This is a question I have been pondering for a while. I want to get to know what the users on this forum think. Metal Archives famously excludes certain genres of what most people would call metal from its lists. Do people today largely agree with the Archives as to what metal is? Or do people disagree?

I am not suggesting that this thread become a debate about whether excluded genres should be included, just merely whether users think the Archives define metal or not.

I think the line is fairly blurred in some cases. While I take the Archives' stance pretty strongly, I still consider some bands metal that the site doesn't.

I think for the most part they've got it right. A democratic MA would be horrible. Metal is a large and nebulous genre with heaps of different definitions, so considering how hard the task of cataloging it is, they've done pretty OK.

Having said that, it's not like MA's defined metal. I think the general drama with the acceptance rules and whatnot shows just how hard it is to define.

Yes, after pouring over the site for half a decade, you start to see the reasoning behind all the decisions, even the ones you don't care for. It certainly represents a consistent attitude towards the nature of metalness which continues to ring true in all major respects.


Can't think of anything which is excluded but shouldn't be, and the things included that shouldn't be are ever purged and narrowed.

Sure, MA is as good a functioning definition of metal as is out there.

It doesn't really claim to be a definition of metal, but I would say that it's pretty close to being dead on (although I find it a little hard on deathcore, a little soft on drone). It is one of the more precise summary's of what metal is, and it does provide a good starting point if you want to define the genre.

Edit: And as Ice_As_Steel said, you're not going to find a better one anywhere.

I think this site is an excellent guide to the vast majority of metal - but no, it does not define it. And I don't agree with all kinds of subgenre's being excluded (even if I don't like them - I think that if you're going to state that you're a comprehensive metal site, much less an Encyclopedia: EVERYTHING under that blanket should be there), but like anything else - this place isn't my house, I don't make the rules, so it doesn't really bother me. I just like to come here to read other people's takes on things and what bands are buzzing in the metal public's ear, etc. It's a cool place.

Are you talking about the bands selected for admission to MA, or the discussion on the forums? I think the actual archives is pretty accurate, while I disagree with some people on the forums on early metal and the first metal bands. I also consider metalcore more 'core' than metal, but i'm not even sure whether the archives considers metalcore a subgenre of metal.

Basically, this.

No matter what resource you use, you're always going to find some bias on what is metal and what isn't. I think metal archives delves pretty well into appreciating the lesser known artists we call metal, but a lot of popular bands (especially in the metalcore scene) don't get recognized much here.
I'd say that for the most part, I agree with what metal archives thinks is metal, buuuuuuuuutttttttttttt...... OCEANO IS METAL YOU IDIOTS.
I must say that I have my qualms with some of the instances of what is and what isn't metal here.

i have yet to find a band which i think deserves on the archives but has been rejected.

yeah, I used to disagree with a few exclusions, but now I don't think there's anything that really annoys me.

While I find MA extremely strong source of info and actually best ever site of all on web, I still consider it incomplete especially with many old-school bands. I just cannot understand that we have here Black Sabbath and missing Van Halen. I cannot understand we have here Def Leppard and missing AC/DC. I cannot understand we have here Dokken and missing Tesla. And the statements that Def Leppard are here cos their debut is considered HM or same claim for Motley Crue...gimme a break! Was AC/DC´s "For those about to rock" or "Flick of the switch" reagge? Sure not , heavy stuff as hell. Some of NWOBHM stuff sounds like kiddies lullabyes comparing to this. So for me MA is the best of the best, yet incosistent.

But you see, what if the blanket is incorrect. The idea of the archives is that everything that fits under the metal blanket fits there, the question is about the definition of the blanket itself, the archives are not excluding things which they think apply, they are excluding things they don't. Prog Archives is an example of a site which has gone for the democratic "Everything that people say fits under the blanket" and know their archive is filled with hundreds of non prog bands. I think the exclusion of many of these clearly non-metal genres is a good thing, I think it actually makes what we do select seem more respectable and trustworthy than it would be if we just took anything anyone has ever applied a tag to.

For the most part MA does a pretty good job of deciding what to go on there. There are a few bands like Ted Maul who I think deserve to be here but got deleted or rejected, and maybe one or two who I don't think should be on here but are, but in general this site does very well and I'm very satisfied with and grateful for the service it provides.

Well, what if the archive is incorrect? This could be argued until all turn blue, but anyone can see that bands like Anal Cunt, Slipknot, and the hair metal from the 80's have metal elements (or by a good % of society are considered metal), and yet they aren't included in something that's supposed to be an "Encyclopedia". Encyclopedia's are there to offer information, not judge it. Just my 2 pennies.

Encyclopaediae are there to offer correct information.

AC/DC is pure rock. There is nothing metal about them. The closest is that some NWOBHM bands was influenced by them.
And how can you even begin to compare Black Sabbath with Van Halen? Or pretend to not know that Mötley Crüe - Shout at the Devil is anything but pure heavy metal.

Which is very difficult with music genres because very few of them are actually distinct enough that you can make an actual definition.
Metal is a genre that is extremely difficult to define, unlike country or contemporary classical.
Therefore, I, like a few others around here, feel that any music that is generally considered metal - that includes melodic metalcore, nu-metal, groove metal and so on - should be added, because they are considered metal by the vast majority.

Of course, if there was a definition that everyone could agree on that would exclude these bands, then that is fair enough. That is not the case though. "Metal" is ambiguous.

there's an alternative view that the encyclopedia would have less dilution if the opposite view was used. Personally I think the middle ground is best. The definitive thing MA has going for it would be diluted if everything was allowed. SharK, have a look at prog archives sometime and you'll no doubt agree.

Then there is bound to be a lot of inconsistency, and I would prefer to leave out certain genres which are arguably non-metal than have a lot of disputed boundaries. Take the 'alternative metal' scene - Faith No More's page says they began the alternative metal subgenre, which justifies their entry and the entry of other alternative metal bands like Soundgarden and Alice in Chains. But modern alternative metal seems absent (System of a Down, Tool etc) because it is not metal, which seems inconsistent to me if alternative metal is a legitimately metal genre.

Correct = Anything under the metal blanket, period. To be exclusionary reflects bias. Bias reflects opinion. Opinion is not fact.

What is the "metal blanket" then? You see how this becomes reductio ad absurdum at some point...Categorization is actually the act of making a definition. You can disagree with MA's method of doing it, but no matter what definition you come up with, somebody will accuse you of being exclusionary.

Correct = anything that can be verified.

There are a few inclusions on this site that bother me, such as the vast majority of drone and ambient, and I also strongly dislike the side project rule. Other than that though, I largely agree with most of the exclusions. I can't think of too many that I don't.

I agree with this. However, I have to point out that not only are quite a few metalcore bands already allowed - that is, the ones that are more "metal" than "hardcore", but also, virtually all, if not absolutely all groove ones are. Pantera are on here, so are Machine Head, and if you consider them to be groove, Lamb of God and Mastodon as well. So MA isn't really that exclusionary.

However, your overall points are extremely well made. Metal is indeed ambiguous. A lot of people might say, for instance, that because of their downtuned guitars and modern production, Slipknot are a lot more "metal" than Deep Purple. Except Purple are on here and Slipknot are not. The reason this doesn't bother me is because A. I'm not exactly a fan of Slipknot (although I don't have anything against them either), and B. I agree. I'm not sure how metal Deep Purple are, and in fact I would call them hard rock. But they have a musical foundation that is analogous to what is definitely considered metal by everyone - Maiden, Priest, Sabbath, etc. Slipknot, on the other hand, mix heavy downtuned guitars with rapping, singing, shouting, turntables and all sorts of other weirdness, making them extremely hard to characterise. The reason they aren't accepted isn't because not everyone likes them, it's because their sound is too different from the accepted standard of what heavy metal is commonly defined as.

EDIT:



The problem is, just where do you draw the line? Whether one likes it or not you have to at some point, because if you don't, you may as well include everything under the rock banner with heaviness and distortion. You'd have to, otherwise you'd be including Korn and not Kiss or AC-DC. Technically speaking none of those are metal, but not everyone would agree. That would mean including not only all of them but pretty much everyone who ever used anything remotely like metal, so that wouldn't just be nu-metal, all metalcore and deathcore bands instead of just the ones that are more metal than hardcore, and all alternative metal, but also any hard or heavy rock that even remotely sounds like metal. So, yeah. Would that work? Somehow, I think it would just be too much.

System of a down has a few groove metal songs(sad statue) here and there but most of their discography is not metal. However as soon as they bring out a release which has mostly metal songs they should be able to get on.

Tool is not metal not alternative metal, they are prog hard rock. Alternative metal is kind of a shitty genre name anyway, but it usually is ment for bands which have alternative rock influences in their metal or vice versa but calling something metal alternative would be silly.

Personally i think ac/dc has a few metal tracks but overall isnt metal. Stuff like let there be rock is 100% 70's metal but the rest is hard rock.

Same. When I tag bands in my archive, I tag them in the same way MA does. I consider it the athourity to a large extent but disagree on some decsisions too.

Well they were poor examples because i'm not a fan of the genre, but my point was more that Faith No More is a dubious qualifier for metal, as well as Alice In Chains. But I will accept that MA considers alternative metal legit, and if those bands alternative metal then that's why they are archived, not because they're metal on the face of it because to me they are simply not.

I think that MA is the closest thing to the definitive authority on what is and isn't metal that we're going to find. I can't think of any excluded bands that I strongly believe should be considered metal.

I agree with this. The Metal-Archives attitude flies in the face of the common-sense, popular perception of metal, which is a lot closer to my understanding of metal than what's on here.

The paranoia in this site's user base about what bands are metal and not, whether bands are "metal enough" and the genre-categorization obsession are all tragically bemusing to be in that they mirror the behaviour of Stormfront.org users, where the mania is who's "white" and who's not, who's "white enough", and what atomic, obsolete racial classification you can slot everyone under.

There's no real paranoia that you've described. You're grossly inflating a perceived minor quality in a small amount of the board's users, which does not represent the user base in any way whatsoever.

This.

There is a very loud minority that spouts endlessly about the varying degrees to which bands are "metal." Most of us could care less, so long as the music is good.

I have been reading reviews here for over 8 years now and Iam happy that certain bands/genres are excluded, Iam an old school metalhead that does not want the metal community to be infested with the garbage and cancer that spreads around the scene today calling itsself "metal". Im not gonna name bands, but if you follow the archives, thou knowst what I speak off. So I do believe that the Archives defines metal.

Dude. Its just a music genre. There will always be terrible bands, not much you can do about that.

Just because hard rock rocks hard it doesn't make it metal. Regarding Def Leppard - they're on here because the debut is part of the NWOBHM, as are some other bands whose metalness might be somewhat questionable.

For the most part I think it's correct though I doubt any one person (apart from the site owners) would completely agree with it. Personally I think that a lot of goregrind bands should be included for either musical reasons or for the reason that, like some of the dark ambient bands on here, it's only metalheads listening to them anyway. After some thought about it I guess I don't really mind how a lot of deathcore got removed since deathcore has in a lot of ways stepped away from even metalcore and sort of turned into its own style entirely.

There seems to be two competing definitions of metal out there: There is the "purists" definition, and the mainstream media's definition. For the most part Metal Archives goes by the former. This excludes certain bands that the mainstream media considers metal: i.e. 80's glam/hard rock and 90s/2000s "Pseudo-metal" such as Slipvayne, Five Finger Disturbed Grace (or whatever those bands are called, they all sound alike to me anyway.) The media sells those bands as metal because they are derived from elements of traditional metal, and, well, kids like it. All in the marketing tactics- If you label it "metal" it will sell- it was the same tactic that the record labels did in the 90s when every single band that came out was automatically labeled "alternative" regardless of what they sounded like- its a marketing thing.

But to stick to a traditional definition of "metal" then you got to draw a line somewhere. I dont always agree with the way the line is drawn but I admire the site for trying to do so and for the most part sticking to it. Plenty of bands straddle the line between two genres- are Y and T, for instance, hard rock or metal? A case could be made for both, we say let the hard rock crowd have em. P.O.D and Papa Roach- metal mixed with rap- are they rap or metal? Metal Archives says too much rap influence = not metal enough; and that's where the line is drawn. I could think of more examples (Rammstien and KMFDM- industrial with metal influences = industrial, not metal; Dropdead= hardcore punk thrash, not metal thrash, etc.)

The "mainstream media" definition is created by the market, IE the fanbase of metal, not some top-down executive decision. If the metal listening public didn't like it then they wouldn't spend money on it and it wouldn't be considered metal. '90s death metal is a good illustration of this: in the mid '90s they tried to force death metal into mass appeal by signing bands like Carcass, Morbid Angel and Napalm Death to major labels and the resulting products had poor sales. Compare this with the organic growth in popularity of Blind Guardian, a much superior band, after they were signed to Virgin.

well you (Menurmorut) are correct, the market does define the trends and the media and record labels respond to the demands of the market. They dont define what is popular, rather they determine what is popular. But the point is, once they determine what is popular they they can do "label engineering" to market something, make it conform to a popular trend. For example, they have figured out that "Metal" (rather, what we here call "mallcore" but they call metal) is popular. So, a new band comes along and they decide to market it as a "metal" band because that will make people want to buy it. BUT: If this were the mid-1990s, then that same band would have been marketed as "alternative" since back then, the way to make something sell was to label it as "alternative."