Metal-Archives: Non-metal exclusion system; what are your thoughts?

The Butt

The Admiral
Sep 10, 2007
10,861
978
113
The void.
What the title says. I'm doing research for a thread topic on another board. Basically, do you think Metal-Archives does a good job of keeping the non-metal off of the site?

The topic came up when I was attempting to argue the non-metalness of Avenged Sevenfold (I know, kill me now). I was under the impression that it's a pretty reliable page, because it's a good guarantee that the person making decisions/alterations has at the very least a basic grasp of what metal is and is not. That seeing as how its dominated by metal fans, they would have some degree of knowledge of the genre.

But according to other users in the thread, metal-archives is flawed because it is "comparable to Wikipedia" in that "anybody has access"... and that bands like Avenged Sevenfold are only denied entry because they were deemed too "pussy" or "hated", not because they're actually not metal.

What are your thoughts on this topic?
 
Doesn't Metal Archives have a page for Wardruna? I think you can look at their policy from both perspectives and realize how fundamentally flawed it is. Grindcore bands are considered not metal, but pure folk/ambient is?
 
But according to other users in the thread, metal-archives is flawed because it is "comparable to Wikipedia" in that "anybody has access"... and that bands like Avenged Sevenfold are only denied entry because they were deemed too "pussy" or "hated", not because they're actually not metal.

This is my feeling.

I've noticed some newer sludge gets excluded from MA, for whatever reason.
 
Doesn't Metal Archives have a page for Wardruna? I think you can look at their policy from both perspectives and realize how fundamentally flawed it is. Grindcore bands are considered not metal, but pure folk/ambient is?

Some grindcore bands have pages. Pig Destroyer off the top of my head...
 
I think they're pretty inconsistent with their system too. For example (and I know most of you probably hate this band) but Suicide Silence isn't allowed on there even though they're more metal than, say, Mortiis or Scorpions in my opinion. They're more on the metal side of deathcore than a lot of other -core bands. The moderators claim not to judge on personal taste but I think they're not as impartial as they claim.
 
It really isnt in anyone's best interest to add incorrect information to the metal archives. If only certain people could add stuff to the database it wouldnt be nearly as exhaustive and it would be a useless resource. Hence I cant really say its a flawed system because anyone can edit it. Same with Wikipedia for the most part, unless its business oriented or some controversial current event.

Sure, the archive might be a bit elitist, but its a resource by metal fans for metal fans, and with a non-metal exclusion system you have to draw the line somewhere. Fans of Avenged Sevenfold could fuck off for all I care.
 
Doesn't Metal Archives have a page for Wardruna? I think you can look at their policy from both perspectives and realize how fundamentally flawed it is. Grindcore bands are considered not metal, but pure folk/ambient is?

The only pure folk/ambient I've seen that has pages there, are projects that are related to, or solo projects of, members of metal bands. They even outline that in the "what is and isn't allowed" section of the FAQ.
 
Metal Archives is pretty fair. Mortiis, for example, is a significant figure in metal history, and his later projects are relevant enough. Rush and Deep Purple, often cited as most questionable entries, fit the bill in my book. Historical bands (i.e. Scorpions) are going to get the nod over modern, but insignificant bands.

Sometimes MA is off the mark (Yakuza strikes me as a completely bizarre omission), but they're right 99% of the time.
 
Crowd sourcing is a waste of time, anyway. The only way you get reliable, useful analysis of ANY subject is to keep out the proles and let the experts share their expertise.

Metal-Archives is a case in point. As of right now, there are 72,206 bands covered by the Archives. In the whole history of the genre, there have been maybe 200 bands good enough to be worth listening to on a regular basis, and probably well under 100 genuinely elite bands. In other words, approximately 99.97% of the site is dedicated to FAIL, and the other 0.03% of the content is turned into FAIL by the fact that it is generated by sub-simian retards for whom managing to connect to the internet and log on to a website ranks among the top ten accomplishments of their miserable lives.
 
That's still sheer idiocy.

How so? Elaborate.

Metal Archives is pretty fair. Mortiis, for example, is a significant figure in metal history, and his later projects are relevant enough. Rush and Deep Purple, often cited as most questionable entries, fit the bill in my book. Historical bands (i.e. Scorpions) are going to get the nod over modern, but insignificant bands.

Sometimes MA is off the mark (Yakuza strikes me as a completely bizarre omission), but they're right 99% of the time.

That's pretty much what I said.
 
Crowd sourcing is a waste of time, anyway. The only way you get reliable, useful analysis of ANY subject is to keep out the proles and let the experts share their expertise.

Metal-Archives is a case in point. As of right now, there are 72,206 bands covered by the Archives. In the whole history of the genre, there have been maybe 200 bands good enough to be worth listening to on a regular basis, and probably well under 100 genuinely elite bands. In other words, approximately 99.97% of the site is dedicated to FAIL, and the other 0.03% of the content is turned into FAIL by the fact that it is generated by sub-simian retards for whom managing to connect to the internet and log on to a website ranks among the top ten accomplishments of their miserable lives.
It's Metal Archives, not the Metal Hall of Fame.
 
I don't think that there are any problems with it that don't exist on most online metal communities, i.e. those that can't hear Ten Thousand Fists for the traditional/groove metal album it is. Or those that consider newer Soulfly to be more "core" than metal.
 
I think they may have bitten off more than they can chew. Maybe if it was "Death Metal Archives" (or something along those lines) and they covered a specific genre it wouldn't be so bad. Tackling the entirety of the metal world was a poor choice in my opinion.
 
I think they may have bitten off more than they can chew. Maybe if it was "Death Metal Archives" (or something along those lines) and they covered a specific genre it wouldn't be so bad. Tackling the entirety of the metal world was a poor choice in my opinion.

And turning it over to anyone who can scrape up the IQ to register for a free website was a much poorer choice.