Burned: 黒ヶ音研究室/Kuroganelab.

Doujin band, no original material

Deleted This Empty Flow. Shoegaze/ethereal wave or somesuch thing. Neither doom metal nor gothic metal nor XYZ metal.

Deleted Ever Forthright. Djent/mathcore.

just curious/for educashunal purposes: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Buk ... 3540396280 how did he make the cut?

Well, grindcore is one of those styles where the songs are going to be shorter, and therefore the albums are going to be shorter. We do account for that in our decisions (or at least we try to). However, it probably would have been best to wait for another EP or full-length, IMO. I have no idea about the music on that one.

This wasn't accepted as a purely digital-only band: the submitter had also attached screenshots of correspondence with the band over Facebook, who confirmed the availability of CDs (and as I understand, he'll include photos of the CDs once he receives his order).

I've changed the format of the release to "CD" to disambiguate; hadn't noticed the release type was set to "digital".

Otherwise, yes, ~8 minutes is too short, even for grind standards.

thanks

Why does Sascha Konietzko have his own page even though none of his bands are allowed on this website?

Third tab pretty much holds the answer quite clearly.

It was my understanding that remixes of others' work wasn't enough to get you in. My mistake

You're confusing artist pages with band pages.

Deleted Izod from the UK. Actually from Canada and already listed as such.

Insignificant name change?
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Vic ... 3540397106

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Ang ... 3540371443

I'm not sure if it's really a name change, but the logo is the same with Angoisse removed so I'd assume so.

There is no serious proof of existence for this band. It should be nuked.
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Angel_Dust/111373

Merged.

Can you elaborate? Do you have reason to question the fact that they released a demo?

They released a demo, but: when? how?
What's the name? what about the release date?
Sources?
No websites, no external links, just a website stating about them as an "italian band which released a demo". Is that a valid proof?

The band wouldn't have been accepted if there wasn't proof that the release existed and was metal. Sometimes for these more obscure bands there isn't enough info available to add the release(s) to the discography section.

Having a solid online presence is hardly a requirement for inclusion.

They were added by a trustworthy user. It might be that the linked website was the only source used, I don't know how legit it is, tbh. It might be that additional information was provided back then, information that has since become unavailable. Whatever the case, we don't lightly delete bands once they have passed through the evaluation process. Again, do you have reason to assume the band is fake or doesn't have any releases? Bringing up suspicious-looking entries is fine, but you made it sound as if you have some inside knowledge about this one, other than "the entry is pretty empty".

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Vin ... 3540304138

i can't get the demo to listen but the other releases of the band ins't added but to me isn't metal :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHsseeeXc4M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SHEumUPHm8

Good
http://puu.sh/iihoJ/6383e5d950.png


What does make a user more righteous than others? That user added more than a band like this, as retrieved from that website.



It might be mods were more permissive than today (sincerely I don't know, could be just a supposition). If they exist - and the submitter provided proofs of existence - why their entry is totally empty? Why did he not filled with more valid data if he was in possession of those? If a band exists, there are more information you can find trough the internet - discogs, lastfm, blogspot, myspace, whatever it is - not just a website listing bands which released something in some time. For them, there are no other proofs: no other website, no other links, no discogs, nothing. Look here if you don't believe me https://www.google.com/search?q=angel%2 ... band&rct=j. Seriously, how can you take that source as valid? I could create a website today and saying there's a band somewhere called AEIOU which released a presumed demo.




No, sorry, but you're wrong. I have no inside knowledge about this one. I just listed this band here because I found it on the website, and as your rules appear to be clear about a band's existence http://puu.sh/iihfn/e6c51c6804.png, I was only trying to be useful to you.

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. I'm talking about stuff like Facebook pages, fan sites, online reviews, frequent referencing of the band in general, etc. They are great, but not necessarily required, uploaded scans and samples work just as well (and are often the way it happens for older, obscure bands).


Well, obviously, some users can show consistent dedication to detail and sourcing and have established themselves as benign and legitimate contributors. That's what I meant by "trustworthy". Call it "has a long and positive submission record" or "knows his shit", if you like. That also connects to what I said before about hidden or lost additional evidence that might have been provided.


Well, yes and no. The rules as such on releases have always been in place, though I concede that the staff doesn't have 100% identical standards as to what suffices as evidence. That's a consequence of us not being a hivemind. But the general attitude towards proof shouldn't really differ. Again, I'm not sure how exactly the highlighted rules section relates to our discussion. If you mean the last paragraph, that is referring to a staffer's willingness to conduct research on their own. Anyway, the band in question was approved in 2007, which as I recall was a period when the band queue was mostly managed by Witcher. I'm not going to deny that certain older entries have since been re-evaluated and found wanting and that the site was a different place in the beginning, but that doesn't mean that we have to automatically assume every pre-v2 (or whatever) band was approved on a whim.


Valid data such as? The tracklist? Not always available, a release may be listed itself in a review, old 'zine, etc. but individual tracks are not given, or not all contained. Release date? Often omitted as well, even if it's just the year and supposition is not really a viable option for a discography entry. Title? It can happen; for example, an old ad or review can read like "If you want their demo-tape, write to [address]". That seems like adequate proof of existence/distribution, yet with no further details available.


That is simply incorrect. I know for a fact that this band and that band existed and that they have releases, but their online presence is practically nil. Or how about this one? There is a short note about some of these listed release on their ex-guitarist's website, but let's say it gets taken down. What then? No mention online = did not exist? I also have photos of the CDs, emailed to me by an ex-member of the band. You won't find them through a Google search. So, not valid? The internet is a vast resource, but it does not contain everything (even if you take brilliant tools like IA's Wayback Machine into account) and shouldn't be elevated to the final measuring stick by which to decisively judge a band's legitimacy.


I'd like to repeat that I don't know the linked list and its veracity. It might be that it's an established source and other staffers are more familiar with it and the workings behind it. I'll certainly ask around.


Yes, and that's cool and we are grateful to people bringing up eyebrow-raising pages. I admit I may have been a bit touchy about this so far, but we often have to deal with people hastily linking these kinds of entries in here (or as an argument for including their own submissions), people who do not really understand how things work here. They think they have found a serious flaw in the system or some lazy hypocrisy, while it's almost always either honest mistakes on our part or a lack of info on their part. The appearance of a band entry to a regular user (and the lack of information online) in itself should not be a valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, the onus of providing a basis for removing accepted bands lies with the person bringing up those bands. We need reasonable doubt, at the very least. That can't be stressed enough. So in this regard, I feel like we have sort of argued about two different things so far. You were putting forward this band in particular as dubious because of its seeming reliance on that one list. I was trying to justify "barren" band entries like that in general and to show that things may not always be as they appear.

That being said, we'll definitely look into the band and that list's legitimacy. Personally, I'm more worried about the description of "hard,heavy" than the release issue, but while it is possible that it was the only basis for the band's inclusion, if we are able to identify it as a trustworthy source for the demo's existence, it can arguably be enough.

555777, man, I don't think you're understanding us at all.

For a band to be accepted onto our site, it must have a metal album that has been released and distributed (ie. clearly and openly made available to a public audience). There are TWO forms of distribution. A band can choose to release an album on a physical format (CDs, Tapes, Vinyl... things you can hold, which are tangible) OR they can choose to release digitally (a download via the Internet, usually as MP3s). We accept both types of formats, but, we do not value them equally when it comes to accepting bands.

We recognize that there are bands that predate the Internet, that have never had an online presence, and which cannot possibly be expected to have a website dedicated to them. They may as well have ceased to exist decades before the Internet became "big". These bands have every right to be on this site if they have released and distributed a metal album. So the question I pose to you is how would you determine that? How would you figure out if a band ever released and distributed something if there's nothing on the Internet about them?

Well, for one, we know that they could only ever manufacture a physical album... since, you know, they predate the Internet and therefore that format. Thus, we look for evidence that the band released a physical album. What about distribution? How do we know if the band ever distributed multiple copies of that album? That's the tricky part. It's up to the submitter of the band to prove that to us, and that proof is not as easily obtained as it might if the band had an online presence. Sometimes it comes down to relying on the submitter actually having the physical album or knowing someone who has it (and showing us visual proof of that). Sometimes we rely on old zines and reviewers who might have got a hold of the album at the time the band was still active. In other cases, the album may (briefly) pop-up on a tradelist or distro in the here and now. If we're lucky, there's multiple sources we can use to judge cases like this. We don't require that the submitter actually own the item, but we do require they provide ample proof that the item actually existed at one point and fits our rules. Every band that we've accepted - whether it was ten years ago or yesterday - must have been submitted by its submitter with PROOF. That has never changed.

Alright, so let's say a band like this gets accepted. We have proof that the band has released and distributed a metal album. What next? Well we actually don't require anything more than that for a band to have a page with our site. Ideally, in a perfect world, we would cover everything possible about a band (ex. details about its discography, its line-up, its history, etc.)... but we don't live in a perfect world. Sometimes all we may ever know about a band is its name and that it's released and distributed a metal album. And that's fine. That's just life. Our hope is that eventually someone will come along with more information and will be willing to add it to the band's page. Honestly, that's the beauty about this site. You will see a lot of fleshed-out band pages because we have lots of users who actually scour the Internet, as well as offline sources, and try to find everything possible about bands. For bands with an online presence that's a lot easier than otherwise. At least at some point the band might have had a webpage, and that webpage might be archived somewhere; It may have plenty information about the line-up, discography, history of the band. Unfortunately that's not always true. Bands from obscure places in the world, bands that predate the Internet, and bands that fiercely protect their anonymity may be completely devoid of most information we take for granted. That's just life. It doesn't make these bands any less legitimate or valid for being included on our site.

Now, regarding some of your other comments:


Why might we trust "trustworthy" users over just regular users? Here's the thing. We don't take any user at face value - not even other staff. We don't give special treatment to other users. We don't make the rules more relaxed for some users than others. However, there are users that we've had experience with multiple times before. These are users who are incredibly reliable; they almost always provide the proof we need for a band to be accepted and they do so in a way that isn't lazy or apathetic. In other words, they actually put as much effort as possible into their submissions, instead of leaving it up to other users to fill in the information they don't feel like adding. The person who submitted that band you linked is one of those users. So when we look at his submission we KNOW that he tried to find as much information as possible about the band. We also KNOW that he very likely provided the proof that we needed at the time. Mistakes in accepting bands can be made - as we are all humans - but they are very rare.


We would still require proof beyond that. You seem to think that the Google search you did on that band is all the information that was given to us about that band, but I can guarantee to you that it was not. If the only thing we are given for "proof" is a website that claims a band released a demo, we are not going to accept it on that proof alone. We will ask the person who submitted the band to provide us with evidence showing that the demo was released and distributed. Let's say AEIOU is an 80s band. The submitter provides us with pictures of the album and a link showing that back in the 80s it was once for sale. Fan-fucking-tastic. Oh look, the submitter also found us a zine from that time that describes the album being sold at shows. Just our luck, the album is now currently on someone's tradelist AND is being sold online through eBay. Suddenly, from our perspective, this album no longer looks "fake" and "invalid" to us. We will, of course, ask for samples if samples are possible. We gotta make sure the album is metal. More proof, even better. We love evidence. Having multiple, independent sources supporting what we know about a band is the best thing you could ask for. Do you now see what we're getting at here? None of this proof requires the Internet necessarily. Some of this proof may not even be on the Internet for very long, but it is just as valid. Imagine that a user comes by 10 years later and claims AEIOU is fake because they can't find any info about the band online. If a band was accepted there must've been proof given to us that it existed. How would you prove otherwise?

Witcher

Deleted Delight Lost. Listed as modern heavy metal, sounds like mallcore.

To be fair, those two bands you listed have some tangible evidence that they did actually exist. One of their pages lists the lineup, and the other lists their discography. The Angel Dust page is literally empty except for that one link, which is pretty bare-bones itself.

I don't doubt that the uploader was reliable, but it seems odd that he didn't actually include any information beyond that. The page itself is pretty . . . useless, since there's no way of finding their music provided, but it's pretty weird how, as far as I can tell, nobody on this website knows a thing about this band.

Same principles still apply. By 555777's apparent reasoning, these bands and more would be subject to scrutiny simply because there are no external source for them. But I hear you, I'm not saying it's not raising some flags, but the point I (and derigin) were trying to make is that it's not inconceivable and people can carry misconceptions as to what constitutes an acceptable entry.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to have an imgur MA album/account where you could save all these reviews and/or tracklist-less j-cards and link them to the band in question?

EDIT: What yet to come, I mean. Not what's been already lost.

Deleted Jante Alu. Very heavily crust/punk-based grindcore with a few unusually metallish tracks (one of which was even frigging full-on black metal, for fuck's sake).

This was brought up briefly in another thread but wasn't answered properly. Why are Infectious Grooves on here? Is it just because they are a side project?

Yes.

Oh ok thanks for properly answering then, you definitely cleared everything up for me

Well, seemed like you had already answered your own question there. Was there something else about the inclusion that confused you?

Yo, A Pregnant Light - what's up with them in here? There's 0 black metal. It's literally just screamo/hardcore. I like the band, but this is about as far from metal as possible. I didn't sort through the the rest of the discography, but the debut has no metallic elements on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HPoSJTUfSw

skip to any part and i guarantee you won't hear anything.

It would have been approved based on the first demo exclusively, and apparently the genre tag used to be just "black metal". I agree with you that the album you linked is not acceptable (wouldn't say there's 0 black metal, though, just very, very little), but perhaps the demo/earlier stuff tells another story. I'll check it out.

Also, from looking at the report history, there have been some deletion reports and at least TUA thinks the band is metal enough to stay (also, I was the one who approved the band and changed the genre later, but I can't really remember anything).

Deleted Dimensions of Horror (duplicate, actually bearing the lovely name Anally Raped by Satan and already in the Archives) and Ol Drake (seems to be more hard rock/shred than metal).

EDIT: Also deleted Blasphemyth from Morocco for the second time. The band is associated with a user/band member who tried to evade the blacklist, fake evidence and had a generally dubious edit record. Thus it was originally deleted. Now there seems to be a release at least, leading to their inclusion, but the band has been revealed to have stolen a Sarcófago cover from a Brazilian band. So who knows where the rest of the music is from. Too much crap to have this listed as a legit entry. Will require some airtight evidence that the material is original and distributed.

Linking to one new record is kind of silly in a discography so diverse but earlier works have more black metal in them. I agree this is a very tough one but I still feel that something like Hear the Slow Slow Shadow has enough black metal in it to be acceptable. Definite post-punk influence in the early works but significant metal passages as well in many releases. Deathmyhangingdoorway has a good chunk of blackness as well. Feast of the Clipped Wings - the review of that one is spot on - raw black / post-punk stuff.

Nuked:
Greyswan - Doomy Goth Rock
Tarot - Gothicy Neofolk
Fields of Jena - Goth Rock
Martyr Lucifer - Goth Rock, some Doom metal.

I've checked the first demo and it seemed predominantly black metal to me. OpsiusCato agreed, saying it's closer to raw/DSBM than post-stuff. It looks more like the genre tag needing an update.

Looks like someone has actually added a compilation as a split!
Also, no other release by the band...

http://www.metal-archives.com/band/view/id/3540351656