That's a tad strange. Oakland is horrible and even some songs have that whole 'beatdown' sound in the same vein of contemporary bands like Black Tongue so I can see how it's more -core than metal (aside from more metallic thrashy tracks on the album), but I don't see how their newest album made them acceptable? ...
You're talking about Return to Despair right? That thing has about as many breakdowns as a The Acacia Strain album. The rules of deathcore bands on the site seem pretty inconstant by what I'm seeing here

.__.

We've been pretty good with deathcore since the Witcher regime ended, and we keep it rather consistent I'd say. If there are any questions or confusion, that's what this thread (and the sister thread) are for, so absolutely feel free to bring up whatever. Whichever album/albums came after Oakland is what was listened to and judged, and I should point out that nobody was like "Well obviously this is metal enough, you dipshit dum-dum, why bother us with this?", pretty much every mod agreed they're a borderline case, but still fall on the "proper" side of the line. Again, I personally haven't listened to anything past Oakland because I have a petty personal grudge against the band for being as shitty as they are, but I trust my fellow mods' judgment on the matter.

For what it's worth, we all agree that they suck

Yes, we do.

I'm going to just state that the band is literally no more metal than King Conquer and as sucky as their music is, that's a different story. ........ Not to mention Ricky Hoover is about as big as an asshole as his massively stretched lobes make him seem.

Why the band Tir Nan Og is blacklisted?

They released a tape "Sonnenschlafhymnen" in 1998, which is obviously (symphonic black) metal.
Cover and music are shown here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIp1vGRfhG8
Review here.
http://www.myrrthronth.de/Reviews/tirna ... hymnen.htm

^ According to the note the demo wasn't released.

IIRC the majority of the material was simply more rock than metal.

Hello,

About a year ago (if I remember correctly) I submitted one thrash metal band from Lithuania, called Porfiria. The band was rejected, although there are enough proofs that they exist (facebook profile, photo from a zine, demo material on youtube). They never released an album, only a live demo that can be found on youtube. That demo was recorded during one of their concerts and even the members of the group admit that it's their only "official" record circulating in Lithuania and possibly abroad.
Hope to hear an answer regarding this situation when you have time.

Regards,
Algimantas

One year ago? Do you remember what the reason for their rejection was?
And was this live album officialy released by the band? (and not just for streaming on youtube etc.) If yes, where do they mention that? (sorry but I don't speak Lithuanian.) Can it still be bought/are there any photos of it?

It's not a live album, more like a demo. You can't buy it anywhere. The band itself never made it as normal demo or album, so no photos of it are available. They had some cassettes and gave them to some close friends, who later rewritten those recordings to other people, other people distributed to their friends and so on until it found its way to youtube. In the internet, they don't mention anything about their recordings. There were talks about making an album, but their bassist went to USA, vocalist went to UK. From time to time now make some concerts in their Lithuania. Last concert took place in Alytus in 2012 July at a local club called Fenix.

quote from http://www.ferrum.lt/f/grupes/150 :


Translation:

^That does not sound like it meets our criteria for an official, publicly distributed release. A couple of tapes only given to friends is not a proper release. Said friends duplicating these tapes (in whatever form) of their own accord without the band's involvement isn't either. Bottomline, from what you say, the band recorded one of their gigs, but never came around to release this material.

Well, there are a lot of bands here in metal-archives that don't meet your rules. For example:
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/D-Fense/35667
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/False_Prophet/70087
I haven't found any proof that their albums exists: nothing in youtube, nothing in blogs. Absolutely nothing. When you go to related links, you see this sentence written there: "No links have been added yet.". In this case you would have to delete probably 20-30% of bands from metal-archives as they break the rules.

Every band goes through an approval process before getting added. This involves providing some sort of evidence for a valid release as well as the music. It's not always a perfect process, of course, but it's the assumption we work with here when it comes to already added bands. Seeing that the band you linked was also added by a moderator, it's even more reasonable to assume that this staff member had information available that the album cited in the notes was released and was metal. No info online doesn't mean it didn't exist. (a quick Google search yielded this review, though, so your claim of "Absolutely nothing" is incorrect) Keep in mind that there is also sometimes information available in the submission notes which is not visible to regular users (only mods). Granted, this band was added in 2005, so there are no notes, but who can tell what was available at the time? The "face" of this entry is not necessarily the same as the core requirements that got it added. Once it passes the approval process, a band -to use a phrase I often like to use in this context- is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not sure what your argument is here anyway. One possibly dubious band means that we must accept one that is definitely not acceptable going by the available information? Not how it works. If you have reasonable doubts of an already added band's validity, then you can bring it up in the reverse thread to this one, but please do not use them as a pseudo-argument to justify the inclusion of your band.

You could try and add some references for the rest of us, so we could see some proof that some band exists/did exist and released some physical material. Some of us get confused when we see a band, some releases written and no info around the internet where it says that those releases do exist.
About your posted review of that band: not everyone knows german or french, or spanish, or russian, or korean, or any other language. Therefore, not everyone could use words from certain language while conducting a search on google since there is a barrier of language. So as I said: adding some references (even if other language than english is used) would be great for the rest of us. Of course, these are just suggestions, so it doesn't mean that they will get implemented.

Seems we can't agree on this situation so we could end this discussion at this point. Have a nice day.

There are plans to make dummy entries in the discography section for these kinds of "discography-less" bands in the future, seeing that some people appear to regard explicit citation in the notes as less credible than a more complete mention in the discography (which I can relate to, to be frank). Common practice is also to include as much relevant online links as possible, but sometimes band pages can be pretty barren (old ones as often as newer ones). Nevertheless, what I said still stands. The mere fact that it was added already implies a certain degree of scrutiny by means that now may not be accessible to everyday visitors anymore (regrettable and not our goal). Besides, you seem to forget that there is info on the Net, that place being this very site. Not all data here comes sourced from somewhere online, obviously. Sometimes we are the primary source, which is also another reason to review new submissions thoroughly. Our goal is to compile as much information about metal bands within our rule framework is possible, and we sometimes get original info from people digging up bands that haven't seen any mention online before.


The string I searched for was simply the band name along with the album title, no foreign terms used. The review was on the first page of results.


Yes, I'd love to add more details for this page. As a matter of fact, I'll add a link to that one review I mentioned shortly. For more information, I/you would have to ask Witcher, the mod who added it. But that is another matter, unfortunately...


Well, I told you that your band isn't acceptable under our guidelines. You cited another approved band that doesn't seem acceptable to you, and I described why it (most probably) is valid. So far you haven't disagreed directly with the exclusion of the band you brought up and this was a mere exercise in discussing site mechanics without any directly voiced disagreements taking place as to the matter at hand.

The submission form tells me that there is a US band called Cleric on the blacklist, not sure if it's the same one. Death metal from Dallas, Texas.

https://www.facebook.com/666cleric666/info

Ok, This is definitely acceptable. Unblacklisted. Please submit.

I recieved this morning this email



Why? I added Funeror the 9th of July and reminds on the band queue till yesterday when the user Vxrex333 put on there. If there's any problems with the submission you can delete the day after I added and tell me what is the problem and I resolve it. But I added it before than Vxrex333 and the only duplicated entry is those that Vxrex333 put on the band queue

Done and done. It'll be a duplicate in the queue though, since someone apparently saw this posting, and sharked me out of the submission by submitting his first. But, seeing as he added incorrect info (when he added any at all), and seems to only have linked to their BandCamp, something tells me his submission is destined for the rejection stamp.

I did post Sinfold again and got rejected for the same reasons as before. I am a bit confused. From your post I figured that the submission was ok and I could post it again. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Restored. It was rejected by another moderator who wasn't aware of our exchange here.

Thank you for your help and time.

Uhm, well, Vxrex333's submission had the release and tracklist added. Since it was the more complete of the two, I accepted that one.

Just wondering why Intervals from Toronto was just blacklisted? I had just added their album to my collection.

Why is the Spanish band "Black Panda" blacklisted?

Isn't this metal punk? http://trabucrecords.bandcamp.com/album ... l-u-666-lp

The blacklist says it's Crust Punk, in the "predominantly punk" side of the fence.

I saw a post that was redirected here about ALL PIGS MUST DIE

Are they on the blacklist? Can anyone see the blacklist?


I like them a great deal, even though I've never considered myself a hardcore fan or punk fan for that matter. I am starting to get into some d-beat stuff, and this band has some black metal elements to me, it's a dark sound it's fucking heavy. here's a stream of their newest album but I doubt it will change anyones mind http://www.invisibleoranges.com/2013/07/streams-all-pigs-must-die-nothing-violates-this-nature-dead-in-the-dirt/

ok ready to be pwned so hard, let me have it.

I think you just provided your own answer. This site doesn't consider hardcore to be metal.




What part of their music sounds remotely like black metal?

the fact it has guitars and drums.

The answer to every recent question is "because it's not metal".

You make it sound like that's a special quirk of this particular site. Hardcore just isn't metal. To quote Tywin Dance, that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

ThornOfCrimsonDeath, I've never heard of the band, but from your description alone it doesn't sound acceptable. And yes, they're blacklisted. And no, the blacklist is not public. It doesn't need to be.

Sometimes I think that it might be a good idea to make the blacklist readable to everyone. That way a lot less questions are asked about why band R is blacklisted.
On the other hand I can also foresee people complaining about blacklist reasons they think are invalid for bands they would otherwise never have begun to ask about.

Interesting discussion metarial! (pun intended!)

This would undoubtedly occur far more often than people reading the blacklist, finding the reason for blacklisting and then shrugging and moving on with their lives. If you put something out in the open then more people are going to complain about it, no matter what it is.

Plus, that thing has to be fucking huge by now. Even christkiller's copy paste of the list from a number of years ago was ten miles long. I can't imagine what it's grown to now.

8,842 entries.

Bingo. It would result in a lot of bitching that someone's favorite grind/metalcore industrial crossover dark metal band is blacklisted as being "jumpdafuckup shit" and the only explanation that would go either way is "muthafucka u don't understand..."

That's why I wrote down both sides of the coin!
Like I said: it would be an interesting discussion.

Not when the cons so blatantly and heavily outweigh the pros.

Why are Captain Three Leg blacklisted?
I've only heard the split with Pantalones Abajo Marinero but from what I hear they are metal.

http://captainthreeleg.bandcamp.com/