal release to qualify. I can’t comment on Rush, but to my ears Deep Purple’s Machine Head entirely justifies its admission. Likewise I choose to not be familiar with Slipknot’s output, I dislike it, and it doesn’t sound particularly metal to me, despite obvious heavyness.
Cody, let me get this straight. The only thing MA would have to do is change their name into “Morrigan’s and Hellblazer’s cozy metal-elitist corner” and you’d be satisfied? It’s just a name. I think it’s a bummer they don’t include certain bands, but it’s no reason to get so worked up on it.
@MA-Warriors: You’re preaching to a hostile choir, drop it.
Why do all of you think I am getting worked up about this? It’s called a dissenting opinion, get over it.
Encylopedia Metallum is the last refuge of true heavy metal and the quality of reviews is amazing considering it’s size. Bands like Metallica were founded on the ideal of ostracizing posers and fake metal. Metal is pretty much my life, why would I want one of the most important thing in my life tainted by materialistic and mainstream emocore rubbish? I wouldn’t, so I’ll fight for what I love.
Everyone has the right to listen to and like whatever music they are into – just don’t call it mislabel it when it’s not.
CosmicKeys – Thanks for agreeing with me!
To MetalCrusader, in response to this excerpt, and even if I can’t see Slipknot in EM:
“As for Slipknot, I will say this. Slipknot is and always has been a highly experimental band, mixing (in no specific order) industrial, metal, jazz, disco, rap, modern rock, and various other influences into a hodge-podge of a band. Certainly, one might say their firmly established ideal of having many members – who thus have many influences – is a large part of this. Is the band metal enough to be on the Archives? Hard to say. A good example is thier first CD, ‘Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat.’, which to this day is likely their most abrasive and metal album. However, it also suffers as being their most experimental, with some rapped vocals, jazz sections, a disco song and so on. I personally think that it should warrant their inclusion on the Archives, but like-wise the utter weirdness and avante-garde-ness of that album is certainly a major block from their inclusion, with good reason.”
These are a lot of caracteristics belonging to some other metal bands, let say Carnival in Coal. Except for the rap parts. CiC have a lot of metal influences (sludge, old “trve” black metal, death metal, some progressive passage, etc.), a lot of experimentation with atonal classical music, jazz, even disco and flamanco. But no rap and anything to do with the more “groovy” side of what’s often called “mallcore” or “nu-metal” by some metalheads. And CiC is dubbed “Avant-Garde Extreme Metal”. Not that I want to dismiss your point about Spliknot specifically, but is it possible that the rap/groovy parts of Slipknot music and some other borderline metal-or-not-metal band could be what “kills” the acceptation of these bands on the “at least 50% metal” rules, since rap and “groove” seems to be considerated really important antimetal feels?
[...] last year, I wrote an article (which can be read here) about the Gestapo standards over at Encyclopedia Metallum, and how the mods over there (and many [...]
I kept wanting to stop reading this, but it was enticing. I agree the standards are elitist, but whenever I reference the site and the band I’m looking for is not included, I simply move on to another site for my information. That’s actually how I found this site. Maybe you should take advantage of that.
By the way, some of these comments were ridiculously well written. …Except for Witcher’s…
Very interesting read, and I agree that the MA’s rules are a bit warped. Witcher seemed like a real ass, although I think calling him out for bad grammar was a tad bit harsh considering English isn’t his primary language.
But seriously, they include bands like Soundgarden and Rush, both of whom I really like by the way, but not bands like Led Zeppelin? Led Zeppelin is at least at metal as Deep Purple (whom they include), the only difference is that Zeppelin covered a much broader range of genres. Sure, they did a lot of folk and blues and even some Latin-tinged tunes (think In Through The Out Door), but they sure as hell had some straight up metal. If you consider Soundgarden metal, then how can you not consider songs like Achilles Last Stand metal? It’s far more metal than anything I’ve ever heard from Soundgarden, as are many other Zeppelin songs.
Either way, Encyclopaedia Metallum is certainly a very helpful site at times, but I just feel as if they are leaving out some crucial bands.
IMO EM is an invaluable resource for metal bands. You have no idea how many bands I’ve discovered/learned more about through it and am proud to call myself a metalhead. The thing I dont fully understand though is the whole purpose of this thread. It’s been going on for nearly a full year now and it seems the basis of the entire argument is that a few mainstream metalheads where a little fed up that their favourite metalcore and nu-metal acts weren’t being added to a website that is supposed to feature only metal in its purest form and doesnt include the numerous genres that metal has formed in its wake(once again, metalcaore, nu-metal, industrial, ambience etc.). I can understand the argument that bands such as Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer, who practically carved the original heavy metal template, should be added, but the whole “Slipknot should be added because they feature distorted guitars and harsh vocals etc.” seems redundant because whether you like it or not genres like metalcore and nu-metal are just as much hardcore punk and hardcore rap as metal. And if you dont like the system at MA then why dont you try to come up with something better? If we do a free vote then any band could get in if its popular whether its metal or not. Hell someone could submit the jonas brothers and they could be added to the encyclopedia just because they’re somewhat popular (maybe that was a slight exhageration but you get my point). If you ask me, I’m willing to let a small group of people decide what bands get in, especially since the guys over at metallum have shown some pretty good judgement and have pissed off a minimal amount of metalheads for people in their position.
Between the Buried and Me is definently not Metalcore. It’s Progressive/Melodic Death and they aren’t in EM.
Explain that one chief.
I just realized that this Witcher guy put classified Mastodon as “Metalcore.” Um… thats just wrong.
BTBAM were on there for awhile. But since they have short hair and don’t live their parent’s basement, they weren’t allowed in anymore. Slipknot sucks, but its definitely metal to an extent. Not GOOD metal, but bad metal doesnt = not metal. There are BAD metal bands and albums. But the elitists are just pulling a fascist toltalitarian move by not allowing certain bands on there. Plus a lot of the reviewers are saying new Kreator has “metalcore” influences. Name me one part that sounds like a metalcore part on Hordes of Chaos. Don’t be offended, I am willing to bet some of the reviewers/moderators get laid less than once a year. They’re misanthropic nerd/dorks and should just be ignored.
Matt – I concur, that’s all I have to say in response.
Sorry if I’m trying to revive a dead horse, I think it is ridiculous that Helmet is on MA but Tool is not. Wasn’t Helmet that anti metal alternative hard rock band? While Tool has toured with bands like Meshuggah? What’s wrong with that site? Do they suffer from cognitive dissonance disorder or something?
I think the reason why people started doing this “not metal enough” stuff was because a bunch of asses said “oh you’re too mainstream, you’re blending genres,” etc. Excuse me, but that’s usually what makes the best music – blending genres. an example of a band who should really be on their which isn’t is DevilDriver. They are groove metal, which some people think is annoying and stagnant. Well, so is death metal every second as well. I’m not saying I think DM sucks, it’s just repetative at times and it’s true that some newer acts just play the same thing over and over, and core up the death and mosh it all to hell. But at the same time, I’m a fan of some -core bands like Hatebreed and so on. Am I a core lover? No. I just like some bands who people label a certain genre. I also like the classics like Bolt Thrower, and I frankly don’t really care about what genre it’s in, because it’s my opinion, not some mod running Metal Archives. A.C. isn’t on there either. Oh… Must not be metal. Metal is a hard thing to define, and doesn’t always have to be structured. then again, music in general doesn’t. So hah.
Wow, these comments are a real riot, it just makes my head spin. All I can say that all of you from both sides are real douche bags, you guys are just acting like children fighting over at the lunch line trying to get the last carton of milk. Seriously you guys, its just a web site. There are other things to worry about in the world, and the rules on the web site is not one of them. So, lets take off those diapers, go outside, and move on with your lives.
Peace, and Rock On!!!
your name is spelled wrong
The worst part is that they don’t just go after bands that are ’slightly metal but more hard rock’. They often go after bands just because they don’t like their sound or think it doesn’t reflect a strict, classic definition of metal. Genres are consistently evolving; metal is an evolving term. I would say most of the bands you listed are pretty obviously not metal in a way. I hate slipknot but I’d say that its pretty far removed from the whole metalhead scene…its more listened to by mall goths etc.
The real problem is their attitude towards changing genres. They said that new Meshuggah is not metal. Mnemic and Raunchy are rejected. Dog fashion disco is rejected but Mr Bungle allowed. I don’t have so much issue with DFD being rejected itself I guess, but yeah. Pin-up Went Down was also rejected, which is BLATANTLY a metal band. Between the Buried and me, also blatantly a progressive metal/hardcore band with MANY features common in metal bands. Impossible to peg percentages on these things because like I said, genres are consistently evolving. Genres are also based on listening habits.
That being said Cody, I agree with your overall point I guess. But my real issue is that they’re not just rejecting bands that most consider ‘nu metal’, they’re rejecting bands that even most ‘true metalheads’ consider metal. They’re rejecting certain bands that are extremely similar to ones accepted.
I was told Mnemic is ‘modern heavy rock’. Yeah, thats rich. Here’s an example of ‘modern heavy rock’….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGMebdzFFmc
I also agree with the bias against industrial influenced bands. Most of the reason I believe there is a bias against them is because of the low reviews.
I started a thread on there to bring up these concerns but after seeing some of the closed minded replies, I didn’t bother wasting my time. They have made up their mind that they are right, and absolutely refuse to even entertain the idea that they could be even somewhat wrong. I agree its their site, but an inconsistent standard is a bad thing and criticism is justified. Witcher was one of the people that replied, haha. No surprise to see him here : /
Oh I just checked the topic, nightgaunt called BTBAM mallcore LOL