Now what's this, "If you guys hate us so much"? Hate??? Who's taking it personal here? I tend to check the Encyclopedia when coming across bands I find interesting, so I like it a lot!
Life for Felched By The Goat will of course go on anyway, as it has the 4+ years before submitting an entry here (I did it now since the new album - third full-length* - was made in a larger quantity and more professional than the previous more "DIY demo" releases (6 in total) which I thought were too obscure releases to mention without having a more "real" release to begin with.
I wouldn't want you to get rid of the Myrkur or Ghost entries either, that's certainly not my point (on the contrary, that would have been rigid!), I just assumed it had more encyclopedic ambitions, like an metal underground Wikipedia, simply showing "these bands existed then and then and released this and that, and in some ways - more or less - they worked within the metal terrain", in all it's various subgenres. If FBTG isn't even "experimental black metal" or "avantgarde metal" to your ears, then I sure wonder 1. how little one is "allowed" to experiment within the genre, and 2. what would be a more fitting term genre-wise (apart from the obvious: Black Beastiality Metal). It's not like I'm trying to shove my old noise jazz band on y'all here (even though we once jammed to Black Arrows...).
Here's a new track anyway, and it's not the usual cover either (remember "Mexican Radio"? Yes we do value the eclecticism of Celtic Frost a lot), but a "blackened" version of a 1992 Brainbombs track, Queen Of Necrophiles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv-06Vsv69o

*The previous two full-lengths were the s/t 2012 one and the "Black Beastiality Metal" one from 2014 (of which four tracks are reprised on "Goat Prophet"): https://www.youtube.com/user/FelchedByTheGoat/playlists

I can cherry pick dictionary references to support my arugment too. It can be argued that simply putting the recording on a physical format is releasing it. Either way, that's besides the point. How many copies is considered a "release"? The rules do not state this so it's open to interpretation. In my opinion a band releasing 100 copies of a demo tape to select fans at a show is not public distribution. This has to be black and white or else it comes off as bias.

I'm still waiting on a response from someone that can either make the desicion or has knowledge of how copyright laws work to justify resubmitting the entry with updated release information. I have had a hand in putting out material in the past so I'm familiar with these laws but like I previously said, am not going to waste my time if it's ignorantly assumed that any release without a bands consent is a bootleg. It happens all the time. Look no further then New Renassaince records. All the bands on their roster gave exclusive rights and ownership to the label when they signed their contracts. Regardless what the band wants, the label has the legal right to reissue the material how and when they want. The bands opinion has nothing to do with the legality of that situation. The same applies to material that was either never copyrighted to begin with or has since never been renewed. The material then becomes public domain and aslong as it's not distributed for profit is comepletely legal.

The store is closed because Iordan is moving and waiting for renovations to be finished prior to setting up shop again. They are nearly complete and the store will be open in the next month. He's also continuing to sell through CDBaby due to shipping prices. The label is still active.

People, you forgot about this one lol

Ok, so if you're familiar with these laws, please, elaborate on your point and explain us how we are wrong on our perception.

That would apply if the label does have exclusive rights and ownership of the music by the band in question... But, does the label indeed own it?

How can you be positive that the work in question is not copyrighted? Have you (or the label) actually investigated on the matter and found out that the material was never copyrighted and is indeed public domain? There's a lot of blurry spots in the image. Please, enlighten us.

What's there to eleborate on? I already stated how the law works and how assuming that just because a band isn't included on the desicion to release the material makes it a bootleg is wrong.

The New Renaissance situation is an example of that. It's not a direct comparison to this situation.

Have you ever run a label or had a hand in putting out 30+ year old material? Legitimate businesses (in this case a record label) do all the leg work prior to finalizing any decision. Part of the process in attempting to locate the band or any members involved is checking the copyright database. In this case the material was never copyrighted and IN THEORY if it was, has not been renewed. I see no blurry spots in this. If you do, "please elaborate" on the specifics.

Alright, stepping back from the legal aspect of it. It seems the discussion is centered on the topic of copyright and legality, but that is not the issue as far as acceptance to this database goes.

Just to reiterate some fundamentals about the way this site works. In order for a band to be accepted and get its own entry, it needs to have released at least one predominantly metal album. Let's break that down into its constitute parts: "predominantly metal" and "album." Whether something is predominantly metal is fairly straight-forward as far as this site goes and isn't at issue here. However, what is considered an acceptable "album," as far as the site defines it, is at issue here. We consider an "album" to be acceptable, or "valid," if it is a complete and official work which has been released and distributed to the public.

A work is complete if it's presented as the finished version of that album. In other words, it's the intended final form of the album, with a fixed tracklist released together in a shared package. A work is official if it is or was clearly sanctioned or authorized by the band or its agent. In other words, we run on the mentality that in order for something to be official it needs to originate from the band. And, lastly, a work is considered released and distributed if it is or was clearly and openly made available to a public audience.

We have these guidelines because we want to ensure (a) that what we include is held to consistent standards and (b) that those standards recognize what we consider to be meaningful musical works. We expect valid albums to be complete because we expect the album to be done. We expect valid albums to be official because we expect the album to be something the band wanted to publish. We expect valid albums to be released and distributed publicly because we expect the band intended for the album to be widely available. There is an overall expectation that, in order for a band to be listed it must have willingly contributed a musical work on its own accord.

This is what I suspect is the problem with your submission. It's not a question of legality (on who "owns" the album, much like anyone might own an album in their possession) but a question of authenticity (on whether the band has clearly sanctioned its release). That's incredibly tricky and, frankly, an unknown at this stage. There's no evidence that the band ever intended to publicly release this album and/or ever went through with it. The fact that a master got bounced around different circles doesn't suggest it's anything more than a private release, at best, and an unreleased album, as I would suspect. Now, there are cases where a band hires an agent (or a label) to release an album, and then one party reneges and breaks the contract. In those cases while authenticity is disputed, it is still just a dispute between two parties. Third parties, like a non-involved label, are not considered in these cases. They were never privy to that original contract and they can't possibly know original intentions. The fact that this label is seeking out the band is a testament to the fact that they recognize how important it is to have that legitimacy to justify their actions. The end result is always the same, though: permission always flows from the band. When there is no evidence of permission - and that's clearly, not implied permission - then we err on the side of caution and don't accept the submission.

Now this is very different from legal ownership. When a product is given to you, in principle you become the owner of that product. When a band "gives" you a copy of their album, you become the owner of that copy. And, if you resell that copy, the person who buys it next is the owner of that copy. This is not the same as authenticity, however. You cannot claim that your sale of a product is official if you cannot prove that the creator ever sanctioned it for publication. Sure there's copyright law and public domain and other nebulous loopholes used in contexts such as these, but those discussions are outside the realm of what we consider as far as authenticity goes. At the end of the day we view permission as flowing from the band, and we would need that confirmation before moving forward with this submission.

So why isn't Infant Annihilator included then? They have a full length album that was officially released to the public and they are definetley a metal band

Infant Annihilator were blacklisted in December 2012 for being "unacceptable chug-laden deathcore," or "more -core than metal." If you can provide samples to prove us wrong, that'd be great, but the issue here is definitely the music.

when is the blacklist note for Wastage (Slovakia) dated, and is it genre- or length-related, pls?

April 2014, genre. Too hardcore.

I can safely say that Infant Annihilator, having had to listen to that shit multiple times for this thread, is not metal. It is basically Chugging, Breakdowns and the occasional Rings of Saturn tapping for a couple seconds.

thanks they've had two more releases since. one is this: https://wastage1.bandcamp.com/ and the other an album on sliptrick recs, a sample of which is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pLdf3Bx-Jc

not saying they've gone more metal, as it's borderline for me, just since the bl is outdated.

The reason the legal aspect was brought into this is not only in regards to the “bootleg” claim but also as a basis to what is deemed “official”. Continuing to fall back onto the argument that the band needs to be involved in the process of bringing to light a 30 year old recording that has become public domain is completely illogical. There’s also no evidence to suggest that this recording is not the finished product or the way the band intended. It was standard practice in that time period to record something by any means possible to submit to record labels or for reason of duplication to forward the material to different avenues. I’m not going to pretend to know what the band intended but quite frankly at this point it doesn’t matter. Again, this is from a legality standpoint which is the basis of law. Similar to how science is the basis of fact. There’s nothing wrong with having the recording released for the enjoyment of others and a historical reference. There’s also nothing wrong with a website entry indicating so. It serves both as a historical record (the intended purpose of an encyclopedia) and to indicate the bands existence. This may also bring forward further information regarding the band. A judge in a court of law cannot base a verdict on personal belief. They must come to a conclusion from the governing body that is the law based on irrefutable evidence. In this case, the rules previously laid out.

The label going to extensive means to contact the band isn’t being done with the intention to ask their opinion on the situation (although from prior experience, I’m sure the members would be flattered that anyone actually cared) it was to gain further knowledge and background on an obscure recording that would otherwise be forgotten. Further more, if “what the band intended” is the gold standard that the website holds then the first entry that comes to mind as contradictory is Cirith Ungol’s “Paradise Lost”. This recording was altered so drastically by Restless records to the point where the band has publicly announced that it was the reason they split and have since not played together for 25 years. Next we have compilations of unreleased material put out by the label after a musicians death. That leads us finally to Mayhem's "Dawn Of The Back Hearts" bootleg. Intent cannot be proved in any of these circumstances.. Essentially this logic is making claim to guilt without evidence. The historical reference should prove more important.


That aside,

-The band is Metal
-The record exists as a physical release
-A reissue is being done with the intent for public distribution

Where is the problem?

At this point all I’m seeing are several excuses in attempt to not allow it. A gang mentality that no matter what we back one of our own regardless if proven otherwise. No different then a referee that will never change their decision on a call regardless of how many times they are shown video evidence to prove otherwise. A mistake was made in the original rejection. I could partially be at fault for not coming forth with every single detail. It’s understandable. However, there is no specific reference in any of the rules that dictate my submission be turned away. It's simply opinion after the fact right now.

Even if that is the case, this tape is a single copy that has the word "Master" on it, inferring that the tape was done by the studio and given to the band/label to produce the final copies, it doesn't mean that it was actually distributed. For instance, The radio station I used to DJ had a radio promo single to Nile's Lashed to the Skave Stick. Say I stole or it was given to me and I and sold it on the market, even if someone bought it, that doesn't warrant it a release page on Nile's page. This tape, from all we know, is:

1: A single copy (which rules out the band from being accepted anyways)
2. Not a final product, so it wasn't meant to be distributed. considering it was from a storage auction, according to Stormspell's buyer, it sounds like the label went defunct, it was bulk sold without being distributed.

Also, sound recordings have a copyright length of 50-70 means iirc, meaning that if it was copyrighted, it would be public domain a couple decades. Since it was made in 1982, if it didn't have a copyright notice, it would be free domain upon publication. Prove us that this was ape was actually distributed and released. All we have is that there is a master, not an actual, physically distributed release.

I'm not responding to this with any effort because you are posting ignorant nonsnese.

-Reread my last post
-Check my submission
-I'm sure you guys have an updated thread on the moderator boards with all the current information I have provided
-Stormspell is still very much alive. I talked to Iordan today.

I have already covered every one of your points.

If this is how decisions are made around here then I have no further will to discuss this with you.

Wording might have been off, but I was actually referencing the label that Steel Assassin was part of, and not Stormspell itself, blame that on typing while using the hair dryer.

Anyways, I just got a response from Stormspell records and he hasn't found out any form of distribution and I quote



Considering our rules require an actual release, this matter is now closed. Please wait until more information is found or until Stormspell releases the demo in November.

PDS, you are acting like an entitled child.

I provided photographic evidence that this is being released in what the rules dictate is public distribution. There is an official release date and it will be distributed by the label itself.

CHECK THE SUBMISSION DATA.

I don't understand where your lack of comprehension lies?

-Metal, check
-physical release, check
-official release date, check
-public distribution, check

I would like this reviewed by someone that's not an ignorant tool making false claims to support an argument that doesn't exist.

To all watching... this is not how you respond to folks trying to be reasonable. Throwing a tantrum because you don't get your way is never acceptable. Enjoy your ban, RDS.

Mamedoro, Japan.

What's the blacklist reason showing? Thanks

Blacklist - raw/noisy hardcore. Just put there yesterday.

I didn't really follow all the rants so I'm not sure if this is what he was talking about regarding the work being public domain. However, as far as I recall from contributing a bit to Wikipedia, all creative works are automatically owned by the artist. You don't have to actively copyright something you have created, as long as it is unique enough to be considered a work of art (I dont remember the English name for this). The copyright expires after 70 years I think (so it's not relevant for any metal music). The only way for the work to be public doamain before that is if the artist expicitly waives his copyright.

It's an interesting question though. What happens if a band records music but doesn't release it, and when the copyright expires I gets distributed by some other entity. It would create a strange situation if a metal band has (theoretically) worldwide disribution, and becomes famous, but can't be added.

I thought I'd give this one last shot.
Two official videos from the EP:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htyWk39JhaI
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RZVOJDt3MA

Carrion Witch was blacklisted by Alhadis in January, 2013 (shortly after that EP) as "Grindcore; some metallic elements, but not enough" - I'm inclined to agree.

So am I. Fair enough. Thanks man.

Atomikylä (Finland)

This band was blacklisted for some reason - this is a side-project by members of Dark Buddha Rising (Psychedelic Stoner Doom Metal) and Oranssi Pazuzu (Psychedelic Black Metal) - so it combines elements by both of them - it's a mix of occult psychedelic rock with stoner doom metal and black metal.

Here are examples that the band is metal enough:

Fragment from their performance on recent Roadburn festival:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-U1V_6BxeA

Pure stoner doom metal:
https://soundcloud.com/future-lunch/ihmiskallo

Beginning as a psychedelic rock it turns into psych black metal (around 3:40) and then turns to psych stoner metal (5:26):
https://soundcloud.com/future-lunch/ato ... usta-kulta

Please check out them, guys - and remove from the blacklist.

Thank you!

They were blacklisted in 2014 for being heavy psychedelic space rock with some Metal elements. Have they released anything since, to warrant a re-evaluation?

I'll answer is his stead for now... till he comes back with more:
- http://www.recordshopx.com/artist/atomikyla/keraily/ (release date April 29, 2016)
- https://soundcloud.com/svart-records/at ... -pakoputki (sample)
I can't find more samples, but it's a start.

Why were Lacrimosa from Germany banned? I know that their earlier material was goth rock/darkwave, but the later material is more gothic metal with symphonic elements.

Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it did not use the search function to know what's on the other side!

Thank you, thank you, you are a wonderful audience.

search.php?keywords=lacrimosa&terms=all&author=&fid[]=3&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

I tried to submit a band with a released single and I put the youtube link of the single and it was rejected, I don't know why.

Youtube videos are not valid releases, since they are streaming only (no download). This is a constant point of confusion. We allow digital releases, but they must be downloadable IN FULL (i.e. Bandcamp, etc.).

Or maybe because the last time someone checked about the band was in 2013, and their heavier release was released in 2015?

Provide samples for the mods to evaluate instead of posting aimlessly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8n_BY2D1IY

Thanks, I forgot about that.

Still sounds like the kind of gothic/sympho rock stuff the site doesn't accept.

Hey, I'm not sure why the band Psychosis from USA was blacklisted. Depressive black metal, they have an album released on Depressive Illusions Records. Thanks.

Ambient/depressive music with a touch of metal, as of March this year. Be wary of DIR bands, a lot of it is just ambient and riffless noise stuff marketed as DSBM.

As Antioch already mentioned, Atomikylä already released their second album "Keräily" on Svart Records (on April 29):
http://svartrecords.com/shoppe/home/365 ... ly-cd.html

Plus here's one of the tracks off this album (check out the sound on 3:55):
https://soundcloud.com/svart-records/at ... -pakoputki

And even on the first album their heavy psychedelic space rock was only 50% (or even less) of their style - other 50% Psychedelic Stoner/Doom Metal - just with some interludes - again, please check out the samples I posted before.

And considering all previous samples I posted (from their debut album and from their live performances) I think there are enough proofs to back them from the black list.

Thank you!

Part doom, part noisy heavy psych rock. We need to listen to the entire (second) release here.