I'm very sick of this "we don't accept these metal sub-genres to our site because they are fake" -stuff. It would be nice to be some sort of heavy music internet community where I could freely search bands and write reviews but oops, this one isn't accepted as "metal". You're still taking some hard rock here, right? Still, though I consider myself a 100% metalhead, my favorite bands also include bands like Slipknot, Disturbed and Stone Sour, which both are metal/hard rock bands. They DO have so tight bond with metal and many of metal fans that it is very impractical and puristic shit to leave that kind of bands out. They make serious music and this kind of treatment is insulting for them. It almost insults me too.

I understand that we can't take all the good music here (yes, metal isn't the only good music genre even though I listen metal 90% of my music listening time) but guys come on. Don't be such uptight. Many people would be happy if you took those bands I said (and many more ofc, those were just some of my favorites) off the blacklist. Most of my favorite bands are totally metal and they are even accepted to your site but how about Slipknot (and I totally mean Slipknot form Des Moines, Iowa, not some never heard thrash band from Connecticut)? "Oh no, they are not metal". I'm sure that there are plenty of people who listen to both "real" metal and also bands like Slipknot, S.O.A.D. and stuff. Slipknot's members' major influence is also in classical heavy metal bands and these guys worship Black Sabbath for example. Who would lose if you - dear moderators - took my advice? No one.

I enjoy the practical arrangements of this site and it's nice to hang here, read reviews and search for information but I hate your criterion of being "metal". You should be more open minded. I wouldn't want to say this but if you don't stop this purist nonsense, I have to consider removing my account... Just for principle.

What do you think? I want some good replies. Prove me wrong, you have a right to say against me but I'm really trying to make a difference for good.

No one's a purist or an Elitist...well except me. The thing is that the bands you are describing are not sub genres of heavy metal nor are they metal themselves. No one is trying to deny anyone to listen to whatever they want. If it's not metal, it's not metal. It does not matter what their influences are, they are not metal. You don't put a square peg into a round hole.

The critical flaw in your argument is that you think being a band being accepted into the Archives means that they're good, and that a band being excluded means that the website has deemed them to be terrible. Most of the bands accepted to this website, like music in general, suck horribly. The website doesn't care that bands excluded from this database are among your favorites. It is only interested in documenting bands which can be unequivocally considered metal, not bands that play another genre with occasional metal influences. You shouldn't take their absence as an insult to their music. It's not like these bands being considered "metal" would magically make them more legitimate, after all.

I actually hope this doesn't get locked. Yeah, this thread has the tendency to get infiltrated with trolls but in all seriousness, we need a thread to where we can intelligently discuss these bands that are not metal but people who read Revolver think they are. What good is a metal site that does not nurture the young metal heads...to inform them and guide them? I'm partially joking in how I say it but I'm being serious. What if some people don't have metal dads like my kids? Who's going to show them....to teach them right?

I can call myself the Elitist Metal Dad.

I'm stealing this, but whatever:

"Oh no, our band didn't make the cut for Metal-Archives.com our career is over!"

-No one, ever.

The funny part to me about this argument and every time it comes up is that people want us to open our minds more in order to accept the most generic rock / alt - metal bands out there. Meanwhile the 97,000 bands we have mean nothing. We need to start the reverse string - if your favorite bands are Slipknot and Disturbed maybe you should start digging into the real subgenres of metal or metal in general and listen to something a little bit away from the mainstream

And "Dumb Purist Moderators" is just a stupid fucking way to start a thread if you want a real discussion.

No, we don't. Hard rock =/= metal. Unless you are talking about selected exceptions. Which, well, are exceptions.


They may have some metal elements, but they're primarily rock bands. Heavy guitars can be deceiving, though doubtlessly for some they automatically mean "metal". Well, this site's approach isn't that broad.


We don't accept bands based on bonds with metal. We accept them based on what music they play. Might be an impractical and controversial decision for a music database, but hey, we like to live dangerously.


Yeah, I'm sure they're devastated. If you feel insulted, well, don't and learn to live with the fact that this site's definition of metal doesn't align 100% with yours. Because it's really not a big deal at all, trust me. Why is it that this idiotic "they're serious bands, recognize them!" point keeps coming back anyway? Nobody's saying they're some talentless garage band trash (well, I suppose some mods do, but it doesn't influence their judgement; I for one am a pretty huge fan of Disturbed's later material). Who cares? What relevance does it have, musically?


No doubt, and equally as many people (perhaps more) would then also post threads about how the site has gone to shit. But I guess since they're your favorites, you have a point there and we should listen to you. Anyway, I don't mean this is a point about the merits of including those bands themselves, but to demonstrate that having more rather than less isn't always a win-win. Let's just go with the flow and accept these submissions for KISS, AC/DC, Groundhogs and Joy Division (all these really happened, btw), because eh, why have any standards for something as notoriously misused, borrowed and bastardized as the term "metal" in the first place? Drawing lines is for elitist suckers who would deny the real scope of metal (read: would try to be consistent about their own informed opinions and policy discussions on their own site, not the opinions of someone else). Everyone who's ever crudely complained about certain exclusions had some agenda, but acted as if they were the voice of the greater good. In the end it comes down to being sad about some bands they like not being included. And thus, we should include them, because obviously the people have spoken and there is this humongous slighted host of open-minded metalheads out there just waiting for the tyrannical Metal Archives regime run by a few dozen basement dwellers to get revolutionized into the People's Republic of Cuddly-Fuddly All Things Hard 'n' Heavy and Also Some Stuff That Really Isn't But Let's Not Be Purists Now Shall We.


OMG, you're so credible and cool. I'm glad for you. Relevance?


Not seeing any coherent argument here. "I think they are metal, you guys don't. People listen to metal and non-metal. The band I want to get in claims to have metal influences, they also like Black Sabbath." What would we lose? Well, for starters integrity as to our policy on what constitutes metal and what doesn't. But I'm sure it's alright because we followed someone's badly argued opinion and let it take precedence over our own. Now everyone's favorite band is listed and everyone can sleep easy again, hooray.


Well, sorry to hear that, but do what you think is inevitable. If you consider a difference of opinion on a highly subjective issue too much to bear when using this site, farewell.


What is there to "prove"? There's no holy stone tablet for what shall be called metal and what shan't. Some musical technicalities one can cite, such as the prevalence of metal riffs (and -even trickier- what constitutes said riffs), but nothing concrete and absolute and nothing worth having an argument over if one isn't so inclined. Most seasoned metal fans just go with the surprisingly meaningful adage "you know it when you hear it". Should we phone Tony Iommi to affirm our choice of listed bands? This site's definition differs from yours. It's music, fuzzy borders are a given. When does a cup, objectively, become a bowl? These are some highly malleable semantics we're dealing with here.

Anyway, just throwing this into an already locked topic, because I can't help myself. You're probably thinking we're close-minded pricks who shut you down without an argument, but yours is a very poor OP of little remaining discussion value. If you only browse this very subforum, you'll find plenty of past, equally futile iterations on this subject.