Yes it is that band, I guess it should be renamed to Moloch only, Von Moloch is the name of the singer from what I can read off their myspace

Just submit a report to have the extraneous link removed.


Changed. I've copied "Von Moloch" to the alternate name/spelling field for any people still looking the band up under that name.

Excuse me, why the italian band called "Gli Atroci" was blacklisted? I think they're metal enough...
Here some samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGdDx_lgyOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1wAuy5F ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS7y41FJ ... re=related
For the proof of physical release, i have their album "Metallo O Morte"
Let me know.

I tried to find the reason why Valfunde was deleted from the metal-archives but couldn't find an answer. I remember that this side-project of Famine (from Peste Noire) was here for some time. There is a physical release (the split with amesoeurs) and it's obviously black metal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da7fbogC ... re=related

It doesn't even sound too different from what he did with Peste Noire.

The band was blacklisted for being darkwave, which suggests the majority of the music wasn't metal.


Those tracks seem perfectly fine, but I'll need to listen to the entirety of "Metallo O Morte" before passing judgement. I've downloaded it, there's 22 tracks and an hour of listening ahead. Just letting you know you're not being ignored.

Thank you if you want to add the band can i add it? I know everything about them

Yeah, okay... after listening to the entire CD, I can honestly see why they were blacklisted. Some of their material is metal, but a lot of it's hard rock/AOR. The fact that almost every second song after the first 3-4 was an instrumental/minute-long sample didn't help, either.

So, sorry. The release needs to be *completely* metal. 3 or 4 metal tracks out of 22 isn't going to cut it.

And what do you think about the other 2 albums?

Darkwave? really? There are only two songs which were both included on the split. One is the one I posted and the other is an instrumental intro kind. Valfunde has the same riffing-style as a lot of Peste Noire songs, has the same obvious black metal vocals and even the production suits the black metal-atmosphere. The only thing that is really different is the drumming. But blast beats certainly aren't necessary to be called metal imo.
I could see why someone would notice Joy Division or The Cure (or whatever post-punk/darkwave)-influence in Amesoeurs (other band of the split), but Valfunde is 100% black metal to me........

I only listened to "Metallo O Morte", which is the one you mentioned. Unless one of the other two is a lot heavier (and consistent) than M.O.M., they're staying blacklisted.


So, there were two tracks: one metal, and the other was... what, an ambient instrumental intro? That's not gonna be enough; as I was saying to Niklaus above, a release has to be predominantly metal, and not "iffy".

From using the search function, the posts I got seem to indicate that Resistant Culture seem to used to be on here. Now I can definitely see why they would be deleted based on their first album. Although the album has a strong metal influence, in the end it is indigenous influenced crust punk with the occasional grind song. I think they should be reconsidered for their most recent album "All One Struggle." This album seems to be predominantly death/grind (although still with punk, especially in some of the riffs, and indigenous influences, although not nearly as prominent in the first album.). Here is an example :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8alKzVZub7o

Might not be the best example because of the punk riff sections, but this is one of the only songs from the album I could find on youtube, and the other one was not representative of the album at all. The more straight ahead death/grind type songs I couldn't find, although I think the one I linked to shows a fair amount of that. There is a fair amount of crust punk riffing on some songs on the album, although I find the metal elements are much more prominent

You could say that I am making this post very much to be a dick, but I am genuinely curious:

When are we going to drop the "admittedly arbitrary fashion" bullshit in regard to non-metal acts that are in some way related to existing or previously existing metal acts and come up with some concrete criteria? It's just really hilarious reading all of the excuses you use to reject some of the proposals in this thread when I am 99% positive that groups like Grey Waters, Nest, and Jesu (to name just a few) fit similar criteria and are more or less here solely because their members are/were part of Austere/Woods of Desolation, collaborated with/covered actual metal bands (oh yeah, see the "cover band" rule), or are named for the last Godflesh song, respectively (and for example). Of course, I myself consider Jesu to be metal's answer to the downtempo/chillout spectrum, and would have personally included them on the site as well, but for your criteria? I don't think it flies. Not if you're trying to be consistent (and you're not; you claim to be when you want to reject something, but that obvious falls apart elsewhere).

To be honest, I could care less if this wasn't a site attempting to be the encyclopaedic go-to guide for discographies, links, and other resources, and was merely some kind of fansite. But no, it's Encyclopaedia Fucking Metallum.

Yeah, sorry, I'm a little mallcore kid whose opinion means nothing, but the status of being the moderating authority alone doesn't make your management choices credible.

Try, maybe, I dunno, defining what 'metal' is, putting that in a FAQ, and linking to that in the OP (or just quoting it outright), so maybe you won't have so many users who are OMG oh so irritating and annoying (in a thread that pretty much demands that you challenge the mod's opinions and blacklist; yeah, not sure why you guys are complaining about that--you made the thread and you knew what you were in for: deal with it) because they maybe don't get how SOAD isn't a metal band (for whatever fucking reason), how Between the Buried and Me doesn't cut it (even though they essentially play a more progressive and chaotic form of the same -core shit that has articles all over the site in the form of Killswitch Engage, All That Remains, etc.), or how Meshuggah's "djent" followers can't get in because they're not influenced by early Meshuggah, but later Meshuggah, which is somehow not metal, a declaration that has been put forth many times on these forums, and in each case is met with raised eyebrows and confused looks because the vast majority of people--professionals, musicians, and your dumb average listener alike--think the exact opposite everywhere else.

You guys remind me of how the Anime News Network does business--except at least they have some clear-cut criteria. Criteria that I don't necessarily agree with on all counts, but hard criteria nonetheless. I know why The Boondocks isn't on the site, despite all the aesthetics. I don't know why half of the rejects for this one are rejects.

I'll try to respond to your concerns, though I note this isn't the first time I've seen you concerned with the way metal is "defined" by this site, or the way this site operates. I don't see your post as a "dickish move," and I get the curiosity you might have, but I don't deny that you may fail to see eye to eye even after I respond here.

Music, no matter how people try to narrow it down and "define" it, will remain an allusive and subjective medium. Every individual; every music professional; every music label or organization; and even every music website has a certain view on how to classify and divide musical styles. Regardless on whether you want "concrete" criteria for metal music to fit so neatly in a closed box, arrogantly ripped from the rest of music, that tends to pose more problems than solutions. There is no objective truth to what is heavy metal and what isn't; every person will say what fits and what doesn't; what is and what isn't; and no amount of begging and pleading will win over people convinced of the exact opposite subjective truth than you. Every individual you try to pull out of your ass as a "vast majority" of people each has their own way of viewing music, and some take it for granted that their view is the truth. You expect raised eyebrows and confused looks from people who disagree vehemently with a position that distorts their view on an abstract concept, such as music, that they feel they have the right and valid idea about.

MA is not alone in that reality; the site is just as subjective as the rest of them. It has its own idea for "metalness," and even what qualifies as a valid metal band. The site's way of dealing with music is built on the assumption that music is osmotic; that musicians mold styles in their works, that works are comprised of a multitude of musical influences, and that genres do not have clear "boundaries" but instead bleed and melt into other styles of music. For this reason the site handles music a bit differently than other sites; it tries to balance between a broad and narrow definition of metal by accepting an outlook that embraces a "web" around a core notion of metal: the metal riff, and that is at the heart of its criteria for "metalness". And, if a musical project is driven by something other than a metal riff, the music is deemed as less than metal for qualifying for this site. Is this the best way of doing things? Who knows, though it has worked sufficiently well for the last decade. Do the mods or users agree with how MA views metal, fully? No, but then again, that hasn't stopped people from working here. It's a credit to the site, perhaps, that this level of flexibility openly allows the revisiting of projects (like in this thread) when the basic riff expectation for criteria is deemed met.

This frames another point, actually. It comes up often, and not just from yourself, that because this site is an encyclopedia it therefore must go about accepting "metalness" differently; whether it's from the point of view of an individual who demands that the site accepts their own personal view on metal, or from the perspective that this site should democratize and go with majority rules when it comes down to it. There's this underlying assertion - even in your post - that because it's "Encyclopedia Fucking Metallum" it must be held to a higher standard of authority - a beacon of objective truth. Whatever credibility MA has gained as an authority of metal is secondary to its stated function; it is simply an extensive database of heavy metal bands as heavy metal is perceived by the site. It exists only to catalogue bands as the site sees fit; its substantial userbase, its perceived authority in the metal scene, and its relevance as a source arose out of that. Ultimately, the big elephant in the room cannot be overlooked here, either; this is a privately owned site that is run privately. This site is fortunate to have owners that respect and support the virtues of precedence and policy in the way this site runs, and who respond to the practices of the site's userbase positively, but that is a consequence of achievement. Speaking on a personal level, MA's perspective on metal generally seems to be broad enough that its users aren't alienated, but narrow enough that it hasn't become a music (and not just metal) archives. Nobody would suggest this site isn't without its problems or its weaknesses, but thus far this hasn't been a significant problem.

With that said, I have a question posed to you. How would you frame criteria for a metal encyclopedia? My intentions are far from sarcasm, but are genuinely curious. You seem set on discerning a hard set criteria for music, but I have to wonder that - if you would articulate it and then subsequently write it here - would you also see its inherent weaknesses?

I noticed that Brendon Small's solo project Galaktikon isn't on here. Haven't tried to add them because I assume that he's well known enough that somebody else would have tried to add him/them by now-if not I'll add them. If they have been rejected, how come?
http://technorati.com/entertainment/art ... ull-album/

Feel free to add. It hasn't been submitted until now, to my knowledge. The release date is April 29th, so that's not entirely surprising (although I would have expected a couple of premature submissions).

Was told my band submission wasn't accepted because I didn't hand over a song for listening.
Betray the Oracle's "ascending (rebirth)"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Hooi_ciBDk
and also the song "the summer storms of January"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gA2tniG9Sg
There you go.

And here's image proof of the release:

Not sure exactly where to post this without starting a new thread, so I'll throw it here.

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/A_C ... 3540345106

I'm sure someone would get to them at some point but I'm not really sure why this band hasn't been accepted yet. I submitted them on the 16th and since then I've seen numerous accepted which I know were submitted far after this one.

Just wondering is all.

Rejected. Sorry, all I could find were download links. There were pages that mentioned "album releases" but that could've easily been a free-for-download RAR.

Gotcha, so if I provide a picture of one they will be reconsidered?

Yes. Try to show as much of the packaging / jewel case as possible.

Alternatively, you can always link to a distro page that's selling the CD.

Ordinarily, I'd say "resubmit with the evidence included in the submission notes", but if those two songs are indicative of the rest of the discography, I'm afraid the band doesn't meet the site's criteria for metalness.

How on Earth are those two tracks "funeral doom"...? To be honest, that was more post-rock than anything else...

I tried to add the band Profectum Iri to the database, however; mod Derigin rejected the submission, due to the music being ambient.
Personally, I think Profectum Iri music is very similar in sound and aesthetic to Abruptum, Emit and Hell Icon.

I'd appreciate some feedback from other mods:
An excerpt from one of Profectum Iri's tracks can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZEP6yvKT0

Both tracks are undeniably ambient, not metal.

Klaagzang, if you've read the rules you know there's a peculiar rule about side projects of metal musicians being sometimes accepted. Abruptum, for one, is a side project of black metal musicians. I know the genre is Black Metal, Dark Ambient/Noise, but from what I've listened to Abruptum there isn't enough metal in their music to warrant inclusion ignoring the side projects rule.

As the side project rule states, not all are accepted, and submitting these bands is discouraged.

These tracks consist of 80% Distorted and reverberated guitar, slow paced drums and screams. The only real ambient part in the sample I posted is the ambient "intro" or "buildup", this however completely changes after the one minute mark.

Yes, but Slipknot also consists of distorted guitar. It also has fast paced drums and growling. The music could be described in a way to make it sound quite passable as metal, and yet it isn't.

I listened to the excerpt, and I also agree it's ambient.

None of which automatically makes something metal. The songs have no elements of metal, structure-wise, or, simply said, metal riffs. The instruments you mentioned are used for ambience purposes only.

Thanks for the feedback! I won't re-submit them!

Can you tell me why Chainsaw Disaster has been rejected ? There is a lot of deathcore bands on this site, why not this one ?

To prove the existence of a physical release from the Band SavaasaQ, which I am a member of and released the tape myself under Wirkmächtigkeit Klangkreationen:



To proof the metalness of this Black Metal band, here are two samples from the album:

http://soundcloud.com/vrchtr

I hope this is the right thread, as it was given in the email concerning the rejection of the entry.

I didn't listen to them, but if they were rejected then the mod who did it judged the band more rooted in -core than metal. Analogously, the deathcore bands you find on the site were judged to be predominantly metal.


Resubmit.

Gli Atroci are, actually, the most famous "ironical" heavy metal band in Italy, or "heavy metal/hard rock" if you want, but everything by them (albums, websites, concerts, image etc.) is based on metal, just as Nanowar of Steel, which is the second band of this kind in Italy. Probably their first two albums are more "metal" than the last one, but if they are not on this website probably someone should delete even bands like Gwar .

You should listen to the "Evil Genius" compilation.

Abruptum's early stuff (before the debut full-length) was metal, so the side projects rule has nothing to do with their inclusion.

Alright. That info could be included in the genre tag, ie. black metal (early), dark ambient/noise (later) for clarity, rare as it may be that people mistake Abruptum's ambient stuff for black metal.

To be honest I wouldn't call the Abruptum demos black metal, but death/doom instead. It's slow, downtuned, and the vocals are growled, and there isn't really anything in terms of black metal riffing, it's a slow, doomy death metal variety of riffing. But this isn't the "band genres" thread of course, just my two cents.

This band has been rejected by the moderators for the following reason:

"Classic/Hard Rock. Not a metal band; does not belong on Encyclopaedia Metallum. Please read our rules next time to see what qualifies as metal."

HOT SHOT band case.If this band isn't metal someone must be totaly deaf.

http://www.divshare.com/download/16883318-406

Still sounds like hard rock to me.

And hey, whatever happened to your aversion to mp3s and sharing copyrighted material, or whatnot?

I don't think the mods will think one song is good enough. BTW: your record isn't perfect anymore. Sometimes it skips a bit!