Question: Why aren't non-metal albums by bands that did metal albums blocked from reviews?

Can't they be blocked? What's the point of allowing them, most are given extremely low ratings anyway and many are softer than some of AC/DC or early Guns N' Roses. Look at Lulu, I'm not saying it shouldn't be put in the artist's discography on the site, just seems pointless to encourage reviews of, for example, anything by Def Leppard after Pyromania (or Hysteria if Pop Metal is acceptable in some contexts. On the other hand, the most conservative would say anything after High N' Dry.)

This is not, in anyway an argument against the inclusion of the bands, they belong because they did metal albums. It's merely asking whether the review portions make sense after a point.

Uh? We're not gonna start locking albums because they're not metal, this would be a totally useless, petty and stupid thing to do. So you're saying that we should delete the reviews for Opeth's damnation and don't allow any for their upcoming album because it's "not metal anymore"? The line between metal and non metal can be thin in many cases and we just don't have the time, the ressources or the simple interest to do something like that. If you don't like reviews for non metal albums on MA, just don't read them. it's not hard.

Why not? Barring the fact that it can be entertaining for reviewers to work outside their more standard areas, or that it's entirely possible for a metal fan to be knowledgable and passionate about a non-metal genre, having a band's non metal periods available to ne discussed can be interesting just to see how the general community handled the switch/how the band did.

Besides it'd be hard to impliment and would require "by album" of moderation which the owners have been strongly against in the past.

Edit: Your post also implies the mean metalheads can't accept anything not heavy and they ripped on an album you liked, and that's wrong/lame.

You seem to be taking this a bit strongly or something. It just seems odd that an art rock album like Lulu has reviews. In particular I don't get the point of saying this:



Considering how seriously this site seems to take metal, what portion of the site's membership would you honestly expect to like Lulu? Hell, I don't like it either. What's the point of allowing more reviews for it?

That'd be misguided, other than a few hard rock albums (I'm sure I'd get flamed for asking why Appetite for Destruction isn't on here) that wouldn't apply to me, but let's be serious, non-metal albums are obviously ripped to shreds here by these "mean metalheads" you speak of.

But you're implying they're getting ripped to shit BECAUSE of the non-metalness, not because they're shitty. Going back to Lulu, I like the garage rock dirtiness and some elements of he drug fucked delivery, but its a bloated, directionless mess. The fact it isn't metal is not a reason for my distaste, so I don't see why a review I could make for it would be invalid.

You're also excluding the masses of hugely popular non metal albums on here.

Then explain to me how Opeth's Damnation has reviews mostly in the 80% and above range and Alice in Chains' Jar of Flies has a 92% based on 6 reviews.

An exception or two does not a rule make...

Oh, I remember you, Iron Priest! I also remember that you were banned. Anyway, lame thread, ban-evader, be-bye.

I bet he's pissed because the Steve Harris solo record was trashed since Iron Maiden was the only band he talked about alongside Judas Priest.