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

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.

The site accepts most metalcore so I hardly see how they are elitist. I personally wouldn't accept grindcore, metalcore, or hard rock like Poison on the site.
 
Is any of this really a big deal? Is MA beginning to affect what we individually consider to be "metal?" It's a reference site. It's not a supreme authority on what constitutes a metal band.
 
Is any of this really a big deal? Is MA beginning to affect what we individually consider to be "metal?" It's a reference site. It's not a supreme authority on what constitutes a metal band.

This. If a band has to be listed on some site for you to give them a shot then you don't deserve to have opinions. You're just letting them tell you what to listen to anyways.

I don't care if a band is listed or not, if I like them I like them. It's a good place to troll around looking at and reading things and maybe get some back round on some bands but that's about it. And both of my bands are on there.
 
...or maybe there should be boundaries so it actually makes sense that it's a METAL encyclopedia.
 
I couldn't care less, because certain assholes would claim that bands like Keldian, Wintersun or Fairyland shouldn't be included because they're gay faggot-ass pop music with distorted guitars. It will never please everyone.
 
Does it need to please anyone? Its a fucking encyclopedia. If its a metal encyclopedia, it better only have metal. Pointless gripe if you ask me.
 
Grey areas exist, and sometimes things that belong get excluded and things that dont belong get included. Im sure any band that is added to the database is added with a reason behind it. Same with the ones that arent. You dont have to always agree with it.

I guess I just dont care whether they include non-metal side projects of metal bands or not. It completes the archive entry for a previously qualified band and its members. If it wasnt included it wouldnt matter because the subject material isnt primarily focused on metal.
 
Not if the authority being appealed to is reliable, which is precisely what's at issue here. Pretty hilarious joke though, bro.

Even when the authority is "reliable," appealing to it is still fallacious. Logically speaking, only an appeal to evidence can be considered valid. Anything else amounts to a fallacy of one sort or another.
 
What in the goddamn motherfuck is Neofolk?

In a nutshell, it's an excuse for (un)ambiguously gay men and art punk fag hags to strum campfire songs, randomly interrupted by bursts of hilarious, neo-Nazified, tenth-rate Skinny Puppy rip-off.

Alternately, you could just call it a big festering puddle of AIDS.
 
In a nutshell, it's an excuse for (un)ambiguously gay men and art punk fag hags to strum campfire songs, randomly interrupted by bursts of hilarious, neo-Nazified, tenth-rate Skinny Puppy rip-off.

Alternately, you could just call it a big festering puddle of AIDS.

:lol: I am memorising this and quoting it to a friend of mine who regularly exposes me to the insufferable music of Death in June and Von Thronstahl.
 
Even when the authority is "reliable," appealing to it is still fallacious. Logically speaking, only an appeal to evidence can be considered valid. Anything else amounts to a fallacy of one sort or another.

Well, okay, then I think there might just be a semantic disagreement here. I think that appealing to authority in certain cases just is an appeal to evidence insofar as the authority appealed to is reliable. Whatever.

edit: For instance, that some credentialed scientist with experience in a particular field says that X is true is better evidence for the truth of X than some random crank's declaration that X is not true. That's an appeal to authority, but an entirely reasonable appeal to authority.