Talk:Encyclopaedia Metallum

Reviewers on EM are morons

Seriously, I know it can't be said like that on the site, as it's a very opinionated statement, but no joke, most of the reviews one the site are biased against anything that isn't a clone of either 1994 Black Metal (i.e. Burzum) or mid-80s Metallica. Yet they all seem to clamor for something 'original'. There really should be some sort of warning against reading any of the stupid reviews, much less taking them seriously. (user unknown)

I concur, that's why I created the "bias" section. The users and moderators have a severe slant to what they like and they let their opinions seep out into the "fact" pages a little too much. It's a good reference for what bands are out there (heck, my band is listed on there with our petty 2 self-produced albums and various demos), but outside of that the reviews can be anywhere from awesome (a select handful) to downright laughable - and the moderators aren't exactly the nicest chaps on the planet. Vegetaman 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Bias" section was horribly POV, so I cleaned it up a bit and renamed to "Controversy". Prolog 12:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It looks much better now. Vegetaman 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetaman, if you think that a review sucks, you can post it in the review forum and ask to be deleted. There is a thread for it. If you think that your review was too good to be rejected, you can also post in the review forum. There is no unrest in the Metal Archives forums about the moderators being biased, and even that topic at GameFaqs, started by you yesterday, is far from being called "unrest". You just wanted to get a few guys that agree with you to post there (A bunch of the poster don't) and then post about it here. As for the claims of the first user about the bias towards 1994 black metal and mid-80s Metallica, it's completely absurd.

If you lost points for no good reason, send me a pm. Most of the time, when someone complains about points, they just didn't read the rules before updating the site. Evenfiel 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, it's been awhile now. Probably last year actually. It was like 10 or 20 points, but I don't really miss them. I was just kind of mad about how I was put down by the moderator (of which I can't even remember which one it was now) and told I'd be banned if I ever did it again. In fact, I pretty much quit using the site since then... I've maybe logged in a handful of times since that day, and I hardly submit anything anymore. Vegetaman 13:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost 50 points sometime after I started using the site, back in 2003, but eventually got over it.Evenfiel 13:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I despise EM. It is a site of unparallelled arrogance and superiority complexes, complete with a lot of racism and anti-semitism that is completely unchecked by the moderators.

--> Good for you. Now what does have to do with Wikipedia? If you have a problem with the way the EM forums deal with freedom of speech, you should complain there, not here. 69.70.27.42 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The marjority of the material on this site is extreme metal (hardcore punk influenced music) related... NOT heavy metal, the website doesn't even include Led Zeppelin or Blue Cheer. - Deathrocker 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are more bedroom projects in Extreme Metal that traditional stuff? Yeah so the site is baised, they admit that much, but it certain isn't against Trad. Metal, and while a fair number of classic bands got excluded off the bat only to added later, doesn't mean it's anti-Heavy Metal. Certainly the hardcore punk influence is something they want to keep out. Not a perfect source but then neither is wiki. Dace59 19:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "Controversy"

I removed the section. It was very POV, full of weasel words ("some" consider?) and completely inaccurate. It's absurd and irrelevant to bring up what users at GameFAQs or other sites think of the site, focuses entirely too much on Opeth, and the statement about Wikipedia was completely false [1]. 69.70.27.42 18:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you need to re-check your facts, pal. And Opeth was just the example used, because I know it to be true. And I'm not the only one. It is not at all irrelevant if they are also users of M-A, and they get quashed or band on the M-A archives forum for complaining, and I myself got screwed out of a stack of points by using Wikipedia to back up information I had gathered from the internet about certain bands. So don't tell me I'm wrong.Vegetaman 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Opeth, it's true that we rarely allow new reviews in, but that works for positive and negative reviews. Beleive me, for every person willing to write a positive review, there is another one willing to write a negative. As the above user said, the statement about Wikipedia is absurd. I don't even see how your sole source of information to add a band was Wikipedia, since every Wikipedia band has link(s) to an external site. Evenfiel 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I was so angry about it, because I had Wikipedia AND all the other pages it linked to and still got shot down... And shot down hard. I was even told if I added such information again (this was my only "infraction" against M-A as I recall) then I'd be instantly banned. But you're not the mod I had a problem with, either. Half of the moderation team is awesome, the other half need their brains checked out. Vegetaman 13:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes can occur. If you decide to use the site again and fell that you've been wronged, just use the Suggestions and Complaints forum. Evenfiel 13:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling you you are wrong, because you are. I refuted your claim about Wikipedia with a source that clearly showed the EM policy about Wikipedia links. As Evenfiel said, if you think you were wronged, the place to complain about is at EM, not writing whiny, weasely bitching on Wikipedia. Doing that just makes you sound like one of the many bitter Opeth fanboys. ;) And by your own admission, you were angry and emotional - Wikipedia isn't the place to vent about that stuff. (PS: please use the quoting format. I edited it a bit to make it more readable.) 69.70.27.42 14:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well opeth is a good example, but an even better one is all the Les Legions Noires stuff. who the fuck is in charge of that? calling half the stuff bootlegs? i run my site and i have proven facts that soem of those albums and bands are part of the lln and people are judging them upon themselfs and not with the facts... -HDS

If you have proven facts about it, go to the Suggestions and Complaints forum and show us them. How the hell should we know that you have proven facts if you don't show them to us? By using our psychic skills? Evenfiel 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Decides?

Ok so i was adding links on the bands pages to where i had posted mp3s of the band with info and everything, from my forum, and some moderator on the forum complained to me abotu and said he would remove them because they have nothing to do with the band? there is more info on my site with the bands mp3s then on MA, so who is it that chooses to remove my links without anyone else seeing if its ok or not? i spend hours upladoing this rare stuff and this guy deprives me of sharing it. -HDS

That moderator was me. First of, you need to register to use your site, second, if you wanna share mp3s, there is a thread for it in the metal forum. I don't even know why you're complaining about that here in Wikipedia. Evenfiel 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website does NOT list every known metal band

...or even attempt to. The website does not feature Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer (two of the first heavy metal bands), etc as stated previously... it omits the entire nu-metal subgenre, and 99% of the glam metal genre. For example it does not include; Stryper or Ratt, those two are clearly known bands who play a form of metal, yet are not featured.

The majority of the bands in the "Traditional Metal" section,[2] are infact not tradtional in the sense that many are thrash, technical death metal, symphonic, power metal, etc... the site runners have a very poor grasp of "traditional" aka heavy metal, itself... its a form of music from the 1970s heavily influenced by blues rock and psychedelic rock, nothing to do with "technical death metal". In terms of coverage...

What are you talking about? The link you posted shows mostly heavy/traditional metal and NWOBHM. There is one "technical death" band in there, but they apparently also have played thrash and heavy metal. The genres listing pages are set by keywords, so that if the terms "heavy metal" (together), "traditional", "nwobhm", appear in their genre, they will be listed. Since many bands overlap genres (especially trad and thrash, for many 80's bands), that can cause some odd appearances, but that's purely a technical issue, nothing to do with EM's alleged biases against traditional metal. You are trying way too hard to look for issues that don't exist. 69.70.27.42 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional/Heavy Metal - 6,436 bands (the majority of which as shown above do not fit into this specification correctly)
Black Metal - 11,041 bands
Death Metal - 13,942 bands

Which shows beyond doubt that this is indeed an extreme metal orientated website. NOT a heavy metal encyclopaedia in the correct sense of the term. - Deathrocker 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the sheer number of bands, are you even going to talk about that point of thousands of bedroom Extreme Metal projects that managed to put out a demo CD, because that tips the balance just a bit, along with the fact the site has to exact search, so looking for "Black Metal" will get you every band with Black and Metal in it's genre tag, and there's more than a few Black/Death or Death/Black bands. And if the site has some views about what classic bands that had influence but aren't Metal, well they admit their baised (such as why Mortiis and Rush are on the site). You're just looking at the problem that it's easier to tell Noise and Grind from Extreme Metal than it is to tell 70's Blues Rock from 70's Metal. As nu-metal, it's not Metal, and Glam bands generally don't have one full Metal relase to be listed (which is why bands like Fuck The Facts are listed due to having some random fully Metal 7"s).

Ok, thats enough. There's probably some fitting wiki mid ground about the sites baises, it's problems with 70's projects and the number of bedroom/demo Extreme projects, etc, etc. I agree with some of the sites views but no one can deny it doesn't have problems, it's the nature of such a project and I think it's better than nothing. I'd rather personal views influencing the listings than comercial ones. That's my small change on all this, if it counts or nor. Dace59 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the nu-metal and glam metal articles, it explains how they are subgenres of heavy metal, just as thrash metal is. Glam metal especially is more closely related to the original heavy metal movement of the 1970s, than say Death metal.. as Glam metal takes direct influence from the original metal movement...

Where as Death Metal, is a subgenre of Thrash, which itself takes influence from NWOBHM and largely hardcore punk... Death metal is a very distant subgenre of heavy metal itself.

Through influence, it goes...

Heavy metal -> NWOBHM -> Thrash metal -> Death metal
Heavy metal -> Glam metal

As for the 1970s bands to extreme metal ratio... there are many underground metal bands from the 70s, just as there are many underground black metal (for example) bands today.... the point is the website purposely excludes world famous originators of heavy metal such as Led Zeppelin, due to their lack of understanding on what heavy metal is. Its a largely extreme metal site and the article (as it is at the moment) gets across that its listing every known extreme metal band, and not every known metal band. - Deathrocker 15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the site doesn't agree with wiki's views on Metal, hell I don't agree with wiki's views (nu-metal is just alt-rock/aggro and has nothingto do with real Metal, but I can't change wiki's views on that). Then again, I don't think Led Zeppelin are Metal at all, influence maybe, but not Metal. However, what about all the other bands the site lists? Not Trad/True Metal, but I don't think you'll be able to cram Power Metal into the "Extreme" label anymore. I think it's a little harsh to list Led Zeppelin and Blue Cheer without saying that the site considers them Rock bands. It's even the perfect place to point ou the bais. Dace59 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-metal as merely "alternative rock" is very overstated by extreme metal fans who attempt to distance those bands from the "metal" label to suit their POV of what "metal" is... Slipknot for example, have far more in common in sound with Thrash metal who they take alot of influence from, such as Slayer than they do to an alternative rock band like the Cure, for example.

You don't have to like the music, but it is a subgenre and recognised as so on a genuine encyclopaedia (here)... I'd also have to question the metal knowledge of anybody who claims "Led Zeppelin are not metal at all". - Deathrocker 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug* As I said, I have my views that don't match with wiki's, but that's the views of one little editor. I don't have to agree with all wiki's views to edit here either (as long as I'm not vandalising anything of course). As for "question the metal knowledge"? Go right ahread, sure there's nothing I could say to change your mind now, even if I owned nothing but 70's British Metal and Rock. And yes I have heard Led Zeppelin, still don't agree with you. I have no points that count on this issue, I'm not going to be making any edits here. Dace59 21:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited "pseudo-RFC"

Just thought I contribute my opinion to the matter (without actually being involved with edits).

I don't think EM is as biased towards extreme metal as much as they are just unreasonably picky. For instance, some bands have turned up on the search which have very close ties with nu-metal (Machine Head, Pantera, Fear Factory, Chimaira, etc.) and they also have "ambient" projects from both well known/lesser known musicians that would not qualify as extreme metal, much less be considered "extreme".

In addition they have also included a lot of metalcore "acts" whose only association with extreme metal is the use of "Gothenburg" styled blast beats/tremolo picking. I have met metalheads from all over the world - extreme and traditional - and none have been a fan or considered this "fusion" genre to be an actual form of metal (It's really a hardcore punk crossover genre, attracting mainly hardcore punk/emo fans.)

The article definitely deserves a "Criticism" section and a bit of revision but to say the site caters only to extreme metal would be overdoing it; (although there are other zines, databases, etc. out there that would fit this category to a T!) --Danteferno 12:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the site definitely has its biases. Vegetaman 06:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including in a version that the site also includes some Gothic metal and Power metal acts.. the ambient acts are really a minority. My main problem is this line "Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives is a large website which attempts to list every known metal band"... the last part clearly isn't aplicable to a factual article about this site because they purposely do not include every known metal band, even world famous ones. - Deathrocker 08:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker

You need to realize that your opinion isn't fact--Inhumer 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My facts are going by other Wikipedia articles; I have backed up my points on how the articles was inacurate and sourced it with extremely notable sources (like, All Music Guide), now state your issues and back them up or don't revert to an inferior (and incorrect) version without due reason. - Deathrocker 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted them. EM does not cater to extreme metal, nor does it have any biases towards extreme metal. EM is elitist, but that'si t. Your only evidence is a) the larger number of death and black metal bands, and b) that Led Zeppelin isn't there. Now... a) This has been addressed. There are more bedroom/Myspace-like type bands for extreme metal. Various scenes, especially in Asia, the Middle East, Canada, etc. are very much dominated by extreme metal. In the 70s and early 80s it wasn't like that, but the younger generations apparently prefer to play extreme metal. This is simply a matter of facts about the bands that get submitted, not bias from the site owners. b) Led Zeppelin is arguably not a metal band. Some older metalheads say they are, many others don't. AMG has shown to be a very unreliable source when it comes to classifying metal genres, such as their classifying of Lacuna Coil, Opeth or Nightwish as "symphonic black metal" [3] which is, to say the least, bizarre. In any case, AMG is a general-public oriented music site, not a specialised one, and that EM chose to exclude Led Zeppelin because they consider them as rock (and let's face it, Led Zep played rock songs, metal songs, folk songs, a bit of many styles, they weren't an all-out metal band despite their great influence on the genre) does not make them biased in favour of extreme metal. Please stop vandalising the article with your own petty bias. 69.70.27.42 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read up the description of elitist, it does not apply to two guys in Canada running some website that doesnt even cover the basics of a genre. If the website was elitist it would cover genuine heavy metal bands (a movement from the 1970s) and write articles with knowledge on the movement, there is no evidence of that. I've already proven what the site covers is a majority of extreme metal bands above and included how it also covers gothic metal and power metal in the opening.

The majority of extreme metal bands are arguably more hardcore punk related in sound and tempos, than heavy metal. (Read up the article on thrash metal, which all extreme metal genres can be traced back to, and you'll see what I mean).... to have heavy metal linked in the first line is a flase statement, I've shown how the website does not attempt to cover all metal bands.

Find out what heavy metal is; click on the link and read the info box for heavy metal, that does not describe the style of music this website covers, please stop vandalising the article with your extreme metal centered bias. By blanking sourced info from reputable sites, you are commiting simple vandalism. - 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are. Your changes are reverted constantly, not just by me but other users. You are blatantly attempting to introduce slant in the article, which are transparent enough for others to see, and now you're accusing ME of "extreme metal bias" (when my favourite styles are trad, nwobhm and folk) for no reason. You are also demonstrating intellectual dishonesty by displacing my comments [4] which corrected your misconception about the number of bands by subgenre. I was refuting a specific point in your text but you moved it elsewhere and it looked less relevant - THAT is vandalism. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy one for you Deathrocker, which Led Zeppelin album(s) would be Heavy Metal? This is a serious question ok. The website has a rule that a band needs at least one solidly Metal relase to be in, hence Fuck The Facts, as I said, being in for only a 7" or two, or Def Leppord because of their debute (according to the notes anyway, you might well have something to say on that as well). If there is an album that you'd call as soidly Metal, rather than a mix of Metal, Rock, etc, doesn't matter. But if there isn't one, might change the issue. Though it still wouldn't change some of the problems ,such as what would be Rush's Metal album(s)? Dace59 14:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Hard Rock, Blues and Psychedelic are the essential elements that make up what heavy metal in the first place (see info box on heavy metal article), it didn't just drop out of thin air; Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Blue Cheer, Vanilla Fudge, Deep Purple, fused those influences and created what is "heavy metal".

You have not answered the question. List a fully metal album by Led Zep. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The music on all of those band's albums (including Zep) doesn’t sound the same as the blues rock, hard rock, etc bands that came before them... thus what they play became known as a new genre of music; heavy metal.

It would be like saying "Slayer don't have any Thrash metal releases, their albums are a mix of NWOBHM and Hardcore punk", duh thats what Thrash is, a mix of those other forms of music.

When people new to metal such as extreme metal kids come up and say "its not metal its hard rock"... its the same as saying "its not water, its wet"... Heavy metal IS a form of hard rock and has been since its inception. - Deathrocker 14:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And hard rock is a form of rock. Punk is a form of rock. Should a list of punk bands list the Beatles? Get a grip, you are missing the point. 69.70.27.42 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to realize, that just because there are more Black, Death, and Thrash Metal bands on the site than there are Heavy/Traditional Metal bands, that it doesn't mean that they cater to Extreme Metal genres.--Inhumer 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so all their albums have more Metal songs than anything else? Yes I know those things are part of Metal, was just checking the mix is within the music, rather a than the albums be made up of a bunch of songs from different genres. I had a look at the wiki pages for their albums, it doesn't list Heavy Metal has a style for all of them, hence why I asked. Oh, and what did you mean by "Certain bands, like Def Leppard, are on the website, but their first album is only included."? It reads like you're saying only their first album is listed on the site, but a google cache (site's down as usual) shows released upto the present day. Ohh, looks like that comment has been removed anyway. Dace59 15:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and way to take the deletion request off of Blessed Beyond The Curse when anyone could tell its a blatant advertisment--Inhumer 15:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) and other edits I made--Inhumer 15:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's shown himself to be an intellectually dishonest vandal more than once, it seems. See: needless removal [5], inaccurate POV statement [6]. 69.70.27.42 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]