A release must be just that, released. Once the album is out and available, post here again and a staffer will remove them from the blacklist.


Megrimmtroll: Bands are free to call their music whatever they like. And we are free to disagree.

Oh shit sorry I forgot that upcoming releases are only acceptable for bands already on the archives and not for new ones. Though I've been using the site since 2004, I only recently starting contributing, so I'm still getting used to all the intricacies of the rules (and there are many haha), I guess that's what makes the site function well though.

No problem. Yeah, I've seen people getting that mixed up before, it's understandable. But while we do allow upcoming releases with tracklist, cover and release date confirmed for accepted bands, those already have something to "anchor" them, if you get my meaning.

Yeah it makes sense actually, if you already have one clearly metal album it doesn't so much matter I guess, but if you don't, you never know whether that album will actually get released or not and then you could run the risk of adding bands on here without discographies. Thanks again for the clarification, I will wrap my brain around these rules one of these days haha.

So, I'm wondering why the band Necrópolis 666 got rejected. The reason I got was "Is there a physical release of this? Otherwise it's too short". My question is that though this was a digital release, it was copyright and released by a label (albeit, a net label), has a catalog ID, and release date. Here is the link I submitted where this info can be found. Given this, why does it matter in what format it was released? That is, how can it be acceptable for a physical release but too short for a digital release? Thanks in advance.

http://pegarex.bandcamp.com/album/pr-00 ... -666-split

A band needs a valid release before they can be accepted to the site - a valid release is one that's either:
• Distributed in physical form (CD, CDr, DVD, tape, vinyl, etc)
• Digital and available for FULL download: must also be a finished/final mix (no garage rehearsals or rough mixes), AND long enough (preferably over 20 minutes)
• Already released. That is, no upcoming releases!

I know this, but my question is still not answered. In the response I received I was told that the release is too short unless there was a physical copy, which is the source of my confusion.

Before going into any details, it's worth keeping in mind that we require two things for a band to be accepted here: that the band has released a heavy metal album AND that album has been released and distributed publicly. It sounds pretty simple, but unfortunately there's a lot of questions that come out of that: what is an "album;" what does it mean for an "album" to be "heavy metal;" what is required for an "album" to be "released" and "distributed;" how do we even go about proving any of that? Those are pretty heavy questions, and we've tried our best to answer them in as much detail as possible in our rules. We may even do another run-through of our rules to make it even more explicit again in the future. The best place to check is the rules first; that is why my colleague OpsiusCato referred to its provisions in the above post.

But I suppose your question is more nuanced than that; why do we treat physical and digital albums unequally? To be honest with you, that's not an easy question to answer; part of the reason is our own history and experiences with the different formats and another part of the reason is that, fundamentally, we don't see the physical and digital formats as equal to begin with. We may get accused of elitism for that perspective, but hear me out before making that judgement.

When we originally started out (back in 2002) we only accepted bands based on physical releases. We did (and still don't) care if bands eventually release their material digitally, but when it came to judging whether they're acceptable here we relied on physical formats only. It's worth remembering that 12 years ago, full-album downloads were in their infancy. Most folks, even in the West, had dial-up for their Internet connection and often could not afford (sometimes literally) to download full albums. In fact, even for most bands the idea of spreading your music digitally was unknown. So for us, the only reasonable format to judge by was the physical format. There were other reasons for this, as well. We require that bands at least "release" and "distribute" a heavy metal album because we want to make sure there's a level of permanency there... that the band actually contributed something of significance to that lovely abstract we like to call the "metal scene." By no means do bands have to be popular or well-known, in our opinion, to contribute to that ideal. The whole notion is that members of the public - the people who might use this resource for information - may somehow have lasting access to a band's work, its heavy metal magnum opus... however likely. That point of view forms the basis for how we judge the release and distribution of albums.

So going back to the physical versus digital issue. It wasn't until a couple years ago that we started to accept bands with only digital releases. We recognized that by that point many bands had started or were already relying on digital formats to release their material. That format became immensely popular over a short period of time. And, lest we become anachronistic, we adapted to the situation as you would with any format - physical or digital or otherwise - that might hit a "critical mass" in popularity. But how do you measure permanency in the digital realm? How do you *know* when an album is being distributed, let alone that the public have lasting access to it? You may argue that physical formats don't necessarily always achieve that, and that's true. We've been highly critical of examples where you only have 15 copies of an obscure tape, but, the possibility of physical formats lasting decades and finding their way among the public exists. We have plenty of known examples of that. But, can we be certain about that with digital releases? Can we trust that streaming services will continue to stream music? We decided, no we can't. The album must be downloadable; people ought to be able to easily and clearly get access to the file or files of the music so that they can be personally stored. And now, suddenly, you see where we start getting a little bit arbitrary. Trying to create lines where there might not be lines before, in order to frame the digital medium in a way we're accustomed to. None of the lines are truly set-in-stone... nothing here really ever is... and for that reason we try to use reason, common sense and consensus among us to find solutions to cases that don't neatly fit. One of the issues that comes up, periodically, is length.

Can we really trust that a band which has released three short tracks online has any lasting value? Maybe, but then again, who knows? Compare that to a band that releases a full-length album of material, or multiple heavy metal releases, and that concern becomes less and less of a concern. So, roughly, we draw a line and act around it. We always prefer cases that become less uncertain for us; a physical release over a digital release, a longer release over a shorter one, a more professionally-done release over a bedroom-mixed one, more releases over a solitary one. It's judgment, for sure, but it's also integral to how we operate. Nothing we do as an encyclopedia makes any claims towards being an authority of heavy metal. While others may attribute that value to us, we do not claim it. Our site operates with a few fundamental rules to ensure that we remain on topic, credible and relevant, but our ability to judge what is and isn't metal and what is and isn't an acceptable album type or format ends there. If a band isn't accepted into MA, it's not the end of the world for them or for their fans. Hell no. It doesn't mean they're not metal or legit or anything of that sort. It also isn't permanent; we have no interest in being a static paper encyclopedia. If circumstances change - a band changes its style of music to more closely align with what we accept, or ends up releasing their album in a manner that fits our guidelines and rules - we'll accept the band. No question. But are we elitist? Maybe. We certainly try to stick to our ideals... even if they may appear arbitrary at times.

In any case, I'm sorry if none of that makes much sense to you or seems awfully contrived. But... you did ask a heavy question, so expect a heavy answer.

Dear All,

recently a friend of mine made a page for my band, and yesterday I saw it has been rejected with no further comments -> http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Sfy ... 3540389404 . Can you tell me the reason is being rejected and if there was an error, if I can solve it?

Thanks,
Jim

Your friend failed to provide evidence that your band released and distributed your album. Since the album listed in your discography appears to be a single, we would need proof that it was released physically (on CD, on Cassette, on Vinyl, etc.). In order for a band to be added to Metal Archives it must have released at least one metal album.

The best evidence is a picture of the CD/Tape/Record, ideally showing multiple copies of the release. Another form of evidence would be a distro that sells or gives out your album. Something to show that the album is out already, that multiple copies were made (the more the better), and that it's available publicly.

I want to add that it wasn't rejected "with no further comments". Your friend should have received an email with something similar to what Derigin just posted. No rejection comes without an accompanying reason provided.

So, can I make a new page for my band? The album was a Demo-CD, not a single (his mistake) and there are multiple copies of these cd's + profiles at myspace, reverbnation, etc. Or should my friend do the correct changes?

Can you provide proof that it's a demo-CD? Photos of copies, the band offering them online, distros, reviews, etc.?

Yes, there are photos of copies, there are reviews, but you can't see anywhere the band offering them online, because we didn't sold them, we gave them for free, and now there are only a few copies available..

ok, I did some checking on their Facebook and elsewhere and seems fine. Restored. Next time please include the necessary evidence from the start (or tell your friend to).

First I just want to say that I appreciate the time that you took to think about and write your response. The context you described definitely allowed me to better understand the general thinking process that goes into band submissions. Also, I don't think the approach that is taken is highly contrived, in fact I think it's completely necessary when dealing with something that is a spectrum rather than a clean dichotomy (and clearly metal is a spectrum, since bands are not distinctly either metal or not metal, but vary in degree of their "metal-ness") and I completely understand why this must be done. I agree that the only way to function is to define certain guidelines, to have certain requirements that a given example must fulfill. Though not all requirements are completely necessary in themselves, what is required is that enough of them exist together in combinations that are judged to work well enough in tandem to push a given band past a certain defined threshold on that spectrum. I clearly tell that you clearly do this, which is supported by the fact that you pointed out of being dynamic rather than static with the status of a band.

That being said, what I was thinking when I submitted this band specifically was that, though the album is short, it is available for download and released by a label. Now since I am not well acquainted with the Brazilian black metal scene, I do not know how much impact this band or label has had or may potentially have on the local scene. I don't know how many people have downloaded the album, how influential it has been within and outside of the genre/scene, or how distributed it is. I also note that I probably do not even really know the potential value of a release of comparable magnitude within my own local metal scene. The thing is I don't think the lasting value of a band (like you mentioned) is in any way knowable in general, which I think you agree with, and I think this is why the moderators do not try to gauge this, but rather, objective metrics are used (again, which you mentioned, such as longer albums vs shorter, physical vs digital, etc), and enough of them must be present in order for the “lasting value” of a metal band to be assumed.

My point is concerning the digital vs physical dichotomy with this submission specifically. As was clarified by you, this band did not fulfill enough requirements (given the length of the album, solitary release, etc) to be accepted, though (as was mentioned by the person who reviewed the submssion) if there were a physical release, it would be enough push the band over the threshold of acceptability. My problem with this approach is that I think this assumes physical releases are more widely distributed or have an increased “lasting value” than do digital downloads. The thing is we don’t know whether or not this is true, in fact, one could make a strong argument that digital releases tend to be more widely distributed than physical releases since they can be downloaded for free over the intent, versus physical copies, which must be bought (which people rarely do nowadays) and physically given to the person or even sent through the mail if the purchaser is international. I ask, how much would it really matter if the band made 50 copies of the album instead of releasing it digitally? Would this really translate to more people listening to it? Or would it instead the CDs or tapes just exist in the basement of 50 friends and family who dished out the cash to buy it, instead of being distributed potentially internationally to anybody interested in downloading it for free?

Anyway, your explanation of the history of physical vs digital releases on the site makes it clear that there still is a preference for physical releases, and I understand and accept this, and I’m not contesting this decision or the site’s preference for physical over digital albums (I do not think this is my place and thus is not my intention). What is my intention, however, us hopefully to make those upholding the rules aware of this fact, and think about whether exclude bands like these on this basis is something that you want to keep doing. To put all this in perspective, there exists a clearly metal band (namely, an unambiguously black metal band) who has explicitly released a metal album through a label (albeit a short album), which can and probably has been downloaded in it’s entirety (albeit, by an unknown number of people), and which may or may not have a lasting influence in and outside of its local scene. However, this band (and others like it) will not be documented on the largest and most comprehensive metal database in existence. If this is acceptable to the moderators, than I will of course take this into account when submitting bands in the future. However I do think that it would be beneficial to the community and the Encyclopaedia as a whole to be aware of this, and be constantly willing to change and adapt, which I would argue is the only valid way to reflect and deal with the growing and forever changing living organism that is metal music.

hi:
I see the band that I wanted to add was rejected because it does not have a physical disk.
However to send you a link where you can download the EP that the band had put it.
You have accepted bands that do not have a physical disk and have free and paid digital versions.
Here a proof: http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Bl ... ars/474742
I would consider this band Diozeth to enter into the encyclopedia.
Beforehand graciasp for your time.

Greetings!
Recently i tried to add my band Frostveil to the Metal Archives, but i was rejected due to not having a substantial enough release. Since then i have released a split album which would easily be enough to get onto these archives, but since splits can only be added to accepted bands, how can I supply information about this split to be accepted?

Please help!
Thanks, Jack! \m/

Too short for a digital release, please read or re-read the rules on valid releases.


Just add evidence for the split's existence (as well as availability) to the submission notes. You can add it properly once the band has been approved.

Hello,
I am the vocalist for the band Arthedain and I would like our band to be added to the database. It was just rejected due to the fact that the physical release of our new EP isn't until December 15th. I understand that is a valid point, but I would also like to point out that the digital version is already available, as well as our previous album. Here is a portion of the rules for submitting a band:

A band needs a valid release before they can be accepted to the site - a valid release is one that's either:
Distributed in physical form (CD, CDr, DVD, tape, vinyl, etc)
Digital and available for full download: must also be a finished/final mix (no garage rehearsals or rough mixes), AND long enough (preferably over 20 minutes)
Already released. That is, no upcoming releases!

So according to this list, we meet all of the criteria except for the fact that the physical CD isn't released for 12 more days as of today. But it explicitly says "either" any of these criteria, so I fully believe we meet the qualifications. Thank you for your time.

PS you can find the information at arthedain.bandcamp.com

Both these releases are really short, though it does seem pretty professional. My gut would say ok, but as far as the current rule framework goes, for the sake of consistency please do wait until the physical release is out. It doesn't hurt anyone to just wait a little longer.

Okay, no problem at all. I will resubmit on December 15th. Thanks!

OK, thanks a lot!

Dear Encyclopedia Metallum Community!

I posted a band (Psycho Angels, band of a friend of mine) a few days ago, and received a refusal e-mail with the reason that it must have a valid release. I may have missed to include a download link to their released EP, even though I included one track to the admin-only field...
http://psychoangels.atw.hu/ The EP is full downloadable from /media menu. (You can switch to english on the top right corner of the screen). It is already published, fully mixed, no garage rehearsal. I understand that I can't prove it by an iTunes or Amazon link, since this is a free-to-download release (since selling it for money could lead to serious taxing problems in this country), but while scanning the rules, I didn't find anything about a free-of-charge release not being valid.

Thank you for your work and consideration,
TheBlackAdder

Go ahead and resubmit, with that explanation and link in the submission notes as well. We'll check it out again.

Eye of Nix, Seattle band, I would call Swans/Neurosis-influenced doomy, noisy, psyche metal with blackened tinges and operatic female vocals, rejected by metal archives' Derigin for being "drone/noise." My guess is he listened to the first minute of a couple songs that have slow builds and wrote it off.

What do you say?

http://eyeofnix.bandcamp.com/track/shroud-2

http://eyeofnix.bandcamp.com/track/rome-burned

There were a few of us that listened to it (the whole thing) and made that judgment.

Fair enough. But you guys list Across Tundras as metal. For real?

I played in Old Skin and Hellgrammite, two metal-archives listed bands, and our label is Belief Mower who have a M-A page so it seems silly, hair-splitting and inaccurate not to be listed. Just curious about others feedback.

Labels don't matter, who played in what doesn't matter. We try to judge the music itself.

I remember this band from the queue. I wasn't really sure how to proceed with them, part psychedelic, blackish doom, part experimental drone/noise. Maybe a full-length or some other future release will be more definitive.

Band: Cognition
Country: Norway

I'm trying to submit them, but they are banned for some reason.

Genre: Progressive Extreme Metal
Source 1: https://www.facebook.com/HibernaculaRecords
"NEW SIGNING! we're proud to announce we'll be working with Cognition, norwegian extreme metal with a prog edge. CDs coming soon!!"
Source 2: https://www.facebook.com/mazakuatarecords
"COGNITION...DEATH METAL BRUTAL...TIPO ENTOMBED,,,!!!"

Music sample:
https://soundcloud.com/cognition-1/cogn ... on/s-easVA

Album "Spiral of Deception" is out through La Mazakuata Records now (Dec 2014) in Central/South America, and coming out through La Mazakuata Records in Europe early 2015

Logo & band photo:
http://cognitionmetal.com/

Cognition was banned for being Nu-metal. Based on the early output, the blacklisting was reasoning. Listening to the sample of the new album, it sounds definitely not nu-metal. The problem is the second song off the album that is on the sound-cloud "Viva Mexico" is nu-metal and unacceptable by our rules. Is there samples of the new album that you can link to show the majority of the album's sound is more like "Spiral of Deception" and not like "Viva Mexico"?

Here are a couple more Cognition tracks from "Spiral of Deception"
https://soundcloud.com/cognition-1/assa ... ag/s-tgIxE
https://soundcloud.com/cognition-1/mask ... on/s-Sqzjm

The band Jerusalem, from Sweden, was blacklisted? O.o

It's a hard rock band.

Hello! I was directed to this forum to inquire as to why the band (EYE OF MINERVA) that I manage is "blacklisted". This is the first time I have ever tried to enter the band. I didn't even get to enter in any information on them, other than the bands name. Please let me know if I am doing things wrong. I read through all the rules and even tried to search for anything with the bands name and I found nothing. Thank you for your time.

The blacklist notes says "more -core than metal".

Hi guys. Thanks to TheStormIRide's quick response to my message. He has also instructed me to post the info to the band I manage on this thread for all to see and be a part of the conversation. So here you go...
EYE OF MINERVA is not in any way shape or form a "more -core than metal" band. Eye of Minerva is technical death metal. I am thinking that the band that was blacklisted must have been another band with the same name. I know we have never tried to even tried to add our band to your site before, so something strange is going on.
Here are a few links to the band I manage. You can view our album art, listen to our album "Through the Archway of Perdition" and read our bio on those sites.
https://www.facebook.com/EyeOfMinerva
http://eyeofminerva.wix.com/eyeofminerva
http://www.reverbnation.com/eyeofminerva
If you need tracks sent to you in a specific format, from that album that was released October 25th 2014, I can do this as well. We are signed to DHMS Records. Please let me know if you need any further information and thank you all again for your time. \m/ Brenda

I removed the blacklisting, go ahead and submit it. Be sure to read the guidelines concerning what is required in the submission.

Thank you Diamhea.

Hello,

A project called Obskuritatem from Bosnia and Herzegovina is blacklisted because of the previous musical direction in terms of Black/Noise/Ambient.

Obskuritatem plays Raw Black Metal now as provided in this sample here:

https://soundcloud.com/walpurgis-nacht-1/ob2014

Hope this is enough to remove it from blacklist.