This isn't really the right place for it, but anyway...

The Metal Archives is a website run, paid for and administrated by its staff (I'm actually not 100% sure who the head-honcho is, don't really wanna take an educated guess in case I'm wrong.) As such, it is up to them what constitutes as metal or not for their website.

As you should know being a metal fan, what is and isn't metal is something people debate about a lot. I've heard everything from Robert Johnson to Neil Young described as metal (The former on this site, the latter by Sebastian Bach). I myself would consider a number of bands (Namely glam bands of the 80s, and some of the "proto-metal" bands of the late 60s and early 70s) to be metal enough for this site, but it isn't my site and I'm not particularly worried about it.

Someone has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the amount of stuff that would be on here would be endless, and we might end up with Pearl Jam, Neil Young, and The Galvatorns on here. That isn't a world I want to live in.

Personally, i couldnt care less if a band is on this site or not. What i'm pointing out is that the band was accepted at first for being metal, and then deleted quite a while later because its not metal. It has nothing to do with this particular band, just a general thing.

It's happened before, particularly around 2009 when the site became a lot more strict about standards for metalcore and deathcore.

This makes me wonder-I recall reading that back in the dark ages, bands like Bring Me The Horizon, Suicide Silence, Emmure, ect. were all on MA. Was there a large amount of anal pain on the forums when they got removed?

Not that I can remember. I think the general opinion was positive, though that's likely more due to people here hating bands like Emmure and BMTH regardless of genre (or perhaps it was entirely because of it?).

Just to add my two cents, I think AAL should be in here. There are several other bands I think should be here as well, and others that shouldn't (Deep Purple, Motley Crue, Mortiis to name a few) but I deal with it. MA is still a great site to get information on bands, big or small, which is what I use it for. It does tick me off a bit when bands I and most others consider metal either aren't on here or are removed, but as I said, I deal with it. Still a damn shame though.

Dont sound very metal to me, just a ton of boring wankery

Sounds like a techno remix of Steve Vai with some dude practicing sweep picking over it, I guess that's experimenting with his sound.

The admins on this site are too insecure about trying to be as pure of metal is possible, without having anything else.

Sure, we could all argue about what is really metal and what isn't, but when it comes down to it, WHO GIVES A SHIT. SO WHAT if a Prog Metal/Rock band or a Metallic Hardcore band or a Post Rock/Black band or a Deathcore band is on the archives. SO FUCKING WHAT. The point of this site isn't so by a hyper categorizing fuck fest, it's a database which people can refer to to find information, members, releases, and whatnot of bands. And if this site decides it wants to nit pick and be really anal about what it allows on the site, so be it, I'll just journey over to Spirit of Metal. Sure, I would prefer it all to be on one site. Sure, I'm still going to come to this site for the bands that actually are on this site. But let's say as I've gone further underground and as I've ventured into other genres or into hybrids, I've been visiting this site less and less.

This is excluding the forums, of course.

Perhaps we have different perceptions of how this site is run, but I think the process of removing bands involves a lot of indifference until a moderator reads through an interesting review of a band or a complaint about them, then does the unthinkable - listening to a band they haven't heard - followed by deleting them, reading complaints, and elaborately making fun of dissenters when threads like this come up.

See, I don't really get this argument of "they're trying to keep the metal as pure as possible". The only requirement for a band to be on the site is a physical release that is at least, say, 50% metal, maybe a bit more. It doesn't have to be an Algerian one-man band that mailed 5 tapes to random addresses and then took a space shuttle to the moon to die. Bring Me the Horizon, while having undeniable metal influence, are not a metal band. They are a punk band. Also, this notion that the site is "biased" against deathcore/metalcore is equally ludicrous. All that's required for a -core band to get in is that they use predominantly metal riffs rather than punk ones. It's not a matter of whether the mods like it or not - hell, back when The Last Kind Words was released Morri outright hated it, yet still allowed DevilDriver into the website.

Really that's all there is to it, and I don't see why people are trying to make it so difficult by thinking "not on MA = people think they suck", or the variation thereof, "not on MA = I HAVE TO JUSTIFY LIKING THIS BAND EVERY TIME SOMEONE TALKS ABOUT THEM ON THE FORUMS".

Animals as Leaders are a cool band, but I was surprised when they were initially added some time after their debut. It reminds me of the time Europe was added. Except Europe was very quickly removed again.

And if it really bothers you so much, you could start your own metal database. I've yet to see one that comes even close to the amount of quality data on this site that doesn't just copy it verbatim.

Actually, I don't know if "Also, this notion that the site is "biased" against deathcore/metalcore is equally ludicrous." is directed at me because I never said it, but since you brought it up, that bias DOES in fact exist. Well, I don't know if it's actually a bias because I'm sure it happens to lots of other hybrid genres, but it still exists. Being the metalcore/deathcore guy that everyone knows me as, I know lots of bands in the genre and I know lots about them. Now, my argument here isn't what should and shouldn't be metal. I frankly don't give a damn and don't care enough to even begin arguing. HOWEVER, there are metalcore/deathcore bands on the archive that are considerably less metal than some metalcore/deathcore bands on the archive. Now, one could argue "Well, small differences like that are hard to catch and it's impossible to be 100% consistent". And, well, I agree with that point and because of it, I don't bother saying which bands should and shouldn't be on the archives.

As for Bring Me the Horizon, their two latest albums are straight up melodic hardcore. i.e. they're not metal at all. Their early stuff was melodic deathcore (pretty core-y) so it was only a little bit metal. Overall, are they a metal band? Definitely not. Do they have enough metal in their music to fit in to a metal group/scene? Well, that's a matter of opinion, but I still wouldn't be moved if most people said no. Frankly, I don't like the band so I don't care about how they're categorized. But my point is while they do have a little metal in them, they're still mostly hardcore. Having said that, look at it from a archive user point of view. If someone finds a bunch of metalcore/deathcore bands on the archives and then goes to look for Bring Me the Horizon, they're going to be awfully disappointed that they won't find them. This site is a database and there's hardly any point of using a database if it only has half the data you want.

Now I realize I'm pushing it here. If Hardcore/Metalcore bands are allowed, then people will push for Hardcore, then Post Hardcore, then Pop Punk, and then even Alternative Rock. The admins don't want this to happen and because of such they try to solve the problem by drawing a line. In some regards it makes sense because there's not a lot of options. But still, I think it would make sense for a partially metal band who plays with other metal bands in metal tours and appeals to metal fans to be on a metal archive (do note that I'm not talking about Bring Me the Horizon in that statement). The whole reason why we have these genre wars and useless fights and arguments is because people feel the incessant need to draw lines everywhere.

One more thing. Underoath is on the archives. They had a couple partially metal early EPs, followed by a lot of Post Hardcore releases. The reason why people like the OP get mad about bands like AAL being taken off the archives is because bands like Underoath get to stay on. By posting this I may be indirectly taking them off the archives and I sure hope not but really the only thing I care about is consistency.

Exactly - it's about drawing lines. There's not exactly a bias against -core - sure, most of the stupider users will hate it like it poses an active threat to the future of metal, but I know quite a few users that can stomach at least a few of the "unacceptable" -core bands here. Hell, I'll even come out and say that I really like Emmure. MA doesn't exclude them just because they're not true and don't follow the right ideologies - it's because, when you get down to the basic features of the music, most of them don't use riffs that can be grouped into any valid metal subgenre. Sure, you could try to create a new subgenre for it to fit in with the metal crowd (as the djent scene is trying to do), but the fact remains that metalcore is 90s hardcore punk by definition and they lean way further towards that genre than metal.

And don't worry, Underoath aren't going anywhere. Considering they stayed around the time IWABO, Emmure and The Acacia Strain were nuked into oblivion, I'd say they're here to stay.

Haha, it's funny that you like Emmure. I love metalcore and deathcore (usually just the melodic kinds) and have countless -core bands in my library, but Emmure is one of them that I don't really like that much. They're really good pump up music but since I don't really have anything I need to get pumped for, I usually forget they exist.

As for the whole line thing, it's just baffling how a band like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlCo9_FB5Nk (Blind Witness), who's chock full of melodic riffs, tremolo picking, blast beats, and solos, can be withheld from the archives just because they have a few breakdowns where as a song like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RNYCGEPW38 (Underoath), could have stayed for so long.

Well, it's not like a band has to have all their releases be metal to be on the website. If that was the case, lots of famous bands, like Metallica, Alcest, Katatonia, Lacuna Coil, and Cynic would be missing from the website. Underoath proved their metalness with their first two albums; they could pretty much become a dance-pop band tomorrow if they wanted and they'd still be on the website.

But wasn't that the whole argument with Bring Me the Horizon? Their 2 latest full lengths are both melodic deathcore, but their first two releases are deathcore, and they're just as metal as Underoath's first two releases. They both even released the same amount of metal/-core releases.

Like I said earlier though, I don't really care that much. I am criticizing the admins' tendency to nit pick and nit picking myself would make my a hypocrite. But there's still justifiable reason for me to raise an eyebrow.

Just wait till MA cracks down on all this post-black shoegaze stuff; now that will be a shitstorm on the forums.

(P.S.: How has Human666 not been permanently banned yet? Seriously, I'm not trying to be a total asshole or anything, but he has proved time and time again to have on of the worst attitudes possible and I know many people who would agree with me)

Eh, Animals as Leaders are pretty borderline. What you might call post-metal. Pretty broad term; it might fit the bill, it might not. A lot of the debut just sounds like trippy space rock atmopsheres mixed with Yngwie-like rhythm bits and djent.



Rush are also apparently just here on behalf of their influence on metal. Led Zeppelin, one of the most influential 70s bands to the metal style, are absent. Very odd. Tool's absence is based on the fact they sound like wrasslin' theme songs (aka alternative metal) gone prog. Not even remotely odd. On the other side of the coin... Winds of Plague being on here? Kinda makes sense, if you've heard them. Though once you have, you'll wish they were banned from the internet as a whole.

Yadda yadda. It's posted in the wrong section, it's not phrased in a diplomatic or even reasonable way, and so on. I'm still glad it helped me notice this removal, which gave me food for thought.

@Napero: Thanks for hinting at your actual reasoning for removing this band in your post (which was otherwise a pretty fun read as is often the case with your rebuttals). So, I take it you only recently read the "your opinion on the 'djent' genre" thread, then?

I may post it as a formal suggestion in the relevant section (or someone can beat me to it), but here goes:

When a band is removed rather than simply rejected, especially if that band has been there for quite a while and their page held a lot of content, it might be a good idea to include a "this band has been removed" page instead, with an explanation as to why it's been removed and a mention that it will no longer be accepted. "No matches found." is confusing.

As for why it's such a big deal for many, two things:

- MA may be owned and operated by a few individuals, but its massive database is still the result of countless users contributing to it over the years. That said users feel involved is to be expected.

- The bulk of the younger/less knowledgeable users DO take MA's database at face value. I've developed this point far deeper in an earlier thread, if someone cares to look. The shepherd can say "think for yourselves" to its flock all he wants, it will never work that way.

Progressive isn't a genre, it's a way to relate tocomposing. You don't make sense.

Im actually really curious how "metal" of an album Soulfly has to release to actually be allowed on M-A.

Devildriver finally did it... because I remember they werent allowed for quite a few years.

I just wonder at what level is the metal-ness adequate.


SSSHHHHHHHHHH.

The thing is, it isn't that cut-and-dry. Metal isn't something that can be really put into a simple mathematical equation, that is why things get so subjective. Each band needs to be approached case-by-case, as well. It would be interesting to see if Motley Crue would be included, had their impact been much smaller (That isn't a dig at the mods, it is just a legitimate wonder).

I seem to remember a discussion way back about a band who had one fairly metal album in their discography, but it was a MASSIVE discography, and none of the others were at all metal. As such, it was decided not to include them because of that blip in their career.

The powers that be are whimsical and mischievous. They delight in frustrating your ambitions. Direct requests will never work so if you want something in you have to subvert the psycho-social framework working behind their denial.

Compare and contrast.

I like AAL but I'm of the opinion they aren't all that metal

As for the Soulfly comment, they are more on here because of the Side Project rule I think

They're not on here, and there's been more than a few mod comments that suggest the issue isn't with their metalness (or lack thereof) but the simple fact that they don't sound like Sepultura.

AaL sucks and I'm glad they're not on the Archives.
I use the Archives almost everyday to find bands I didn't know about and to learn more about those I've recently discovered. For instance, I was pleasantly surprised to find a page for Prog rock/metal band TILES on the site!

Animals as Leaders taken off the Archives, eh?

Really now, that is some pretty serious bullshit. They're definitely metal, definitely fantastic and definitely belong on the archives.

I think AaL would be gladly added to supposed core archives. I doubt there would be any confusion similar to this. If I asked them I bet they'd say it's more core than metal. MA isn't supposed to include just anything that has odd time signatures and technical riffs.

I'm going to play devil's (heh heh) advocate here for a minute. I'm not going to get riled up over borderline cases because this problem will be encountered no matter what. If M-A starts including the bands that people are bitching about now than someone else will come along and say "Well, you accepted this barely metal band, why don't you accept this other barely metal band?"

However, Devil Doll being on here makes no sense. Just about any random metalcore band has more metal than they do. I'm not upset about their inclusion because it was you wonderful users who introduced me to what is now one of my favorite bands. Less than half of the music even has guitar and I find their guitar lines are more like simplified prog rock than metal.

Let's take a look at the genre:
Avant-garde / Symphonic / Progressive with Rock and Metal Elements

I'd imagine there's less than 15 minutes of "metal elements" across 5 Devil Doll albums. My point is that no one seems to debate the band's inclusion to the site because... well, they're fucking awesome. I think there is a bias here. Devildriver should've been on here long ago and it seems like some people are purposely obtuse to these things. They're terrible, but that's irrelevant.

I would consider them metal, but that new song is way more overt about it than the first album.

If it's that big of a deal to you, go straight to the proper authority (they make themselves available to you, why wouldn't you). If you get a no, you've been considered. If you get treated poorly, it's probably your fault, or the authority is a dick, in which case do the sensible thing and walk away. As stated a million times before, if you don't like it, make your own. If there's a demand for looser boundaries of metal, then people will come. If not, suck it.

I think Devil Doll are a really different case because their music is so unique, and they aren't associated with other bands, a movement, or even a single genre. There isn't anything that really comes close to the painstaking, extensive compositions, and the music is unusually diverse in both influence and execution. Five different genre labels hardly describe the music, because there's not a whole lot to compare it to.

It's much easier to associate hardcore or prog-rock bands with those vast, non-metal scenes that occasionally cross into metal. Bands might have a thick, low-tuned guitar sound reminiscent of extreme metal, but bands that play groovy hardcore riffs like Integrity and The Acacia Strain or prog virtuoso wankery like Steve Vai are still playing music that sounds more like another established style than metal.

No one outside of this forum refers to a genre, or group of genres, known as "core."

Do you want to know why? Because it's a useless term. It means absolutely nothing except maybe a vague implication breakdowns. Even that only applies to relatively recent "hardcore" which as we know sounds nothing like the progenitors of the genre.

What about Animals as Leaders makes them more "core"? They chug a little? So does Meshuggah, and since when have they been a metalcore band?

I think it's stupid that AaL aren't here but whatever, not my site.

Also to the person who said BMTH wasn't metal, but punk:

Did you have to work hard to be so incredibly ignorant, or do you just live under a rock? I'll assume the former since having an internet connection should allow you to know just how plain wrong you are.

Way to ignore the part of my post that is actually falsifiable. As I said, "core" would refer to so many different sounds that it in and of itself means nothing. A style of music most people here don't like happens to be one of the dozen affiliated with the term, and for reasons I will not get into (other than to say that they are not flattering) people feel compelled to flout their half-baked, uneducated opinion of it, shortening it to "core" because they are too apathetic and lazy to care whether they know what they're talking about or have any interest in communicating clear ideas at all. They must have a sense that most of their thoughts are better off left unsaid.

I concede your implicit surrender. If you actually had anything substantial to say you wouldn't have resorted to primary school insults.

Okay, I misspoke. In addition to metal-archives, fans of crappy music tend to use the term in this fashion. Which are you?

No, you are verifiably wrong on all accounts. Core, as in deathcore and metalcore generally refers to distinct elements that are primarily inherent in those genres. What allows a core band to be accepted here is how strong the influence of metal actually is. Yes, breakdowns pop up in non-core bands, but they are easily differentiated from deathcore chugging, just like tremolo riffs are present in both death metal and black metal, yet are undeniably different in black metal.

I surrender to your overwhelming ignorance of apparently any music/metal internet community outside of MA, as well as any printed media.

So...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R098zbkoPxE
Aside from the Jazz influence and progressive metal influence, how is this not metal?

The decision to remove Animals As Leaders was a terrible one. That's all I'm going to say.

You completely missed my point. Are you even trying? Deathcore and metalcore, besides neither being entirely homogenous on their own, are not the only genres that have the -core suffix. There's obviously hardcore and grindcore (along with the proper subdivisions of each), then there are some of the more questionable, but still often used, tags like mathcore and sadcore. What do they have in common? I'll tell you what it's not: breakdowns.

I'm not even trying to argue that AaL is metal, just pointing out the general idiocy of the "core" nomenclature. Empty words for empty thoughts.

They're more prog rock, like Steve Vai's instrumental rock stuff. The rhythm playing is rhythmically complex, but it's really just a simple backdrop for the lead guitar. It's tuned low and heavily distorted, but it's at least 90% leads. It's weird prog stuff, it's more like Vai or Satriani - most of the prog rock guitar virtuosos aren't on the archives and they have their own hard rock niche, but they never really focus on guitar riffing. Tony MacAlpine had more of a focus on riffing at times, but he still had much of the same stylings of prog hard rock.

The metal element of the metal shred artists on the archives stands out quite a bit - the rhythm playing on Jason Becker's "Perpetual Burn", the riffing and trading off the lead with the vocalist of Malmsteen and Racer X (the dual guitar interplay here is very different than AAL).