Comment from Steve
Time: September 3, 2008, 11:49 am

The FAQ has this to say about ambient acts:

“Additionally, there will be some non-metal bands featured on the site that we feel are still part of the metal scene despite not being metal themselves (usually darkwave, ambient, neo-classical and/or folk bands, examples being Mortiis, Elend, Autumn Tears, Stille Volk, etc). These bands are selected by the moderators in an admittedly arbitrary fashion, and their submission by normal users is discouraged. Please bear with us on this.”

I don’t see how they can classify all ambient music as non-metal. There are clearly ambient metal bands just as there are clearly stoner metal or industrial metal bands. Why discourage their submission if support for their ‘metalness’ can be provided? I’m always surprised to see bands like The Angelic Process not make the cut and then see a virtually identical project like Nadja have a page. Though I wouldn’t necessarily call this pretentious, just a sign of poor management and placing too much stock in arbitrary distinctions.

Comment from cody
Time: September 3, 2008, 12:23 pm

Steve – Your example is definitely spot on. Bands that are not included while other bands that sound very similar are is so common on this site. If you check out their forums and the thread about why bands were rejected, its uncanny the excuses mods will come with why certain bands are rejected.

However, I do think that there are some pretentious attitudes towards certain genres, especially bands that are more mainstream.

Comment from Crone of War
Time: October 14, 2008, 10:06 am

You say:

“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?”

This is so very silly. You admit yourself that some bands are debatable. Who else but the site owners could possibly be the ones to draw the line? They just draw it at a different place than you do. If that makes them “elitist”, so be it, but it’s hardly their problem if some kids are going to whine about it, or rely solely on the site to determine what is metal and what isn’t. (Hell, perhaps if *you* were running the site, you would refuse to list Nirvana or Korn, and some other kid on some other blog would be whining at your “elitism”.)

The site isn’t forcing you to accept that Led Zeppelin isn’t metal. You are free to believe that if you want. Why does it matter if a certain site won’t list it? Claiming that anyone is “dictating” anything just because a popular and well-known site disagrees with you reeks of petulance and insecurity.

Comment from cody
Time: October 14, 2008, 12:24 pm

Crone of War – Everyone has opinions, this is true, but unlike my site, Metal Archives is a primary starting point for research on anything pertaining metal, as they are the biggest resource on the subject of obscure bands. With such influence, it should be a priority of Metal Archives to give an unbiased view of the metal world, as opposed to not allowing Norma Jean because, as one forumite put it, paraphrased “Norma Jean is nu-metal disguised as metalcore.” The sad thing is, the folks making decisions on the site generally have the same outlook on many, many bands, not even those that are generally not accepted as metal like Korn and Disturbed by metalheads. I can understand how frustrating moderating a site like that must be with some ridiculous submissions, but there has to be more understanding on exactly how much influence is exuded from a site that gets over 100,000 hits a month.

Comment from Peregrinus_sine_aetate
Time: October 14, 2008, 4:19 pm

Ambient in no way is metal; there are really no ambient bands which could be reasonably called metal. You may think there is no concrete, objective definition of metal, but ambient as an adjective has a definition, and the music genre’s definition was set down by it’s father, Brian Eno: music which is “actively listened to with attention or as easily ignored, depending on the choice of the listener” and which “must be able to accommodate many levels of listening attention without enforcing one in particular; it must be as ignorable as it is interesting.” It’s sound is the “cusp between melody and texture.” When it comes to metal, there is neither any subjective personal definition nor any attempt at an objective definition that does not include heavy riffs. The heavy riff is the basis for all metal, objectively—-that’s arguably the only objective thing that can be said about metal. And heavy riffs are not easily ignored nor conducive to sonic landscapes.

Now, there can be metal bands which have an ambient quality, but they will still be too distracting to be ambient. Ambient likewise cannot be metal, and there is no reasonable definition one could make of metal that would include ambient in it. And that is as it should be, otherwise, you’d have to start taking such a definition to its logical extent and say this is metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJmSO34SZ5M

or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXJ1kl-vjhw

This is not to say that bands mixing ambient and metal should be forbidden (provided they actually contain some metal beyond a simple “WE HAVE GUITARS!” criteria), but strictly ambient bands cannot be admitted on a metal site no matter how “heavy” you think they are. The only reasonable way an ambient band could be admitted to a website is if they are the sideproject of a metal band, which is currently the only way they can be admitted onto the Encyclopaedia Metallum anyway.

And for the record, I’m not saying this because I’m an old-school metalhead who hates anything electronic or some such rubbish, I presently like ambient more than metal. I would love for there to be an easily-navigated and informative website attempting to document every ambient band in existence, but throwing random dark ambient bands onto a metal website with apparently no other justification beyond “they make ambient which is dark, just like metal is dark” is no good.

Comment from cody
Time: October 14, 2008, 6:12 pm

Peregrinus – You’re right, the same concept applies to virtually any genre that isn’t exclusively metal. Hardcore, progressive rock, ambient, industrial, etc. I am not saying that ambient is metal as a stand alone genre. The problem I have is the elitism at Metal Archives in approving content that most metalheads would deem to be appropriate otherwise, is shunned, and this attitude tends to permeate through not only forum goers, but also to the regular everyday reader. For example, on Wikipedia I have read one or two contributors actually try to explain the relevance of a band by using the fact that said band’s exclusion from Metal Archives means they are not metal. If this isn’t elitism at its worst, I don’t know what is.

BTW, the examples you provided are quite cool.

Comment from Crone of War
Time: October 15, 2008, 9:32 am

“With such influence, it should be a priority of Metal Archives to give an unbiased view of the metal world”

The site didn’t start as influential, for one thing, and it is in no way responsible for the behaviour of some Wikipedia users. But regardless, the two owners have their vision of what metal is, and since they are the ones who host and run the site, I don’t see why they should cater to populist opinions by compromising their vision. If they don’t believe Slipknot is metal, they have no reason to include them. It’s really as simple as that…

Comment from cody
Time: October 15, 2008, 5:23 pm

Actually the site has always been incredibly influential from the beginning, being a site run by and for underground fans of metal, and to say it isn’t responsible for the opinions of Wikipedia users is ridiculous considering they are using Metal-Archives, quite frequently, as sources for material that the world reads and takes as truth. Reviews and detailed biographies on acts most haven’t heard of aren’t about to pop up on allmusic.com, right? The founders of the site can do whatever they want, you’re right, they pay the bills to keep it active and don’t employ ads which I have always commended them for doing. However, their choice on how to run their site will draw criticism from those like me, I just happen to have a forum that many don’t have to express my views, and obviously with you coming to this site and the topic popping up on their boards, my intentions for writing this piece have been met.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 3, 2008, 8:53 pm

In credibility, Encylopaedia Metallum IS the heavy metal equivalent of Wikipedia: often unsourced, contradictory and administered by a bunch of biased hypocrites. For example, there are TONS of bands on EM with no line-up info, no photos, no discographies, no links…nothing but a band name, a genre, a location and whether or not the band is active. For some reason this is perfectly acceptable to the EM administrators, eventhough this lack of info causes band submissions to get swiftly rejected. Strangely, even band submissions with discographies and reliable sources are rejected for “lack of sources”. I just hope none of the EM moderators/admins are ever picked for jury duty; I can’t believe they can even keep their day jobs with their convoluted philosophies. And with all the site downtime, their IT person sure doesn’t know what s/he’s doing!

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 8, 2008, 10:37 am

Another thing: If you want to put a username on Encylopaedia Metallum ’s biases, contradictions and elitism as listed above, that moniker would belong to Witcher. Witcher is one of the admins/mods and he calls the shots as far as which band is added to the site and which band page needs updates/corrections. Try not to get on his bad side, or else he won’t honor any of the band corrections/submissions you send, even if they’re legitimate. Unfortunately I ended up on that list when I addressed the site’s contradictory submission policy in the forum, and his rebuttal was insults and that he could do what he chooses. He lists his age as 32 on his EM profile page – could have fooled me, I thought 12.

Comment from cody
Time: December 8, 2008, 1:08 pm

Yeah, the site definitely needs to change some policies, we can agree on that.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 2:15 pm

To AZEExtremeMetalhead. Before you choose to dishonest me in public, get your facts straight. I have never rejected a band, because I have not liked the user, always only because it did not fit valid rules. There are no bands without discographies – blatant lie. I do not decide which bands will get updated, every user with veteran rank can update a band, and everybody can report a mistake/update. Again, a proof that you have no idea how the site works.The rules are same for all bands, but in time of myspace, we require convincing proofs of physical releases. The politics is not contradictory, the rules are quite clear. If yopu do not like that Slipknot and other bands are not listed, simply go elsewhere or make your own database. But as the written rules state, the stance on nu-metal will not change.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 2:24 pm

To cody: Of course grindcore with no death metal in it will not be listed. Grindcore in its pure form is an evolution of hardcore punk and not metal, that is a historical fact. Ambient was already explained to you and industrial has, once again, nothing to do with metal. It is an unrelated style, which can, of course be used in metal music, as jazz, funk, folk music and other styles can be too. But that does not make them musically more metal.

Glam rock, as the name says, is rock and not metal, so there is no reason to feature it. Bands with glam image, that actually play real metal, are accepted – Mötley Crüe andd Dokken, for example.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 2:32 pm

And finally, the written rules:
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
—
The rules are not contradictory and pretty self-explanatory. If you do not understand them, than the mistake is on your side.
Notice also this part:
Just don’t be TOO surprised if your favorite grind/metalcore industrial crossover dark metal band gets rejected. :p Especially if we cannot find information or samples. There was a time when we just took your word for it, and the Encyclopaedia was thus cluttered with bands that simply didn’t belong there.
Mistakes happen, even with the mods. But note that if you persist in breaking the rules, you might lose points. Depending on the moderator on duty, the amount may vary.

Hopefully this is clear enough! If you have any questions, you can ask the moderators on the message board, but some of us are sick of repeating ourself, so don’t take it personally if we don’t answer your “Why do you say nu-metal isn’t metal?!” or whatever. Keep in mind that the rules of what is accepted or not were ultimately decided by HellBlazer (the mastermind and founder of the Encyclopaedia) and “put on paper” (or rather, screen?) by Morrigan (the co-webmaster). The moderators have given counsel and suggestions but they merely enforce the rules – some of them don’t agree with them 100%, but they will do their job! However, they are only humans, and they all have slightly different opinions.

Nobody asks you to completely agree with us. A lot of these decisions could be debated for hours (time that few of us have). Definitions aren’t always set in stone, and this is just a website to allow people to lookup information – no need throw a fit because a band you wanted there didn’t make it… Please understand that we try our best to not have double-standards, but what may seem like an inconsistency to you would make perfect sense to another and so on. We cannot please everyone.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 8, 2008, 3:16 pm

Not so much a change in policies, just no double standards when “enforcing” them.

Also, did you know Encylopaedia Metallum moderators secretly delete other moderator-approved album reviews? That’s right. If you submit a review of an album, that review must be approved by a supposedly impartial “moderator”. You don’t know who’s looking it over, so if it’s rejected, you can’t take it up with this moderator, the “automated e-mail” says to take your disagreement to the EM forum where partisans/trolls could maul at your case as they please. On the other hand, if your review is approved, another moderator could disagree with your score/opinion and delete it at their whimsy. And this has happened…a lot.

Like I said, the EM site staff revels in its double standards and dishonesty.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 3:29 pm

Every moderator can delete a review, when he feells it is not up to our standards. Of course, you will not have to take on the moderator who rejected it, to prevent abuse. Some of us sign the rejection, some do not. But The matters should not resolved be in a personal argument. That is why there is the forum. Nobody deletes it at their whimsy, there is a thread on the review form that explains the reasons for rejection. Nobody deletes anything secrectly, you do not get any notification about it, because there is no such option. The review should not be accepted in the first place.
There are no robots that would judge reviews and will not be for a long time. Live with it.

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 8, 2008, 6:23 pm

Just as an aside, regardless of their initial agenda in creating the site. Utilising the moniker of Encyclopaedia in their title, suggests or even advertises an accuracy in information. If it does not meet this expectation, then technically they should resign the title as it is no longer applicable.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 6:48 pm

To TBAM: The info is as accurate as possible. It is validate using band sites and other resources. The report function serves to correct a possible mistakes.

Comment from cody
Time: December 8, 2008, 7:04 pm

Witcher – Thank you for making some comments, it’s honestly much appreciated to get an authoritative perspective. However, with all due respect, you merely re-iterated the official policies of the site, which is all well and good, but they don’t go far enough to explain why some bands refuse to be accepted on any official grounds. Can you explain to me why Slipknot has not been accepted into the site despite becoming more and more metallic? As far as I know, a band only needs one metal release to be included on the site. The argument can be made that their first two records are exclusively nu-metal, but at the very least, their last album contains a majority of songs that one would conclude to be metal, to deny this would fly in the face of logic. And even if you were to continue to make the argument that Slipknot were not metal, how can you deny that the popular belief, even amongst most metalheads, that Slipknot is accepted as being a metal band? You can go off on the quality of their music, but I don’t see how you can deny their validity as being metal.

This is a large and prominent example of the faults your site maintains in it’s policing. Some other examples include Ektomorf, Haste the Day, Rammstein, The Dillinger Escape Plan…all of these bands are more than metallic enough to be included in a site that proclaims itself to be an Encyclopedia. As I said though, Metal-Archives is still a valuable tool, it just needs a professional overhaul in order to represent itself as the most revered outlet of knowledge in the metal community.

Comment from cody
Time: December 8, 2008, 7:19 pm

Oh, and as an addendum to my previous post, I’d also like to read an explanation as to how a band like Arcana, which is almost entirely ambient with little to no metal (from what I have heard, there are one or two albums I haven’t listened to), can be included in the site, yet ones who are clearly more qualified such as Ektomorf, are denied?

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 7:24 pm

Slipknot are still not metal enough. They were judged by the site owners and again dismissed. If Slipknot would release a whole album sounding like Deicide, for example, then they would be accepted. But that is not the case you. What may seem metal enough for you, is not metal enough for us. You speak about logic, but that is only your personal taste. To put is simply, bands are not accepted on popular belief. Quality of their music does not matter at all. A band can be metal enough and still terrible — that much about elitism. Dillinger Escape Plan were and still are firmly rooted in the alternative/hardcore scene. Their songwriting and musical style reflects that. They do not belong to any valid subgenre of metal. They are not death/thrash or black metal, the more melodic bands aside. That again is not our fault, it is your personal, in case of Dillinger Escape Plan very strange opinion. Ektomorf are again too nu-metal based.
It is in compliance with the written rules, which explain what is not metal and why not.

All those bands were deemed to be non-metal by us and it will not change, even if they had millions of fans like Slipknot.

To put it simply, nu-metal will always be excluded and it will never change, no matter how many articles you will wrote. You can call it elitism, but it is one of the fundamental principles of the site.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 8, 2008, 7:27 pm

Arcana is included as a side project of metal musician. The side project rule is a controversial one, but it is explained too in the written rules (guidelines). It surprises me, that you have written such accusatory article without really knowing and understanding them in detail.

Comment from cody
Time: December 8, 2008, 8:00 pm

Witcher, your points only reinforce my opinion. Your whole site revolves around the personal opinions of an elite few, and based on those opinions, you manipulate the opinions of others. This inherent fact is corrupting to the scene. I realize this is all a gray area, I really do, so I can appreciate the responsibility you must maintain, but to argue that Slipknot and Ektomorf are not metal enough, and then go on to say that Arcana can join the metal ranks simply because it is a side project is baffling to me, and a bit hypocritical, regardless what your rules state.

My article is accusatory, but it is not inflammatory. I am familiar with your rules, but your rules don’t excuse the fact that your personal tastes govern a site that is largely considered canon amongst many metalheads. You can go about governing the site as you see fit, but in my opinion, there needs to be more responsibility on your part to represent heavy metal much more fairly and accurately.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 8, 2008, 11:35 pm

Yes, Witcher, there are many bands on Metal-Archives/EM without links, photos, line-up info, or discographies. “Released a Demo in such and such year” in the “Additional notes” section holds no water unless there’s a web source to back that up, but that’s not the case for hundreds if not thousands of bands on EM. AND You defended these inclusions in the forums. On the other hand, several bands I submitted were rejected eventhough there were valid sources, discographies and no dispute regarding the genre. When this was addressed in the EM forums, you basically told me to “shut the f— up or get out of here” and that nothing overrules your judgment. Would you like to know my EM username? If I mention it, you’ll remember me and the discussion I’m referring to, but this time your EM “cohorts” won’t be here to defend. It looks like many others share the same disillusionment about EM’s credibility.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 8, 2008, 11:48 pm

Also Witcher, there was no mention of me complaining about Slipknot/nu-metal being excluded from the site, you may want to re-read my posts more carefully.

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:32 am

I’m no slipknot fanboi, but asking them to put out a release akin to Deicide to be considered in technical terms, a metal band, is ridiculous.

I’m pretty sure i’m in the EM’s site a number of times in the bands i’ve been / played in, some of them have as-much-as or less of a claim to metal than Slipknot.

Without applying personal bias, you cannot technically separate slipknot’s music from many other bands’ claim to metal, or what you could call a “checkbox of metal”:
– Distorted Guitar – Check
– Distorted Vocals / Aggressive Vocals “Screams” – Check
– A short dynamic range in production values (compressed) – Check
– Lyrics and themes rooted in darker themes, often revolving around malevolence towards someone, something, or a particular culture or subject – Check

Actually, if you want to get technical. You could probably interpolate excerpts from Deicide’s music into Slipknot’s and not notice much difference in each.

If you cut even minute-long-snippets out of Slipknot, I would argue that technically and musically speaking you could not identify a difference.

It’s as though you’re taking a leaf out of an Australian slang being “It’s just the general vibe of the thing”. Which doesn’t hold water outside of personal taste.

If you could give me one technical reason in a musical sense that Slipknot should not be considered a band that makes music of the metal genre, then I will accept your viewpoint. However It IS “just a vibe sort of thing” to you.

You haven’t wanted them on your site, and then reverse engineered – excuses to support your conclusion.

Whilst my argument may centre around Slipknot’s inclusion/exclusion on the site, the issues pertaining to Slipknot are also universal with many other bands that are excluded (as such has been noted in other comments contained here).

As a local politician here would state “Please explain”.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 3:59 am

Thre is no band without discography. Not a single one. There are bands without links, but they have valid physical releases. We know the from fanzines, the bands had homepages in times, when they were submitted and so on. I have told you, that w e do not have to explain to somebody like you, why each of thousands of such bands were included. To want something else woould be foolish and unrealistic. Our rules demand physical releases and so, submissions of bands, that were created recently are treated with more caution, since their release is often only a download at myspace or on rapidshare. You have always to prove, that a band is metal and has physical releases. The proof is up to you. Those two conditions are same for all bands and it is up to you to prove it. There are many bands without links, but which were metal and were reviewed in German Metal Hammer or Czech fanzines.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:03 am

Yes, the demos are in additinal notes, but they are valid physical demos. We do not have to prove anything to the users about them, you have quite a twisted view. You , as a user, have to prove all about the two main conditions. You have accused be of rehjections out of spite, which is disgussting beyond belief.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:10 am

To TBAM: Distorted vocals do not maker a band metal, neither do distorted guitars. Punk and hardcore bands have them too.
Lyrics do not matter at all, band can sing about junk food and still be metal.
What makes band metal is certain type of songwriting and style. Slipknot do not have it, according to us, they are nu-metal. And yes, they would have to change their style completely towards some acceptable metal genre to be accepted.
To summarize, those bands were excluded, because they are not metal. If you think they are for some reason, think it. But nothing will move us to include them, no online campaigns and the like.
Nu-metal bands will stay out.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:15 am

Cody: You would like to include bands according to your personal, often rather strange tastes. How about that. It was set in the rules, which bands are acceptable. That will not change. The site will certainly not become more open mindfed to alternative and nu-metal bands in the past. It says – We do NOT accept the following (this is our decision, please don’t argue this). So the database has a set of principles, which as user you have to respect. They were created by the site owners and as it is their will, are to be respected. Besides that, there is no impersonal definition of what is metal and what is not. The line was made at nu-metal and other similar genres and you simply have to respect it. Certainly it is not everything with distorted guitars.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:20 am

The site does not manipulate anyone’s opinion. You can think what you want and listen to what you want , but your submissions have to follow the given rules But such database needs strict rules, which were made.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:22 am

Comments that slipknot and Decide are not musically different is one of the reasons why we do not want to discuss famous nu-metal bands over and over. Such absurdity. Deicide are death metal through and through and largely different from Slipknots nu-metal chaotic groovy “Jumpdafuckup” style.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:31 am

Besides that, no bands will be accepted just for being influential to metal. In your view cody, Slipknot should be included, because it has millions of fans and was featured in mainstream magazines. If they had an influence on metal, then only negative, as their style was sold as real metal for the massess, while in fact it is only mallcore.
We do not manipulate anybody, we provide info on metal bands. What we consider valid metal is in the rules.

As for side projects, it is explained in detail. It is not hypocritical, but certainly a copntroversial rule.Such bands are different category than the regular ones, they are exceptions. But if anything will happen in the future, then it will be a limitation of said rule, not that the site will include more non-metal bands.
- Side-projects are a big debate. When does a band stop being one and starts being a full-time band? What’s the difference between a solo career and a side-project, etc. Now, a side-project is a band started in parallel to another band. This is not the same thing as a band member leaving a band and forming a new one, or to join another band! For example, Soulfly is no more a side-project of Max Cavalera as Voivod is a side-project of Jason Newsted.
One might argue that a band can start as such but can stop being one if the main band splits-up. Or that while it’s reasonable to have Wongraven or Chaostar, that a country band started by a Flotsam & Jetsam member would simply look out of place on a metal site. Our answer is that we have no choice but to go with a case by case approach. It might be a little arbitrary, but it’s hard to define a rule that will apply for every case of a non-metal side-project. Yes, that might mean you’ll have to ask us before submitting this guy’s side-project. Usually there shouldn’t be any problem, but if the side-project really has nothing to do with the heavy metal scene and/or would really look out of place here, chances are, it won’t be accepted.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:45 am

To Extrememetalhead
http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=43308&start=0
Here we have bands, whose pages are equivalent of wikipedia stubs. Users, who do not make absurd claims and understand our rules, can help us there to gain more info and improve the pages. All those bands have physical releases, even if it is listed in the additional notes. When we come along a band which has no such release, it will get deleted. There is also a special thread when the users can present such bands.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:49 am

Here the user Derigin explains, what should be obvious to you.

It’s tied to the database, so it is automatically updated. This occurs when releases have been added to bands which previously had their releases listed only in the additional notes and the additional notes are cleared of such information (these bands are automatically removed from the list), or when a new band is added to the site, where its releases are only listed in the additional notes (these bands are automatically added to the list).

The latter occurs, as Witcher already stated, because the releases of some bands are known, but at the time of addition to the site, have little known information otherwise (the tracklist of the release, for example, which is required for a release to be added to the site correctly). This occurs typically for demo bands and obscure bands, but also for bands (say, a thrash band that played only in 1985) that have obviously limited information online. These bands are typically known though zines.

This “bands without releases” thread is not unlike the “incorrectly added splits” thread, which can also be found in this forum. The dedicated contributors to this site typically tend to work on both lists slowly – whenever they have the time to do so. Give it time, and this thread may be lively again; that’s partly why it is a sticky. Keep it mind also, I suppose, that updating this list doesn’t require you to post anything in this thread. You can go ahead and add releases to bands, perhaps (if you’re a Veteran) clear their additional notes of such information, and it will be removed from the list automatically. So while this thread may seem dead, it doesn’t mean the list isn’t being worked on.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:53 am

To all: If your definition of metal is really everything with distorted guitars and screaming vocals, then no wonder that you have problems with the site. Such definition will never be accepted by us and is also objectively absurd.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 5:08 am

Lets recap: Cody, you have written an article, which states, quite objectively taken:
1) Complete nonsense about grindcore and its origin
2) complete nonsense about ambient and its origin
3) complete nonsense about industrial and its origins and roots
3) Complete nonsense about crossover. Bands that are crossover, so equally thrash metal and hardcore punk are accepted. Bands, that are predominantly hardcore are rejected. Crossover bands that are too punk are exactly that – hardcore punk, with possible small metal influences. The crossover tag means, that such bands are crossover between thrash metal and hardcore punk. To be acceptable, the ingredients should be contained in the amount explained above.

4) You wonder about obvious – why we reject that bands, which we have not heard – because there is no other way how to determine, if they are metal enough or not.
5) You did not know our side project rule, yet you dare to criticize our decisions.
6) You think that Slipknot could get in just by public voting of their fans. This will never happen, be it for Slipknot or other unacceptable band
7) You call every site, that does not follow your strange views on metal elitist. Why? You want to enforce your strange views upon us, not otherwise. You can still listen to your nu-metal and alternative bands, nobody hinders you at that.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 5:22 am

Furthermore, I find highly disgusting, that you allow users as AZExtrememetalhead to spread lies about me here. You have never rejected a band out of personal spite. If he got a harsh treatment on forum, then that is because he cannot understand basic submission rules and whines about his rejections and how valid they are. We decide if the bands fit our conditions, not the users. The page is moderated, it is not like wikipedia where everybody can change anythiong and the mistakes are remedied first afterwards.

# The band must have already possess a physical release: in other words, a valid proof of its existence.
That is the condition, that has to be fullfilled. The users have to prove it and a myspace page with songsamples is usually not enough.

We often demand scans of the whole physical release, links to distros that carry it physically or a review in fanzine which mention the type of release as a proof.

There is no need of that for bands, THAT WERE ALREADY accepted for valid reasons. We do not even have a time machine to go back to find deleted pasges to prove something to illogical thinking users like AZExtrememetalhead

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 5:58 am

Cody, as I see it, you would like us to represent metal more fairly, which means to include band according to your personal tastes. Why do you think you are more objective? Why is your opinion more corrrect? Your article contains several absurd claims, which alone should make everybody wonder.

In fact, it is nothing objective, it is only a demonstatrtion of your own personal tastes. The same thing you are accusing us of.
In short, they will be no Slipknot or any of the other bands you have mentioned. They were discussed and always dismissed for not being metal enough.
People may think Slipknot are metal, people also may think Linkin Park is metal, but that does not fit the definition set up by the founders. I Do not know what you have meant to reach by this article, other than to present your opinions as facts that everybody has to agree with. Our rules say, on the other hand, that nobody forces you to agree with us, but you have to respect the rules and submission system.

5) Must be a heavy metal band…

…Or close enough.
As simple as this request may be, it involves a huge debate. 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.

So the line was drawn. If you do not agree, it is your right, but you have no right to enforce anything.
Again, there is no machine that would set up the rules, it would be always the people. People, who do not share your strange views on acceptable bands. Now, why to write articles about it?

Comment from Metal dude
Time: December 9, 2008, 7:02 am

Cody, I would like to set some things straight here. I write reviews for the website that is the butt of your accusations here. But I have never submitted bands or made updates nor am I a moderator. In other words, I use it for the information I need but I have no interest in seeing that it appears the way I want it to (as if my whims and fancies would prevail over the collective wisdom of the contributors of MA anyway!). You can try to paint me as otherwise but I am an impartial observer. I came to know of the website through other metal fans. Yes, its popularity spreads through word-of-mouth, an indicator of the goodwill it enjoys among metal fans across the world. And yet it is only a database, one of the largest and one of the most widely used, yes, but a database. The website does not define metal; it requires no defining, metalheads know what metal is and if that doesn’t always tally with Rolling Stone’s perception of metal, so be it. Not all metalheads may agree about whether some bands are metal because what is metal is not set in stone. The website owners take the call in such cases because it is their site. If people are perceived to be promoting the Archives’s opinion as a Gospel truth, it is not intended by the Archives itself. I don’t agree with all the inclusions or rejections of the Archives, which is the same as disagreeing with another person! I have my opinions on metal and I am confident in my ability to express them. So I suppose should be the case for my metalhead. If you allow your perceptions to be coloured by someone else’s and then cry “Elitism”, you don’t have much to complain about.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 11:07 am

Witcher, stop denying there’s no bands without discographies on EM. A vague note saying “Released a Demo in 1998″ is NOT a valid discography if there’s no songs, no album cover and no links to back it up. Anybody could make that information up in a minute, it doesn’t make it true.

Everyone else, let’s put in perspective the dishonesty/hypocrisy that Witcher is defending. Please be advised that there are many more pages like this:

No links, no discography, just a note saying there was a “demo” released. No Google results. Someone could pull that out of a hat in 20 seconds: http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=81184

No picture, un-elaborated band line-up, no logo, no links, just a vague note saying there was a demo released, and Google only picked up the EM page as a search result:
http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=3540262406

No picture, no line-up, no logo, dead link, no discography but mention of a “demo”, and Google turned up
EM as the only search result:
http://metal-archives.com/band.php?id=77555

This is acceptable to Witcher, but an indisputably metal band I submitted whose MySpace announced their first demo release was rejected because of “lack of sources.” Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 11:25 am

And cody makes an excellent point about “ambient projects”. An ambient band may have a member whose main project is indisputably metal, but at the end of the day, the project is still an “ambient” band and doesn’t fit on a metal site. Again, this proves EM’s and Witcher’s double standards, because EM has blacklisted the German Gothic Metal/Rock band “LOVE LIKE BLOOD” for not being metal enough, yet LLB worked with Peter Tatgren of the Swedish Melodic Death Metal band Hypocrisy and Amorphis’ Esa Holopainen on one of their albums. Also, many web sources point to LLB as playing gothic ‘METAL’ . So yes, EM is made up of elitists and pretty dishonest and contradictory ones at that.

Comment from Nate
Time: December 9, 2008, 11:36 am

I stopped going to the metal archives when I realized it’s a garbage site anyways. I can find more with Google to be honest. Classification of music has always been a matter of opinion. Saying a band isn’t metal enough IS an ELITIST comment, whether it’s right or not. Witcher: when did someone even say that all distorted-guitar driven music is metal?

The only way it’d be fair to classify metal bands so resolutely is to allow users and contributors that still care enough to use Encyclopaedia Metallum to submit and vote yes/no on bands’ metal worthiness. Sure, people will disagree with you Witcher, but do you honestly believe you and the moderators of EM are the ultimate authority on what is metal? Like I said, there is no reason to use your site — I’ve done much better with non-specialized sites like Myspace and Last.fm, sites that unconditionally accept submissions for bands that allow tagging and other user-driven statistics.

To users of Encyclopaedia Metallum: the smart thing to do would be to abandon the site for no better reason that to make the decisions yourself. Sorry, EM was a cool idea but it is fundamentally flawed to the point that I don’t feel like I’m getting accurate information.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 11:51 am

To: AZExtremeMetalhead
The bands have releases in addiitional notes. They are valid, physical ones. That you cannot find info does not mean they not exist. Are you still ignorant enough to not get it?? Wedo not have to prove anything about already accepted bands. Read Derigin’s post quoted above. You as a user have to provide proof, that a band has already a physical releases out. Myspace news is often not enough. We then demand more proofs as scans of the physical releases, links to distros that carry it or a review in established fanzine, which menrtions the type of releasse. If you are not able to provide it, then iit willnot be accepted. Furthermore, do not compare pre-internet bands to today bands. Today there is no guarantee, that the release is really physical, so we demand more proofs.

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=40650&start=320

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 11:56 am

To: AZExtremeMetalhead
Review in Greek metal magazine “Metal Invader” 05/99.

Released a demo “Immortality of Soul” (3 songs) in 1999.
The demo was released physically and reviewed in fanzine
All those bands have valid releases, but we are not obliged to prove anything about them to you.
On the contrary, you as a user are obliged to prove to us, that the band is metal and has physical release already out. When you are not able to do that, it will be rejected. Other bands are none of your business.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:00 pm

LLB worked with Peter Tatgren of the Swedish Melodic Death Metal band Hypocrisy and Amorphis’
That does not make them a side project. Do not wonder that i have insulted you, when your ignorance is so striking.
The band is gothic rock and not metal.
Side projects do not have to be metal to be accepted. This is no double standard, but an exception exlained in detail in the rules. The rule is controversial, but published and exoplained for everybody. It does not mean, that non-metal/not side project bands submitted by users should be accepted.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:09 pm

To Nate: A metal database needs rules fhow to decide, what is metal and what is not. It is explained in the written rules.

5) Must be a heavy metal band…

…Or close enough.
As simple as this request may be, it involves a huge debate. 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. So this is perhaps the most important point (other than truthful information), because it can save some people a lot of time they would spend on a submission that will simply get rejected. At worst, non-neutral descriptions can be edited, but this is different.
Now…

The quote above proves, that you did not bother to read the written rules. Again one that criticizes something that he does not know anything about.

Thi is a metal database, for metal bands, not for all bands as myspace or last.fm. Therefore, it will not provide info on bands, that are not metal. Our definition of metal is vested in the rules. Take it or leave it. But it will not change. To comment to stop using the site was childish as it gets, but you will fit nicely on myspace with all that self-important attention whores.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:13 pm

To: AZExtremeMetalhead
Only a complete fool would overlook the review for this band.
http://membres.lycos.fr/chaotik2/4/DZ/dz.html

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:23 pm

Now it’s becoming a case of “Witcher vs. Witcher.” Witcher wrote, and I quote him: “We do not have to prove anything about already accepted bands.” What he insists is that a band may not have proof of its existence, and as a mod, Witcher is not obligated provide proof. This is someone who previously said bands must show valid proof of their existence. First you’re contradicting the site’s policies, now you’re contradicting yourself. Again, if there’s no link, a brief note claiming a demo was reviewed in a metal zine means squat. I could say “Released a Demo in 2001, featured in Dark Metal Diabolus zine, Volume 8 Page 2″, but that means nothing without a source. As a matter of fact, “Dark Metal Diabolus zine” doesn’t even exist. And if it did, how could this magazine’s Volume 8 page 2 reference be found? Does this magazine come in a limited pressing, or is it a Geocities fanzine ran by a metalhead in Brazil? With no direct sources, there’s no way to tell. Anyway, please keep posting here, Witcher. The more you post, the more yours and EM’s credibility wanes.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:23 pm

A vague note saying “Released a Demo in 1998? is NOT a valid discography if there’s no songs, no album cover and no links to back it up.

Afgain, you have proven that you know nothing about our rules. When a band has a physical release and we know it or the user can prove it by old fanzines, then it will be accepted. We do not need photo or logo, if he can prove it otherwise or we know the band.
In your case, it was a modern myspace band with no links to distro, no fanzine review, which would prove an existence of physical releae or convincing scan.

You as a user have to convince us about your submission. In no way are we obliged to provide you proofs for already accepted bands. Are you from Mars or what, that you cannot get such simple thing.

7) Proof of existence – must have a PHYSICAL release
An mp3 or two on MySpace or mp3.com-like websites is not enough. The band must have a demo out – this is the minimum. If you want to add your band, and you *know* you will release something soon, simply wait until it’s released before submitting it!
There are different wayxs how to prove it, but as you cansee, Myspace alone is usually not enough.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:27 pm

To: AZExtremeMetalhead
The valid proof of the existence is meant for us, the mods. The users have to provide proof for us, the proofs are not intended for anybody else. Everybody except you is able to understand it.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 12:55 pm

Witcher is basically saying that he, as a mod, has “proof” of a band’s existence, but he doesn’t have to provide this proof to non-EM mods. But if you’re not Witcher or an EM mod, you must not only provide proof of a band’s existence, but proof that is to Witcher’s/EM’s liking. Who knows what that is, since Witcher and other EM mods won’t share their own discreet “proofs”.

A comparison to Witcher’s bizarre mentality would be like me saying I’m a second cousin of Nicolas Sarkozy. I have proof, but I don’t have to share with you. Then, someone else could claim to be a distant relative to George III and have artifacts/genealogy records to prove it, but I could say that’s not reliable evidence and that they need to show something else . Hypocrisy AND dishonesty in tandem.

Witcher, do you have a felt tipped marker? You could write “FAIL” on your forehead now.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:00 pm

Only users who submit bands have to provide proof of their existence. We as a database or the site staff has not to prove anything to anybody. Why should we? The proofs serve our dicisions about bands.

And , yes, we decide if a proof is convincing or not. The proofs are to be supposed to convince us, they have no other purpose.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:02 pm

We do not need any discreet proofs, we do not have to prove anything to anybody. The users have to prove the desired facts to us, all those proofs serve only us, not outside people.

Comment from cody
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:29 pm

Wow, alright, craploads of activity since I last posted. Let’s see how much I can cover on my lunch break.

Witcher – Sorry if I skip over some of your comments, this is the drawback of not having a thread system in place on a blog. Some key points though; I never once said that Slipknot should merely be added to your database because it is popular opinion, my point in making that statement is that Slipknot has become widely accepted within the metal community. Unlike what Metal Dude states, it isn’t simply Rolling Stone Magazine and even Revolver that makes statements that Slipknot is metal, in fact, I challenge you to find an online or physical resource that clearly states Slipknot is NOT metal. Your site is the only one, and this is unfortunate, because yours is the most reputable resource that fans use. I know the Archives are not Wikipedia, but there system of providing ample resources for evidence is key to identifying an accepted truth. Your resource denies based solely on the opinions of a select few, you are an oligarchy, and your decisions influence each and every individual that actively uses your website as a legit resource.

Most in the metal community consider Slipknot metal, the evidence supports that Slipknot is metal. TBAM asked you to explain how Slipknot is not metal, and your response was to proclaim the band “mallcore” and “jumpdafuckup” music which are both unprofessional and luridly elitist terms, not to mention neither of which describe the sound of the music. You also use the term nu-metal which is also a horrible term. I use it on occasion for a lack of a better term, but it’s comparable to using the term grunge. Both are complete misnomers and don’t fairly represent bands. How can you say that Limp Bizkit, Static-X and Linkin Park even resemble Slipknot? The band is not alternative, they are not “mallcore,” they are metal, and until you can justify your opinion, my article still holds all the merit it began with. Now, keep in mind you came on MY site to challenge MY article, so if you say that you don’t feel the need to justify your opinion, then don’t, but it was you who came on here to defend yourself.

I have to get back to work, but I will cover more points when I get home this evening.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:38 pm

Which kind of metal is Slipknot to you then? There is not much difference between them and Static- X. Their sound consists of modern hardcore, alternative bits, industrial and even hip-hop rhytmic influences. There are not thrash,not death, not black metal, not power metal, not doom metal, not traditional metal. There is no Slipknot metal genre. If mainstream publications label them as metal, does not interest us in the slightest. So unless they change their typicl nu-mezal sound and release one metal album from start to finish, which would belong to some valid metal genre, they will not be accepted.
Nu-metal is a regular term, no other is fitting for Slipknot.
You have not justified your opinion at all, you only claim it is metal because you think so and mainstream resources claim so.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:49 pm

To cody: I have proven you wrong in all the other points, so there was not even a sense of publishing such article.
Your obession over Slipknot is scary. Nu-metal is not the be all and all of the universe.
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)
This is understandable for all, so it should be for you. The site will not change because of opinions of nu-metal fans. They have no right to demand such bands included. The talks about metal community are just empty words, you will not see Manowar fans prasing Slipknot. Nu-metal is a negative term, because it defines a style, which is not metal, yet was sold by corporate media as such.

Slipknot are obviously metal just because you say so. Then you are enforcing your opinion on us. We do not force you to stop to listen to them, but will not feature them for reasons above.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:52 pm

To put it simply, Slipknot and similar were rejected for not being metal. You can disagree, but that is the only thing you can do. The rules will not change and Slipknot will not be accepted, unless they release predominantly metal album to our standards, not to your standards, cody.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 1:56 pm

Witcher says: “There is not much difference between them and Static- X. Their sound consists of modern hardcore, alternative bits, industrial…There are not thrash,not death, not black metal, not power metal, not doom metal, not traditional metal.”

Kind of like MINISTRY, who ARE included on EM?

Also, does Witcher think HELLYEAH are thrash, death, black, power, doom or traditional metal? Because HELLYEAH are on EM, and their sound clearly defines the “nu-metal” sound just as any other band pinned as nu-metal.

I’m losing count at the amount of times Witcher is contradicting himself, anybody want to help out with the numbers?

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 2:07 pm

Mimistry are nowadays thrash metal enough based.
And let me tell you something. To badmouth someone behind his back, when you know her cannot defend himself, is one of the lowest acts one can do. Your complete ignorance which you show over and over comes to this.
We consider Hellyeah to be metal enough. They are not nu-metal to us and do not sound like Slipknot at all.
They are some kind of groove/southern metal, wwith onbly some modern influences. When we woould be such elitists, we would not feature them at all, just for their negative reputation. Think, before you write anything.

I have proven that a) You are a cowardly liar
b) Your mental capacity is not enough to comprehend few simple submission rules
c) You are cheeky enough to whine about your deserved treatment.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 2:09 pm

Speaking about contradictions. You have claimed several posts back, that you do not demand Slipknot to be listed. but when it fits you, you are all the rage for it. Interesting.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 2:23 pm

Witcher says: “Speaking about contradictions. You have claimed several posts back, that you do not demand Slipknot to be listed. but when it fits you, you are all the rage for it. Interesting.”

Incorrect, nowhere does it state that I support Slipknot being on the site. You’re either a liar, blind, or extremely delusional. Pointing out that EM accepted nu-metal submissions eventhough there’s a policy against it doesn’t mean I think nu-metal bands or Slipknot should be on the site, it implies that EM’s judgment is contradictory.

Witcher has proved my point – and everyone else’s – about his misguidance, dishonesty, immaturity, vindictiveness and hypocrisy and I don’t think it requires any debate, unless his intention was to just troll this blog.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 2:32 pm

We do not consider the band nu-metal, learn to read. And speak for yourself. You have falsely accused me of rejection your submissions out of spite. You have honestly told you that you are an insultive moron back then on M_A and will will tell it to you now. Once again, only the lowest internet scum insults someone behind his back. You have no rioght to speak about dishonesty.
I have proven wrong everypint you have made, with links to written rules. You are pulling false accusations out of your ass.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 2:41 pm

Cody, me and other users have proven, that all your article is a nonsense and has false statements about several non-metal genre andd their history.
When we leave all that aside, then there are some band names, which you apparently consider metal for some reason, bu we do not. There is nothing to be done about it, you have simply to respect our opinions.
No pathetic proclamations about discrimination and education of young metalheads (we are not the School of Rock”, mind you) will not change anything.
Do not be naive. The only thing that could change our stance would be, if Slipknot would release a metal album to our standards. That has not happened yet.
Otherwise, you cannot reach anything, you can get some written reactions from us, but that is all.

Comment from Nate
Time: December 9, 2008, 3:43 pm

The Chronicles of Metallium: The Lion, the Witcher, and the Wardrobe

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 3:47 pm

Nate, do you seriously think that to say Coldplay are not metal is a sign of terrible elitism?

Comment from Nate
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:19 pm

Who the fuck said anything about Coldplay?

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:24 pm

You said that to say a band is not metal is a sign of elitism, even if it was the truth.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:40 pm

One reason “internet scum” is talking about poor Witcher in a negative light is because of his secrecy – he has no e-mail on his EM profile, so you can’t approach him personally with concerns/disagreements, eventhough he has a leadership role on EM. He uses the EM forums for that instead. However, you will notice there (just like here) that he exhibits a combative nature with users who disagree with him or criticize his philosophies. Example:
http://metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=43664
EM’s overall biases and contradictions aside, Witcher’s behavior is pretty unbecoming/unprofessional for someone in a website leadership role. One productive (but not conclusive) step in improving the credence and integrity of EM is relieving Witcher of his moderator duties.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:50 pm

AZExtremeMetalhead
You are not supposed to e-mail me with complaints, you should use the forum for it. Read the FAQ.
http://www.metal-archives.com/faq.php
Why was band X rejected or deleted?

Please don’t e-mail the webmasters or individual mods about this, chances are they are not the ones who rejected the band in question. There’s a sticky thread dedicated specifically to this question in the suggestions and complaints forum, please post your queries there.
Another proof of your ignorance.
As for proffesional behaviour, if I think you are stupid, I woïl tell it to you. You are constantly being ignorant of our rules and was arguing despite knowing shit about them.
Firthemore, look at the number of the bands I have submitted as a mere user. You have no idea what i have done for the site and still insult me, moron?

Again, you dare to speak about contraditions, when you have been proven wrong? You donot understand anything about the site rules or submission rules, yet you dare to open your mouth here?
Terrible.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:52 pm

As fort the link, do you realize, that what I stated is the official policy, of which I haved reminded the users? Read Morrigan’s comment.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:54 pm

Do you know why i have commented in this thread? It is because of AZExtremeMetalhead and his lies and personal attacks. You claim to be serious cody, yet you have allowed him to insult me here and spead lies about me in his first post. How about that?

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 4:55 pm

Quote:
Agreed with Witcher. Do not post such news tidbits in the additional notes. It is not encyclopedic at all, and this kind of information is doomed to be outdated and will need to be cleaned up.

Comment from Nate
Time: December 9, 2008, 5:54 pm

Witcher: “You said that to say a band is not metal is a sign of elitism, even if it was the truth.”

I, however, said: “to say a band is not metal enough…” — not metal ENOUGH, being the key phrase of the sentence– “…IS an ELITIST comment, whether it’s right or not”.

No one said anything about Coldplay being metal, and they clearly are not. This is for bands where it is commonly argued whether or not they are metal.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 6:01 pm

Nate: Then that is our stance on them. There is nothing elitist in that, we simply do not think we are metal enough.

When such band is not metal enough, as you have stated, then there is nothing terrible in saying it.
Metal database needs rules on what to accept and what to consider metal. They cannot be made by public voting, otherwise it would end up in chaos.
And let me inform you, that there are still millions of people who use our database. Look at Alexa rating. So your comments were just a childish spite or what?

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 9, 2008, 6:24 pm

Witcher dishonesty #407: straw man arguments.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 9, 2008, 6:35 pm

To: AZExtremeMetalhead
Another personal provocation? At least stop talking about honesty, you do not know what it is.

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 9, 2008, 7:06 pm

Wow, talk about repitition.
Let’s get this straight:
1. We understand what the EM rules are
2. We understand that the rules designate what is accepted and what is not
3. We understand that you have said over-and-over that the rules will not be changed.

The problem is, your rules are vague and not clearly outlined. I’ve been in the metal scene a long time and “mallcore” is a new term that has only cropped up in the last few years. As far as I am aware, mallcore is more a brand of post-hardcore than anything (hence the “core”), am I right?

Despite you saying the rules are set and not changable, we are still excercising our right to protest the rules, and protest their validity, which is what this topic is about I am assuming. We aresaying your rules are invalid, and all you seem to be saying is that “the rules are the rules”. Yeah, they’re the rules, but they’re invalid and inapplicable as has been shown in some of the hypocritical additions / exclusions.

E.g. Ministry. Can you PLEASE explain how you arrived at the conclusion that their music is now more thrash-based? Their music is industrial rock. Aside from some technical styles of the drumming (emphasis on all 4 crotchets and not a “back-beat”) I cannot think of anything “metal” in their influences, approach, or style of music.

You have shown that what you consider mallcore is not based on any technical statistics, references, or benchmarks, but based solely on yours and the moderaters designation of the title based ON YOUR OWN TASTES (which is what you are deriding Cody about).

You’re saying that for Slipknot to be included as a metal band they would need to release an album that is consistently metal to be included.

What about Aeternus that have entire folk tracks. Should they be excluded because if you combined all of their folks songs you may have a large percentage of their music that is not metal?

The term “jumpdafuckup” is not a credible term for expressing a musical style, it can be applied to almost any genre of music. Deicide may be a death metal band, but musically, the only difference between the technical listening of their music and Slipknot’s is the drumming and slipknot’s use of melodic vocals. You can say that Slipknot “sounds” like mallcore, that their attitudes are that of “mallcore” but you do not go on to support what your definition of “Mallcore” is.

Papa Roach are a hard-rock/post-hardcore band with elements of hip-hop. That description I used I think more accurately describes the music than the term “mallcore”.

Slipknot are a post-hardcore band with elements of thrash metal, death metal, hard-rock and hip-hop. I think that is an accurate description of the band’s music. Note that they have elements of two styles of metal music. Which would thus include them in being a “metal band”. I would assume.

Mallcore, as Cody has said is a misnomer and does not describe a band’s music aside from alluding to other bands who are more “well known”. For example, you haven’t adequately described what Mallcore is, only referenced other POPULAR bands, so that we are supposed to know what you are talking about because of the popularity of the bands you have listed means that we have heard them (therefor having a reference to what you consider as Mallcore).

However if I had never heard of Papa Roach or the other bands you listed, Mallcore wouldn’t be able to describe anything. It isn’t a genre of music, it’s just word-association.

Anyways, the point about this is that your rules are vague, inapplicable and RELY ON PERSONAL TASTE/OPINION above all.

I am not asking you to change your rules, that is entirely up to you. I am merely pointing out that they are invalid, and that the credibility (or lack therof) attributed to EM should be widely attributed to be fallible and not to be relied on as credible and factual evidence.

That EM is essentially a large database site that includes/excludes it’s files based on personal opinion rather than an applicable and substantiated set of rules.

You say that Slipknot’s genre status should not be influenced by popular opinion. However, in saying that YOU’VE MISSED THE POINT OF WHAT A GENRE IS. Which is a term (when used to reference music) allocated by the masses to adequately and succintly describe a style of music, so that others may be able to accurately get an idea of what a band may sound like before hearing them.

In using genre’s in a journalistic format, especially a database, you need to adequately describe what defines the genre. In doing that (and creating the ruless) all you’ve done is define what Metal ISN’T, but you’ve done that by using OTHER GENRE’s that you also have not defined.

See what I mean when I say, you can have your rules all you want, but they are flawed and not applicable if you want to be considered a credible source.

Do you want to be considered a credible resource?

Comment from cody
Time: December 9, 2008, 7:07 pm

Witcher – Does this look like a forum to you? I moderate based on relevancy and sensibility, anything beyond that is fine with me. If he went off on a diatribe about you, I would have deleted it, but it was one comment he made with your name in it which I honestly didn’t even notice until you brought it up. This is a blog where people can hold freeform discussions and debates as long as they stay relevant and on point, both of which were maintained in AZExtremeMetalhead’s original comments. Sorry if he hurt your feelings, but I am not going to judge him simply because he made comments of a personal nature.

Furthermore, I never once said I was a fan of Slipknot, nor did I ever say that I am a fan of nu-metal. If you browse around my site you’d know I cover a fairly diverse chunk of metal, both mainstream and underground. I am not sure why you choose to come on here and make this personal. I made an opinion on the site you moderate for, which is essentially the entire purpose of blogging, right? If you don’t like it, fine, come on and talk about it and justify your opinion. So far the only thing you have justified is a consistent reiteration of the site’s rules and a condemnation of everything I have said despite it being personal opinion.

I am not a journalist, I am a blogger, there is no where on this site that says I have to maintain some neutrality. Metal-Archives does a disservice to the metal community by being elitist, which you have clearly demonstrated on this blog by not supplying any real reason why certain bands are denied while others are allowed. I have repeatedly asked you to justify your stance and you have consistently dodged the question. My usage of Slipknot as an example is just that, an example, yet you somehow consider me some nu-metal noob who is infatuated with Slipknot.

I’ll give you a thorough examination as to why Slipknot is metal. These are all not concrete definitions of metal, but collectively, they definitely fit the definition of metal:

-Blast beats (example: All Hope Is Gone)
-Progressive rhythms and riffs (example: This Cold Black)
-Double bass (virtually every Slipknot song at one point or another)
-Expanded vocal patterns ranging from harsh vocals to clean harmonies
-Dark atmosphere (example: Til We Die)
-Guitars backed by heavy bass rhythms (most songs)
-Complex drum fills (to deny the drum fills of Joey Jordison, in virtually every song Slipknot has ever done, is sheer ignorance)
-Solos (example: Gematria)

Now, you want genre specific representations? Well, how about these:
-Thrash Metal and Groove Metal (Gematria)
-Progressive Metal (Vermillion Pt. 2, This Cold Black)
-Death Metal (All Hope Is Gone, which isn’t just sectionally death metal, it is death metal in it’s ENTIRETY)

For lack of a better resource, Wikipedia lists nu-metal with the following:

“Nu metal (sometimes named new metal, nü metal or NU-metal for New Urban) is a rock genre that emerged in the mid 1990s which fuses influences from grunge[1] and alternative metal with funk music, hip hop and various heavy metal genres,[2] such as groove metal and industrial metal.

Nu metal music emphasizes mood, rhythm, and texture over melody. Often, nu metal songs use rhythmic, syncopated riffs played on distorted electric guitars with strings detuned to lower pitches to create a dark and thick sound.”

So essentially, the founding principles that govern nu-metal’s definition according to Wikipedia are as follows:

-Hip Hop
-Grunge
-Groove Metal
-Funk
-Alternative Metal
-A focus on mood and rhythm over melody
-Syncopated riffs played with downtuned guitars

That seems like a fairly reasonable definition of nu-metal to me. So let’s compare Slipknot’s latest with these key points:

-Hip Hop (There isn’t one iota of hip hop in All Hope Is Gone, nor any other Slipknot album for that matter)
-Grunge (Beyond downtuned guitar riffs, there isn’t much that can be confused with Seattle based rock, including Alice in Chains and Soundgarden, which are markedly slower and thicker in sound than Slipknot is or ever has been)
-Groove Metal (Definitely alot of groove in Slipknot)
-Funk (I don’t hear very much funk with Slipknot especially with the lack of stereotypical funk bass lines which ARE apparent in proto nu-metallers Faith No More)
-Alternative Metal (Another bizarre descriptor that is as ambiguous as “nu-metal”)
-A focus on mood and rhythm over melody (They definitely have both mood and rhythm, but melody has been a constant on Slipknot albums from the get go)
-Syncopated riffs played with downtuned guitars (I’d agree with this, but numerous other metal bands use this exact same formula)

Do you feel satisfied with this description? Do you disagree? Then please demonstrate it with your own guidelines as to how you judge a metal band, and I don’t mean the generic rules you list on your site, I mean what specifics you use to determine what qualifies as metal.

And finally, I’ll state it again, listing ANY ambient band or other act from forbidden genres (as per your rules) from taking part in the site with the only quantifiable explanation being that they are side projects, is completely hypocritical, it just is, and yet another example of how a very influential website influences people based on the opinions of a select few.

Comment from cody
Time: December 9, 2008, 7:16 pm

TBAM – VERY awesome post man! You summarized my argument quite thoroughly.

Witcher – I like how you judge comments made about you, but the comments posted on your own forums (which was instigated by you, an OFFICIAL of the fucking website) about me and my site are far more harsh. I don’t think I have ever been referred to as a “cunt’ and a “noob” in the same breath before. And no, I am not stalking the EM forums, I can track any hyperlinks directed towards my site.

Comment from Owen
Time: December 9, 2008, 8:23 pm

So you’re complaining that the rules of MA are subjective and not objective…
Okay? Isn’t that essentially the case with any set of rules and regulations? Is there really a scientific basis for considering what is “hard rock” rather than “metal” in certain instances?

Complain all you want, but unless you provide a clearly stated set of rules that is better than the current set rather than nitpicking specific bands which have been allowed or disallowed you aren’t really proving anything and you’re making yourself look like an idiot. Yes, there are double-standards, though not intentional; yes changes are slow to be made, although still made (case being Ministry); yes, the rules are subjective, but that’s unavoidable.

I would address some of the specific arguments made in this thread but I would hope most of the people who made them could address them themselves, as much of it seems like common sense to me.

Comment from cody
Time: December 9, 2008, 10:41 pm

Owen, my article clearly states my opinion. You can’t have a website that claims to be a institution of knowledge on all things metal when it’s foundation is dictated by the whims of a select few. Witchery has clearly stated that those in power don’t need justification for their actions, but the general populace must meet their standards in order to pass muster. If EM isn’t meant to be an objective website, then why make it out to be such? Obviously rules are going to never be perfect, and there will always be those who disagree, but when you disregard certain bands without real rhyme or reason, and simply state that it’s a violation of the rules, that is going to piss people off and convince others that this attitude is justified.

Can you imagine if the Supreme Court suddenly made a ruling making hats illegal saying it violated the rights of non-hat wearers without giving ample evidence to support their claims? People would be angry.

As I have previously stated, EM is a good, solid resource with the biggest outlet of metal bands, and because of that, they need to get beyond a simple fan mentality and become professionals. Using the term mallcore in an official capacity is a joke, and saying that there is no need to justify allowing obscure bands with little to no direct evidence of their existence simply because a mod deems it so, while average users must meet far more stringent guidelines to appease the mods is also a joke, and clearly schoolyard politics. If those in power want to continue as they are, then no one is going to stop them, obviously, but why not try and make the site that much more credible by having a solid foundation?

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 10, 2008, 12:39 am

Simply put, how about this:

How about EM actually attempts to define the genre of metal in a technical sense, instead of stating what Metal Isn’t by referring to other genres that it also refuses to define.

How about EM opens the doors a little bit to include bands that have elements of various metal genres, even if this did include Nu-Metal or Hardcore. Is that such a bad thing?

However, describing Ministry as having elements of thrash metal is entirely inaccurate and would mis-represent them both in any journalistic context or ina review or recommendation to someone who may be interested in purchasing or listening to their music.

Perhaps your rules should be more associated with what IS metal rather than what Isn’t.

Simply stating that Nu Metal is not Metal as one of the rules, seems like a rather stupid and lazy thing to say, wouldn’t you agree? Especially for something on the scale of EM?

I have shown numerous technical and genre related points which substantiate Slipknot as having elements of metal in their music. Yet Witcher brushes this off with a “They are Nu Metal and the rules state that we don’t allow Nu Metal”, yet you include bands that are predominantly unrelated to metal, yet may have elements of metal music E.g. Ministry. Ministry are a hard-rock / industrial band. You state that those genre’s are not metal either, yet they are still included.

You say that if something isn’t “metal enough” then it will not be accepted. However again, you haven’t defined what metal is to make that judgement.

The genre of Metal is encompassing of many sub-genres. There is no “metal enough” with genres. You are either considered as having elements of a metal genre(therefor coming under the umbrella of metal) in your music, or you don’t.

Pantera were predominantly a “southern-styled” hard-rock band with elements of thrash, groove and hardcore. Technically, very little of what they do is “metal”. They are more hardcore and groove orientated in many points than metal. Yet they are a metal band, am I right?

If you took away their elements of thrash metal, then they would no longer be a metal band technically. However due to the inclusion of this element in their song-writing and style of music, they are a “metal band”

See how easy I did that?

You want to exclude Papa Roach because they are Nu Metal. Not good enough, here’s why they should be excluded:

BECAUSE THEY ARE A HARD ROCK BAND WITH ELEMENTS OF POST-HARDCORE, AND HIP-HOP.

There’s no mention of metal in their elements. SO THEY ARE NOT A METAL BAND.

How easy was that?

Yet, your mate witcher and the EM site goes the lazy and elitist route in saying “that’s nu-metal so it’s not included”.

Some Nu-Metal bands ARE METAL BANDS.

Machine Head are a metal band because they are essentially a hardcore punk band with a large element of thrash metal and groove. Although at times they have employed elements of hard-rock and hip-hop. However their music has always had elements of thrash metal. THEREFOR THEY ARE A METAL BAND.

Wow, I could keep going.

See how easily it is to include / exclude bands without personal opinion?

Dillinger Escape Plan, another band that is excluded. Instead of just calling them a band with more origins in hardcore how about:

Dillinger Escape Plan is a post-hardcore band with elements of grindcore, jazz and a fringe in experimental technicality aptly described as “mathematic” in it’s approach. No mention of metal…so…
THEY’RE NOT A METAL BAND.

Wow, see?

Give me another band, let’s go. See you can classify, include or exclude bands into the metal genre without being an egotystical elitist jerk can’t. Yet EM still rests on the laurels of referring to other undefined genres as to what is NOT metal rather than adequately defining what IS metal.

Wow, here’s another one:
Led Zeppelin. They are a rock and roll band with elements in progressive composition and experimental sounds, and an emphasis on powerful groove orientated beats. No mention of metal.

WOW, so they must not be a metal band then, SURPRISE SURPRISE.

Excuse me for being condescending, but it’s really getting ridiculous, when you keep mentioning the same tripe again and again about rules, as though the website would collapse entirely if there was a re-working or a leniancy applied to what is considered Metal.

At the end of the day, you’re excuses only stand up if the website is considered a personal opinion website, representative of the members’ personal tastes. Which it does not.

It represents itself as an encyclopaedia of metal music. That does not to me suggest personal opinion, or rules moderated by people’s personal interpretation of what different genres are.

So why don’t you step up, and try and bring some longevity to your project before someone actually spends the time to create a worthwhile archive for metal that is not so elitist.

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:12 am

Here’s a harder one to do:
Anathema:
They are now a hard-rock band with elements of folk, progressive composition and an emphasis on sorrow/anguish and ambience. They originally were a slow-paced death-metal band with an emphasis on despair/sorrow/anguish often considered “Doom Metal” and contained elements of progressive composition, folk and rock.

So, technically, they were a metal band, but are not anymore. This would then entitle them to be considered under archives for metal, but not a current representation of metal.

Fear Factory:
Fear Factory are a thrash metal band with a heavy if not prevalent emphasis on groove and industrial stylings. They contain elements of death metal and hard-rock as well as experimental sounds centred on industrial machinations and soundscapes.

As they have elements (primary) of metal. Fear Factory are a metal band.

I am posting this just to further emphasise how easy it is to apply an unbiased and technically accurate classification of a band into a musical genre. That being Metal.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:49 am

TBAM: That what you posdt are you own definitions. Minor elements of metal in Slipknot songs do not make them predomnantly metal.
As for Anathema, you do not get our rules at all. They are no longer metal, but are listed because they had some metal releases in the past.
The website has rules set up by users. The decisions are made within the scope of the rules. That is not elitism, those are the principles for band inclusions set up by the owners.
Ministry are not a hard rock band, you are using very strange terms.
Papa Roach are not a hard rock band, they have nothing in common with seventies hard rock, or eighties hard rock as Poison or Guns N Roses.

How about EM opens the doors a little bit to include bands that have elements of various metal genres, even if this did include Nu-Metal or Hardcore. Is that such a bad thing?
Yes, it certainly is.
As fot the definition of mertal, that is not a purposye of the site, The purpose is to be a database, not a genre definition service. The users should know the metal genres by themselves, wweexpect it and nobody will teach them.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 11:35 am

WITCHER IN HIS OWN WORDS ABOUT ENCYCLOPAEDIA METALLUM:

***”The info is as accurate as possible.” – Witcher****

“As accurate as possible” means not completely accurate, thus inaccurate. You’re either accurate or you’re not. This admission of Witcher is thus quite telling.

***”We then demand more proofs as scans of the physical releases, links to distros that carry it or a review in established fanzine, which menrtions the type of releasse.” – Witcher***

That’s funny – remember the vague EM band page links I posted here that Witcher defended? There were no “scans of physical releases” on them, no links to the distros or the fanzines, just vague notes claiming such. Another case of Witcher talking from both sides of his mouth. But then, the same rules don’t apply to Witcher when he says:

***”we do not have to prove anything to anybody…Yes, the demos are in additinal notes, but they are valid physical demos. We do not have to prove anything to the users about them.” – Witcher***

Is there really need for any more debate? Witcher proved his dishonesty and contradictions about EM, we didn’t have to. And he could only resort to staw man arguments and namecalling/insults when he’s cornered. Case closed.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 11:37 am

*straw man arguments. I suggest you find out what those are, Witcher. They’re a type of logical fallacy – i.e., your reasonings.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:37 pm

AZExtremeMetalhead – Your idiocy physically hurts. We do not have top prove anything about already accepted bands. Why should we? The rules speak about proofs, that the users should provide. Users, not moderators, not the site stuff, not everybody else. Only users that submit bands. The proofs can be different, but all are prësented to us. Already accepted bands do not need any links, often there are no links and wer know them from magazines, which kiddies like you have not seen in their life.
However, when we demand a proof from you, you are obliged to provide it. You are the user who submits bands, so you have to provide concincing proof to us.
Aa accurate as possible – nohing in the world is completely accurate. Mistakes can happen, but we try to cerrect them.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:40 pm

AZExtremeMetalhead- Users have to convince us, that a band has physical releases. We do not have to convince the users about anything. Will it finally get into your thick skull . And stop playing butthurt victim. You were tolds to shut up back them because you have demostrated your indolence in the same style as here.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:44 pm

http://www.metal-archives.com/guidelines.php
Read the rules
There is nothing about the need of proving anything about already accepted bands for users.
It is the users who have to provide scans for modern myspace bands, because there is no guarantee, that they have physical releases. Otherwise, a link to distro is enough. But it is up to us to decide what is proof enough. You have always to convince us.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:50 pm

cody . we do not have to justify anything about the accepted bands. Why should we? To whom, to you? You have no right to make such demands. Do you understand, that we know many nbands from old fanzines? Bands that were never on the internet? We feature band about which we know, that they had a physical release. The users should provide proofs to us, they are the ones that submit bands.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 1:57 pm

Witcher, you’re full of shit. AND five people here – including myself – have proved with evidence that you (and EM) are full of shit. What part of “you’re full of shit” don’t you understand? What is your goal in posting here?

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:01 pm

“while average users must meet far more stringent guidelines to appease the mods”
All? users must provide the needed proofs about submitted bands. If you do not understandd that, then you do not understand our rules at all.
It would not be more professional to allow every band, just because a user says they have a release.
Besides that, that you have a strange opinion on what is metal and what is not does not make you more professional. You do not agree with our opinion on certain bands and call us elitist because of that. How pathetic.
The bands wre rejected because we do not consder them metal. As simple as that.
Morrigan and Hellblazer have created the site, written the rules and pay for it. They have all the right to decide,where to draw a line. It is their website, not your and you have no right to demand to have some bands accepted, just because you consider them metal and they do not.
That is not elitism, every site owner can decide, what he will publish and what not.
If you would read the rules, you would see, that nobody forces you to agree with us, but to respect the site principles. You can consider Britney Spears to be metal, if you want. But do not expect it to get listed.
And to speak about people, who pay their own money for a metal resource, as oligarchs is quite disgusting.
They are the owners, they can set up the rules. You are not, you cannot have any demands toward the written rules. You can do what you want on your site, but not elsewhere.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:06 pm

AZExtremeMetalhead : I am full of shit?? You have proven nothing, only that you are a butthurt trol. You have proven nothing.I and other have proven, that the article is incorrect, that cody does not know the difference betwen ambient and metal, that you are not able to understand the written rules even after the fifth repetition?

Furthemore, you have spread lies about me. In real life, you would kick your little teenage ass for that. Here I can only show to others, what a little backstabbing prick you are.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:09 pm

Peregrinus_sine_aetate anmd Crone of War have proven, that you all here need serious musical education and reading comprehension training.
Cody himself alsonedds to lay off conspiration theories about Metal Archives oligarchs trying to violate poor Slipknot kiddies and to take over the metal scene.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:10 pm

Second, cody, I am disppointed of you. Not have yo u said anything to the fact, that the users made personal attacks towards me in the first place, you even defend him. And you speak about professionality. Sad.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:19 pm

The discussion has really no sense. Me and others have said what they wanted towards the article and the nonsensical claims in it, but you are not able to listen. I have prresented links to official rules, yet one troll here still insults me, even if there is valid evidence to support my claims. That troll is not able to understand the side project rul, our submission rules and yet he still cries that he has proven something about me. How about when I would say, that I should organize a hacker attack on your blog. You would you like such claims.
Cody, you react only on the claims you like you havbe not even bothered to explain, why you have included ambient and industrial in youtr article, two non-metal genres. Why did You include a hardcore band like Dillinger and so on.

If your elitism is directed towards the fact, that some of your favourite band s were rejected, then let me tell you, that thhis is because the site owners do not consider them metal. They have different opinion. That does not make them elitist.
And it will never change since the website is owned by them. They can do what they want with it. It is their property.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:25 pm

Sorry, Witcher. You can insult me and everyone else all you want, but you can’t run away from what you wrote here … I quoted YOU, and YOU contradicted yourself, dumbfuck.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:26 pm

Last addendum. Cody, if you would make a list of bands here, saying, Metal Archives rejected them, but I personally feel they are metal, nobody would say a word. We do not agree, but you are entitled to your opinion.
But when you start to write about ambient, industrial and hardcore punk as a genres which are unjustly refused, then t is laughable. The same goes for your conspiracy theories about Metal Archives oligarchy and such. You apparently read too much books on freemasonry and the Illuminati.

As for the bands, think what you want. You are allowed to listen to what you want and write what you want even about nu-metal. But you article will not change anything

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:31 pm

AZExtremeMetalhead : I have not contradicted myself, it is only you who are notr able to understand the presented evidence. What ever I have said, you have repeated yourself like a cockwork toy.
You jhave quote me and proven that you are not able to understand even a bit of wehat I have written.
To speak to you has no sense, you are on your little personal vendetta for our Metal Archives forum.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:33 pm

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.

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:36 pm

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.)

Comment from AZExtremeMetalhead
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:38 pm

*lack of IMpartiality

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:40 pm

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.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 2:45 pm

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.

Comment from Nate
Time: December 10, 2008, 3:08 pm

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.

Comment from Witcher
Time: December 10, 2008, 3:37 pm

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.

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 10, 2008, 6:03 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: December 11, 2008, 1:13 pm

Sorry AZ, that last comment was a bit over the line, had to delete.

Comment from WonderPat
Time: December 17, 2008, 11:51 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: December 18, 2008, 12:59 am

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.

Comment from CARTER
Time: December 18, 2008, 1:08 pm

owned

Comment from TBAM
Time: December 18, 2008, 6:17 pm

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?

Comment from WonderPat
Time: December 19, 2008, 12:41 am

“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!
* 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 Also, there is a difference between prog rock and prog METAL. We’ve even had near-mallcore bands listed as such.
* 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.

Comment from Tenho
Time: December 19, 2008, 2:34 pm

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.

Comment from coled24
Time: December 24, 2008, 11:18 pm

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.

Comment from lowb5str
Time: December 25, 2008, 3:12 am

“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.)

Comment from Albert Mond
Time: February 3, 2009, 4:35 am

“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.

Comment from Lyrici17
Time: February 27, 2009, 11:58 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: February 28, 2009, 1:58 am

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.

Comment from BitchBoyOldGuyMallwareNuMetalGuy
Time: March 1, 2009, 12:09 am

MA does not accept this, that, the other thing…etc. etc. snore, yawn…

Comment from MetalCrusader
Time: March 2, 2009, 6:32 am

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.

Comment from cody
Time: March 2, 2009, 9:40 am

*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.

Comment from MetalCrusader
Time: March 3, 2009, 1:05 am

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.

Comment from Dudeeemadudbomb
Time: March 3, 2009, 4:15 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: March 3, 2009, 8:36 pm

“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.

Comment from Norman
Time: March 6, 2009, 4:57 pm

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.

Comment from Ad
Time: March 9, 2009, 4:46 pm

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.

Comment from Dadadadunnnn
Time: March 17, 2009, 6:43 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: March 18, 2009, 12:33 am

Why do all of you think I am getting worked up about this? It’s called a dissenting opinion, get over it.

Comment from CosmicKeys
Time: March 18, 2009, 7:43 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: March 18, 2009, 8:00 pm

CosmicKeys – Thanks for agreeing with me!

Comment from AegnorB
Time: March 18, 2009, 8:12 pm

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?

Pingback from Encyclopaedia Metallum – The Purge Has Begun! | All Metal Resource
Time: May 27, 2009, 5:17 pm

[...] 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 [...]

Comment from matt
Time: June 5, 2009, 6:30 pm

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…

Comment from nwg92
Time: July 2, 2009, 10:25 am

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.

Comment from xioxio9
Time: July 14, 2009, 2:12 pm

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.

Comment from Tim
Time: July 16, 2009, 1:32 pm

Between the Buried and Me is definently not Metalcore. It’s Progressive/Melodic Death and they aren’t in EM.

Explain that one chief.

Comment from coled24
Time: July 31, 2009, 12:36 am

I just realized that this Witcher guy put classified Mastodon as “Metalcore.” Um… thats just wrong.

Comment from matt
Time: August 7, 2009, 5:52 pm

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.

Comment from cody
Time: August 8, 2009, 12:20 am

Matt – I concur, that’s all I have to say in response.

Comment from CTA
Time: October 5, 2009, 3:04 am

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?

Comment from Andy
Time: October 18, 2009, 6:19 pm

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.

Comment from Annonymes
Time: October 18, 2009, 8:29 pm

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!!!

Comment from cody
Time: October 18, 2009, 11:22 pm

your name is spelled wrong