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

Meh, I only really use the archives for album releases and track listing. Don't care about the reviews.
 
I'm not talking about reviews, the question was whether it is or is not a reliable enough resource to prove whether or not a band is metal.

Such as:
Person 1: "Avenged Sevenfold is metal!"
Person 2: "No they're not (posts MA "no results found" link)"

Is it reliable enough to do this?
 
I think metal-archives does a pretty good job, I find I'm not nearly as critical of the site as I used to be. When I think
to other styles of music I enjoy, I wish those genres had a site like metal-archives.

When it first came out, it was a giant mess just like wikipedia but after a few years, it became more reliable and consistent. Certainly not perfect, but I can't complain.

There are of course numerous bands on there that aren't metal but it honestly doesn't make much of a difference to me. They used to flat out deny certain metal bands because they were not liked amongst metalheads or whatever, but they're not as immature these days. Their forum is full of immaturity though.
 
I'm not talking about reviews, the question was whether it is or is not a reliable enough resource to prove whether or not a band is metal.

Such as:
Person 1: "Avenged Sevenfold is metal!"
Person 2: "No they're not (posts MA "no results found" link)"

Is it reliable enough to do this?

No it is not. There are plenty of metal bands that are excluded from the site merely because of their dabbling in "core" besides Deathcore. Is Avenged Sevenfold an extremely shitty band that deserves to die in a fiery airplane crash? Yes. Are they metal? Unfortunately.
 
Sure, the people who run that place are fucking elitists when it comes to metal, but still, when i want info on a new band, I dont go to Wikipedia, i got to Encyclopaedia Metallum.

And yeah, I think Poison deserves a place on MA. They sure aint heavy, but glam metal is metal too, even if I/them hate it. MA should be objective, not subjective when it comes to the content on the page.
 
And yeah, I think Poison deserves a place on MA. They sure aint heavy, but glam metal is metal too, even if I/them hate it. MA should be objective, not subjective when it comes to the content on the page.

No. Poison was a hard rock band. and 80s hair metal/glam metal was not even metal. just as nu-metal is not metal. it just has metal tacked onto the end for some ridiculous reason. it's hard rock.
 
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.

What's the link to the page? The one I tried to view didn't contain any arguments on whether or not they're "metal."

I'm curious as well because I have two squabbling friends arguing about the same thing lol.
 
I'm not talking about reviews, the question was whether it is or is not a reliable enough resource to prove whether or not a band is metal.

Such as:
Person 1: "Avenged Sevenfold is metal!"
Person 2: "No they're not (posts MA "no results found" link)"

Is it reliable enough to do this?

Of course not. And regardless of how "accurate" MA is, the definition of "metal" is subjective and open to interpretation anyway.

Personally I find purist/exclusive interpretations of metal annoying because there are many borderline/hybrid bands (i.e. Alice in Chains, Clutch) that are of interest to many metalheads, as well as non-metal bands (i.e. Ween) who occasionally do metal songs.
 
What's with the hate for MA? Yeah, there are some weird omissions and inclusions, but there are 70,000 bands on there and the vast majority of them fit the bill. It's a fantastic resource for finding information about bands and useful links, and some of the reviews are not entirely worthless.

2 other notes:
1. How long before Invade Me gets banned? I give it a month.
2. GOD DAMN IT Tom Brady is back. I thought he was perma-banned.
 
Invade Me will inevitably get banned like he always does, and I really don't understand why. He says things that most people disagree with, big fucking deal.
 
Sure, the people who run that place are fucking elitists when it comes to metal, but still, when i want info on a new band, I dont go to Wikipedia, i got to Encyclopaedia Metallum.

And yeah, I think Poison deserves a place on MA. They sure aint heavy, but glam metal is metal too, even if I/them hate it. MA should be objective, not subjective when it comes to the content on the page.

Poison IS on the Archives. http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=6728



:D