@Deregin, PART I:
Without questioning how you know that the "demo" you have was recorded on radio "obviously" a long time ago, that's not proof of a valid release.
You got it all wrong.
First off, it was not RECORDED on radio, it's not a band-playing-live-in-radio-show thing. It is a DEMO for which there is a evidence that it was once played by a DJ on a local radio show.
The voice cut at the end of the 3rd track suggest that clearly (it's either a jingle or the voice of a DJ himself, telling something as " 'The Ciao' - a gladly listened radio show")
In fact, that's very much a bootleg, and we don't accept bootlegs as valid releases for this encyclopedia.
1. What I provided is not a bootleg, but a MP3 EVIDENCE OF THE OLD DEMO
2. That mp3 was made from someone's dubbed tape.
3. That person got his dub of the demo by recording the radio show where the demo was played by the radio DJ. Or, it might be a rip of the tape taken directly from the archive of the radio station itself.
As far as we are concerned, we have nothing to support this as an officially released work; it could very well simply be a bunch of individual tracks recorded off a radio show by a fan sometime and at someplace unknown.
Wrong. The fact that demo was played by DJ on the radio supports the fact that these recordings were approved by the band to go to the public and thus, this demo release IS official.
There's nothing to support that these tracks even formed an official album or demo,
These 3 tracks were a self-released demo, not EP or album. That's evident from poor quality of recordings and production.
There's nothing to support that they had a tracklisting issued by the band (and not made up by the fan who recorded it or someone else),
The problem which was pointed to me was about songtitles, as it's concluded that 2 out of 3 songs from that mp3 rip I've sent with submission had incorrectly written titles. Correct titles are found now.
Exact order of the tracks is the one from this mp3 rip, and there is no better info about it at the moment. If such info appears and happens that such track order was incorrect - it's easy to be edited by mods. However, insisting that band should be completely rejected because the exact order of these tracks might be uncertain... doesn't seem to be a good and strong reason at all.
There's nothing to support that even the band fits a specific time or place... or even existed at all!
The band is from Osijek, Croatia.
They had lyrics and sung in Croatian.
They had a female singer on this demo.
There are band photos from '80s.
There are even photos of the band playing at a local gig or festival which seems to be organised by Yugoslavian Communist Union - which is another detail that proves it all happened during '80s, hardly after that.
There is a video with recent reunion gig (with male singer) where band performs tracks from that old demo (members are obviously older as you can see and compare with these '80s photos).
For all we know, these tracks could be from different bands...
Yeah? How? Anyone with pair of ears and common sense can rather easily conclude that all 3 tracks are from the same band, because all 3 songs are musically coherent together. Seems that you haven't listened the demo at all.
...and then compiled together on a bootleg radio recording.
Again, one person which recorded these songs from a radio show where the demo was played by the DJ can't make this release a bootleg. It only tells where and how that particular person got the demo. The band obviously shared their demo with public as they sent their demo tape to the radio at least
Looking beyond the fact that this doesn't qualify as a valid release at all, since you can't verify that it is a valid release under our rules.
No. There is already collected a lot of proof that this is a valid release. However, even if you find this release still disputed, there is still no valid reason that this band should be completely rejected from the Archives.
We would never accept something simply because on Soulseek some user labeled it as "croatia metal."
What are you talking about? That "croatian metal" folder of some Soulseek user wasn't mentioned to be a proof for anything, anyway. It was just a part of my answer to the simple question of Morrigan - where and how I got this demo at first place. If you are about splitting hairs here, first go back and read my answer to your friend properly.
I'll be honest with you, I've had years of experience with DC++ and Soulseek. Half the shit you find through those sources can often end up being mislabeled or completely wrong, according to the person sharing the files and their misconceptions about heavy metal music.
I'm using Soulseek for years too, but neither your or mine bad and good experiences make any relevant point to discussion here.
Fact is that this old demo is saved and can be found on internet today as a mp3 and I found mine via Soulseek.
Misconceptions about heavy metal music in this case? No. "The music is acceptable" - as clearly told by the mod in explainatory e-mail sent to me about rejection.
The same is true for YouTube. Just because someone out there says it's something, doesn't mean it actually is that. We'd rather have something that isn't hearsay to support what is being said.
No. Real video from a reunion gig of this band is found and is available on youtube, not only songs with static images in the background. Compare this
song performed live with the mp3
of the old demo - these are the same song. These live videos are a proof about correct songtitles and many other things you are complaining about right now. Read my posts properly at least, before starting to reply and argue.
The onus lies on you, the submitter, to prove to us that this band existed, and published/distributed metal material. The latter requirement isn't fulfilled, and the former is dubious, however you haven't bothered to show us that the "demo" was published by the band or even distributed by them. On the contrary, all you've shown is that some nameless person ripped some songs off a radio (who knows when?) and then put them in a folder/uploaded them to YouTube in association with some images and videos of some random band members that are claimed to be the ones who played the music. What proof is that? If you want to know how they could be accepted, all we would need is proof that the band produced a demo and distributed it. Not a bootleg recording of a "demo." Not someone's folder titled "croatia metal." We need actual proof. The best proof being a picture of the demo, reviews at the time describing the demo, a distro showing the demo for sale, etc. etc. Things which wouldn't be so easy to fake, and things - especially - that could independently verify the existence of an official demo!
Excuse me, but this is what rules say: "But for older, obscure bands (the kind of thrash band that released one demo in 1986 and disbanded, for example), if no sound samples are available, a scan from a metalzine review describing the band's sound as unambiguously metal can be acceptable, but those cases are exceptional and the moderation can exercise full discretion.
" - This band is indeed old and obscure, but sound samples are available and I've submitted you these. These were OK at "metal enough" criteria too.
But you ask for -A PICTURE OF THE DEMO- as a "valid proof" in this case?! You value it as "best" proof rather than all other proofs submitted right under your nose, together with the most important one: the music of the band and their release? Are you even trying to avoid and deny all these proofs?
Also, there is countless of such old, forgotten small bands accepted in the Archives with far less info and far less proof than this one. I can think here about so many bands that can be found in the archives approved with "nothing entered yet" releases section, and with brief mentions that there is at least one demo in their notes section. So far, this band doesn't qualifies for rejection
because there is a proof that band is real, played metal, had produced a demo. Moreover, there is fairly enough evidence that demo was public and official.
Are you trying to tell that music can be easily faked, but picture couldn't? Are you out of your mind?
I haven't submitted any photo for this demo, because I simply don't have it and I don't own it in other way than these mp3s. But - one could lie about it, easily make a fake photo with some tape, even do a fake cover and so on... and yeah, that will pass, it's all OK because your nice little precious photo, a "best proof" is there. Haven't you think that you actually encourage MA users to lie in such difficult cases because of your rigid interpretations of the submission rules? I'm sorry because I need to say this: insisting that hard on a photo of the tape and trying to ignore sound samples and all other proofs is not only cursory, but just very stupid.
The same goes with the scans of flyers, distro lists, zine reviews etc. These may not exist at all (and sound samples DO EXIST!), but can be easily faked. Why to encourage lying?
Distribution via some random user's Soulseek folder doesn't cut it either. Even if the band DID produce, publish and distribute a demo album, the onus lies on you to show us that the band did in fact do that. Not via a fan of the band. Not through some random stranger on Soulseek. The band, itself.
This is ridiculous. The demo was recorded, self-released and distributed back in '80s when there was no mp3 and no internet
. It was distributed around via tape-trading obviously. Haven't you think that what you ask for is just way too much nonsense, because what if:
- only a small amount of tapes was traded/distributed/sold (very high possibility at that)
- most of these tapes are now lost, damaged or simply forgotten somewhere, and thus - unreachable (as it is more likely the case here)
- most of these tapes can't be found now as were destroyed or lost during the war in '90s (thinking about it is totally reasonable - as the band was from the area where war was going on)
Still, the demo is saved, sound samples are here and there is a evidence it was public/official.
-------------------------@Deregin, PART II:
"cursory moderation" and "thanks."
Yes, that's it, sorry and by the way, just to remind you - I've sent a PM asking you why you locked the thread. From you I haven't received even a simple answer for days. Your moderation of my thread is now at discussion here, but I had nowhere else to raise a complaint about it, as you probably ignored my PM.
I was the one who closed and redirected
you in your previous thread. Thing is, you keep coming back to how we've somehow failed utterly to appropriately deal with the Yugoslavian metal scene,
First off, let's face it and cut the crap: you more likely have no clue about old Yugoslavian metal. That's totally OK, but what is NOT so OK is your over-defensive attitude, banning of discussion and your poor explanation for the lock. It seems that you haven't even understood the purpose of the thread.
when you really don't understand how this site works.
Yes I do quite well. However, we are here about your moderation of my thread. It was not a thread about only one band (where if separate thread your lock would be fully reasonable), but about many old bands from one country/region.
We really don't care about "scenes," whether they're regional or not. We're not in the business of cataloguing information on scenes, we're only in the business of cataloguing metal bands with valid releases (as our guidelines define both), regardless of what "scene" they might be a part of.
That's only a poor excuse, because you are wrong about the facts. Indeed, this site doesn't deal with personal ideas about "scenes", but it do care and deals with regional scenes. "Country of origin" is required
field when submitting a band, a thus - the site do catalogue and presents info about regional scenes. My thread was simply defined by many old bands who were from one region/country. Their music was intended to be open for discussion there, but you simply didn't allowed any discussion to happen, so "thanks".
In all the arguments you've made about the Yugoslavian scene, you seem to completely ignore or misunderstand our rules about metal.
No, I didn't ignored nor misunderstood the rules. I wanted to discuss about some bands who belong to the "grey area" of these rules, heavy metal/hard rock bands in particular.
As explained in your thread before, if a band is hard rock and not heavy metal (even if people say it's heavy metal) it doesn't belong here. We don't accept bands simply because people associate them with metal; we accept them because they play metal.
Sorry, but you haven't explained much, if anything at all. Still, I didn't, as you say - "admit that many of the bands in the Yugoslav scene rely more on a hard rock sound than a metal sound." No. Once again, I was talking about "grey area" HEAVY METAL/hard rock bands. The ratio between heavy metal and hard rock was intended to be a open point of discussion. By the way, I also made a clear distinction between these bands and some simple non-metal hard rock ones from Yugoslavia.
Maybe it's not us that is cataloguing Yugoslavian metal at a "CRAP level," but yourself failing to understand how it is that we actually operate. We ask that if you do continue to contribute to this encyclopedia, you read and UNDERSTAND our rules on how we work:http://www.metal-archives.com/content/rules
I'm not complaining about rules, I'm complaing about not so good moderation. As I'm from ex-Yugoslavia and I'm into Yugoslavian metal for 20 years I think I'm fairly enough competent to say and point out that something is WRONG about moderation for these bands. Something seriously stink - because there is a lot of double-standards, inconsistency and incoherence. Cursory moderation is simple address of the problem.
There is a problem and it simply needs some attention. That was the whole point.