I agree with 90% of the opinions of the staff...

Although Soundgarden and Alice In Chains aren't metal bands. A couple of metal songs doesn't make a metal band..

That also applies to "alternative metal" (which doesn't exist) inclusions like Faith No More, who are an alternative band, not metal...

I think this site has plenty of bands that are more hard rock than metal. I also think that more popular borderline bands are more likely to be rejected than less popular borderline bands. I have a funny feeling that if Five Finger Death Punch or Soulfly just debuted with their latest offerings, and were underground bands, they would pass under the radar. But hey, I'm not a sorcerer, so maybe they wouldn't; I'd rather see the aforementioned hard rock bands on the site, like Deep Purple or Thin Lizzy, anyway.

Both Soundgarden and Alice in Chains have metal albums (Facelift, for example), otherwise they would not be here. If you disagree - your problem and your opinion. But nothing will be changed just because you disagree.

They are not listed as alternative metal here, as you have correctly stated, such valid subgenre does not exist.

If alternative metal does not exist, what should a (hypothetical or not) band that fuses alternative rock and heavy metal be called?

No, Metal Archives does not truly define what metal is. I do. I have my opinion on what is metal and what is not. I like to use Zao as an example since they are one of my favorite bands. I consider them metal and to throw them in the category as their first couple of albums is incredibly inaccurate. I define what is metal and I suggest that everyone do the same for themselves.

They will be listed as heavy metal with alternative influences or something along these lines.

Seems like a longer way of saying alternative metal, but since there are so few bands like that which make it on the site I can see why you'd shy away from making it it's own genre, I guess.

I didn't say Alice In Chains and Soundgarden were "alternative metal"...

I also wasn't intending to change anything nor did I give the impression I did...I was merely stating my opinion, as everyone else is doing in this thread...

Metal Archives doesn't define what metal is; it catalogs information and reviews of bands that fit within the definitions of certain genres held by the people who made it. It is made by people; therefore, those people define what to include or not. As for presenting factual info and being encyclopedic, it does/is: it gives the same info for all bands included, if available. As for exclusion, well, it's run by people again, so they can include or exclude whatever the hell they want. I don't see how that makes it very biased. They have to draw the line somewhere, and that somewhere will always seem arbitrary to some.

Personally, because I listen to bands that are and are not metal, I don't particularly give a shit that some bands I like aren't on the archives. I don't make the rules, and even if I did, who cares? I can't speak for the owners, but I imagine that they never sought out to "define metal," they probably created the site to, you know, archive information on bands in certain genres.

Stating your opinion can easily cause hysteria on the S and Q forum and an increase of questions that were explained before. They were accepted for the reasons above. The purpose of this thread is other then to list bands that should be rejected or accepted.

Metal Archives does not define anything, they are a database/listing of metal bands.
It defines what is considered to be metal only for its own use and purposes.

"hysteria" ...

I advise you to close the thread then old boy seen as most of the posts are people giving forth opinions or have you not seen anything before this page?

They are giving opinions, but not on the original question. They are turning it into a discusson about rejected or accepted bands.

Only a forum moderator can close the thread by the way.

this site is not the definitive decider on what is and isn't Metal, it's a database for fans to add bands to that are Metal so it's easier to find shit, that's really all. the site has their definition of what is and isn't Metal so it's easier to categorize, but in the end it us up to us, the fans, and the actual bands to decide.

i mean look at the already mentioned Soundgarden/Alice in Chains, 1 album makes them Metal? while Praying Mantis, a player of the NWOBHM who were quite well known and actually played Metal are excluded? see i think that's dumb as fuck and wrong on so many levels, but that's just how this site defines what's Metal. am i now gonna go around thinking Soundgarden/Alice in Chains are Metal just cause this site says they are? fuck no, but i'll still probably use their page if i wanna check out shit on them. MA is a resource, nothing more



uhhhhh....those 3 bands are some of the better selling Death Metal acts in the world, where the hell did you get that shit? poor sales? Covenant is like one of the best selling Death Metal albums of all time. Blind Guardian ain't got shit on them. though i agree with the fact that it's the fans who decide what is what

Oh, well thanks for that. Not like I knew that already or anything...

...and didn't you used to be a moderator on here? or do you have some other field of power?

Of course they don't define what bands are Metal and which aren't.

For one, they include some bands that aren't really that Metal.

For two, they exclude some bands that are pretty damn Metal.

Is this a problem? Yeah, a small one, but the service that the site provides more than makes up for a few discrepancies. Besides, if you want to look up information on a Metal band that MA doesn't include, there are usually other sources for that information.

Not every database moderator is also a forum moderator. Those are two separate functions.

This thread some what surprised me. I did expect it at some point to become a debate about why x is rejected and y accepted though. I expected more people to consider it an authority on metal, especially with some other posts and threads made by people.

Personally I do agree with about 90% of the staff and their decisions. However, I do personally feel that the site does have some degree of bias, especially omitting newer genres of metal. My stance is if you want an "Encyclopedia" you must include all genres of metal. Just because you don;t like a genre doesn't mean you should exclude it.

However I do respect the site for drawing a line, and largely sticking to it over the 8 years its been around. It is geared to the older style metal fan, which is what I am, and I appreciate it and respect it.

After the bass player or whatever he was For Slipknot passing away I found myself getting into a rather cognizant debate as to why Slipknot are not, never were nor never will be metal to any self-respecting metal head, especially those born before 1995. They may not agree, but I won the argument even if I used lesser points simply because well let' s face it they aren't

Alright, alright, to whoever was saying that the fans decide what is, and what isn't metal, this may be a bit of an extreme example, but it is logical nonetheless, if a bunch of people were to come around, claiming that, lets say The Jonas Brothers, or something in that general field, are metal, that all of the sudden makes them metal? There's a reason there are a lot of bands that are denied, metal may not all sound the same, in fact, most of it is miles away from what it was when it first began. But it all has the same basic sound, I see people saying that bands like this Praying Mantis were big influences on the metal scene, and apparently played actual metal, but aren't on here. And then they're complaining about bands like Alice In Chains, Thin Lizzy, and Deep Purple, all of whom have HUGE similarities to Traditional Heavy Metal and the like. My point is, you do have to draw the line somewhere, or else you might as well just throw in all the hard rock bands, and shit like that. Because, I mean, there's probably someone, somewhere, who thinks The Darkness were metal as fuck, or that Hinder are totally metal. I, myself, personally think this site is as about as close as we're ever going to get to a proper Encyclopedia of metal.

What is the definition of metal? It depends on who you ask, but the merged opinions of Metal Archives' staff creates official site policy, and official site policy disagrees with just about any other specific individual to some degree or another.

In fact, most people classify metal by perceived heaviness to the degree they classify music as metal at all. If we accept all "heavy" music while keeping very light power/prog stuff, our definition of metal soon encompasses so much it's almost nonsensical.

Currently, there is a definite connecting factor between the albums which qualify bands as "metal", and the strength of the policy is built on this consistency insofar as it exists. It is flawed even according to the factors by which it is judged (humans are imperfect) and there are blatant exceptions (hi Rush!), but mods will engage in honest, reasoned debate and accepting management whims is part of participating here.

Most of those who demand a specific band be added by saying they are "metal" according to the Archives' definition usually don't understand the admittedly complex set of norms by which staff judge music. What they are really doing is asking for a modification to the criteria MA staff use - asking for a change which would break the current system without actually proposing a new comprehensive, agreeable replacement.

In conclusion, I really really like the stuff staff thinks makes music metal (even if I don't like all music which uses it) so I think the current policy should stay.

Ignore him, he's just using this thread as an excuse to bring up his usual anti-death metal/pro-"art" metal stance. Citing sales as an indicator of superiority is a bit more retarded than he usually gets, but not hugely out of line considering the fact that he's never really not retarded.

Edit: double post, sorry.

That's your opinion, dude. I partly agree with it, but it isn't a fact. That's why we have threads like this.

However, I don't agree with your belief that "no self-respecting metalhead" would ever consider them to be metal. Opinions can't be used as definitions of people. I agree with your overall point that they aren't metal, because they don't really have a sound that I consider to be "founded" in metal aesthetics. But opinions are still just opinions.

And to be honest, I don't consider Deep Purple or Thin Lizzy to be definitively metal either. Sure I love both bands, but I'm not sure it can objectively proved that they are more metal than, well, bands such as the aforementioned Slipknot, or even System of a Down. I'd characterise Purple and Lizzy as hard rock. The latter two aren't so easy as they have heavy guitars but lack a strong connection to the genre's pioneers. Is this right though? Should we exclude alternative "metal" that sounds very similar to heavy metal while allowing hard rock that borderlines on metal?

Hell, it might be fun for bands like that to be on the archives, if only to see all of the reviews ripping them (especially Slipknot, or god forbid, Limp Bizkit) apart brutally.

In all seriousness, I'm still undecided about the entire issue.

Fear Factory have strong industrial influences but they're still here, for instance.

I don't see MA as defining metal, although I agree with the inclusions/exclusions for the most part. Metal has become such a vague term by now, at the time being pretty much heavier rock, it has ventured across a lot of borders now. So what is metal and what isn't? In the end, there are so many blurred lines there is not the answer, the line about it, and they did what they had to do, draw a line and stay consistent within the rules and borders they choose to make. So I respect them for keeping their consistency, so we know what to expect from the archives instead of being some kind of large soup you don't even know what it tastes. If they'd include whatever can be slightly related to metal - even if they included all of deathcore and nu-metal people would still be bitching about Kiss and the likes - you'll end up with an incredible amount of non-metal or barely metal bands, if there's 2567 goth bands, you can guess how much bands they may be excluding, how much more database moderating trouble to be.

On a side note, what I do find funny, is MA being denounced as elitists by many people. By saying which bands should be included - for whatever reasons, be it their encyclopedic nature or how they think they are restricting - they in turn, say that their point of view on the subject is the right one, because it is not restrained. So the funny part, is that they are actually having an elitist point of view since they claim to know the truth.

The only thing I find weird about the MA is its stance on grindcore. When is grindcore metal enough? Insect Warfare is pure grind, no deathgrind or goregrind. So is mumakil, agorophobic nosebleed e.t.c. yet they are not on here. It seems a bit hit and miss, some are here, some are not.

I would never claim to be an expert on grindcore, I have only started listening to it recently, but it all definitely seems metal enough to be here. I know its an offshoot of punk, but I find myself listening to shitloads of grindcore when I'm in a death metal mood, because its so similar.

So I think it should either all be included, or all excluded, and seeing as napalm death, carcass, impetigo e.t.c. are all equally important to metal as to grindcore they should all be here. Would make grindcore discovery easier anyhow

The line has to be drawn somewhere and I think the site made a good decision on where to place it. Think about it this way, if 'nu metal' bands like koRn, Slipknot, Ill Nino, Mudvayne were accepted then we would get a new kind of kiddie fanbase on here crying out for bands like Green Day and Rage Against the Machine to be listed here.

Most people who consider 'nu metal' to be metal aren't even aware of bands like Mayhem, Burzum, Death, Kreator, basically anything that is not found on regular radio stations. This is cause they just go by what the media considers to be metal and it is the heaviest stuff they are familiar with so it must be metal in their minds.

There is too much of a dichotomy over the quality of nu metal bands between metalheads (the sites defintiion of metal) and 'nu metalheads' (for lack of a better term) to include nu metal on this site. The forums would just be a bunch of bickering between fans of 'nu metal' and 'real metal'.

On the issue of grindcore I don't care for the genre, and it has remained underground so I am not subjected to it on a daily basis but from what I have heard with pornogrind a lot of it is just noise with no musical structure which I would not consider metal.

No matter where the line is drawn there will always be people who disagree. Not everyone can be pleased.

A strange way of looking at it. I think the average groove metal or melodic death metal fan has a very different idea of quality compared to most of the guys around here, but that music still makes it on.

I think nu metal just ain't metal, and this site is trying to be factual.

Insect Warfare is Dobber Beverly's side project.
The stance on grindcore is clear and explained in the guidelines.

It will not be changed, because for you subjectively are all such bands metal. They are not. The original grindcore was an extreme form of hardcore punk, so what you say is also historically incorrect. Later on, some bands started to incorporate metal elements and became close enough to death metal and therefore acceptable. Some, not all bands.
Besides that, the page is a database of metal bands, not a recommendation central for all aggressive music styles.

Yeah, good point. I had not thought of that. Bands with core influences like Lamb of God seem to attract a different kind of fan though I don't think they attract nearly as many as 'nu metal' would so it is quite manageable. Also a lot of bands that get lumped together with Lamb of God like Bullet for my Valentine aren't accepted here so there isn't a heavy influx of their fans.

I hope MA version 2 makes side projects a little more obvious for being the reason they exist on this site.

What about metalcore? I believe that evolved out of core/punk styles moreso than out of metal. Is it considered a metal genre so that all metalcore bands are 'metal enough' for MA or do they have to be judged on an individual basis? Sorry for being ignorant if this info is in a FAQ or sticky hidden somewhere.

Not all metalcore makes it on here. In fact a huge chunk, perhaps even most, don't.

Yeah, just wondering why that is. Say there's a metalcore album with 40% metal, 60% -core, standing next to a black metal album with 40% metal and 60% ambient. Would the black metal one be more acceptable because black metal is a fully-fledged metal genre?

Read Choosing Death, or better yet learn to read. None of those bands met sales expectations with their albums, all were subsequently dropped.



Hahahahaha, no, Blind Guardian is orders of magnitude better than that circular plastic turd of a record.

If something's more ambient then metal, it'll find itself rejected too. Of course, this boils down to mod opinion where to draw the line.

Metalcore evolved in the early eighties, when the contemperory hardcore bands started to include metal riffs in their music. Arguebly the most important bands of this genre are Botch and Converge. The style has degraded immensely since it's inception, and very few bands play it now. The related style "mathcore" that evolved in the late 90's almost exclusvely because of The Dillinger Escape Plan is the closest you'll get to true metalcore.

If you're thinking of modern metal bands, then you're thinking of melodic metalcore. Don't let the name fool you, as they are totally different genres. Where metalcore evolved out of Hardcore, melodic metalcore evolved out of melodic death metal and melodic hardcore (and to an extent, post-hardcore). While a hardcore influence is obvious in most of these bands, I've yet to see anyone actually define what the hardcore elements are. The only thing melodic metalcore seems to always have is melodies akin to swedish melodic death metal. Everything after that is more or less circumstantial. Vocals can be anything, tempo can be anything, song structure can be anything. Breakdowns are in the music, just like in all other music, but it is further pronounced since these bands don't use typical breakdowns, but rather mospit beatdowns, usually. Not always.

I've seen a lot of pure ambient bands on here. As in: no black metal, no METAL whatsoever. Same with a lot of neofolk bands as well.

I forgot to mention that mods make exceptions for bands they feel are somehow tied to metal culture. Van Canto is a non-ambient example, although many do happen to be ambient.

The mods also allow side projects, which may or may not be ambient.

No, they would both be judged the same.

A very good point, but I think the decision making process could be tempered with common sense - in this I mean that bands that are very obviously more pronounced with metal than any other genre style would be included. I mean - Temple Of the Dog, metal? No, but I believe they're on here. In comparison, Slipknot is a million times heavier than TOTD, and yet they're (quite literally) discriminated against. One has to wonder how much of a role sheer rebellion to public opinion plays on what is included here...though I'm probably stretching it a bit with that particular accusation.

Huh?

Eh....it can be verified that System Of A Down or Slipknot are much heavier than more than a few bands included here.