For the members who have recently deleted drafts of bands without physical release but with valid digital release (make sure you read the rules to confirm the digital release is indeed acceptable as we don't accept every kind of digital release!), please post in this thread to request a restoration. Bands deleted over 3 months ago cannot be restored, sorry.

If the draft has not been deleted, you may simply resubmit it, but please put a note in the Submission Notes noting that this is a re-submission based on the new policy from January 1st 2013. Thanks.


--------------------

Reposted from the main page (permlink):

As of this new year of 2013, we have now changed our policy concerning the band approval process.
Before today, bands were required to have a physical album before being eligible. Since digital distribution is becoming more and more widespread, we have decided to now accept bands who release their music entirely through digital medium.

However, this does not mean we accept any bands with a few songs on Myspace or Youtube. Only bands with serious digital albums will be accepted. I urge all band contributors to revisit the rules and guidelines page for the details of what kind of digital albums are considered acceptable.

We apologize for the inconvenience caused to the contributors who may have recently deleted their drafts of bands which, despite having no physical album, may have had a valid digital album. If you had a very detailed draft and deleted it recently, it might be possible to restore it. Please post in this forum thread about such a matter.

Note that after much time spent rejecting a number of non-metal bands, we have also put in writing some additional examples of what kind of music we do not consider acceptable for this site (j-rock, djent, post-hardcore, etc.). This is not a change of policy, but just a matter of clarification for those confused users out there who may think these styles as metal.

To all our contributors and visitors: thank you again for all the great work, and we hope 2013 will be another great year for the Encyclopaedia as it continues to grow and prove itself to be the greatest online resource for heavy metal.

---------

For those too lazy to click, here are the new rules concerning digital releases:

My band "Muldjord" was deleted about half a month ago citing the reason as being "missing physical release". My homepage is www.muldjord.com and I do believe my releases fall under the acceptable category of digital releases. I offer all releases as either ogg, mp3 or lossless flac on a very stable / high speed download server with direct download links.

Therefore, I really, really, REALLY hope you will be able to restore Muldjord to MA as it is an extremely important thing for me to be on here. This is the place to go when it comes to metal information, so it would be a pity for my fans to go here in vain.

Thank you, and happy new year!

\m/
Lars Muldjord

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Muldjord/3540258388

.

They got deleted, sorry

Just to get 100% clarity; it would need to be a digital full-length album..? A digital demo or EP would not make the cut, even if they were widely distributed/shared?

I also have a question about what I would consider a borderline case. I have an old draft lying around for a band that distributed their demo both as CDr and mp3. I believe it was rejected initially because I could not (and still can not) prove that it was sufficiently distributed in it's physical version, though I have a review of the digital version available. With the new rules in place, would it be worth submitting something like this for reevaluation, or would I just be wasting everybody's time?

Note that restoring deleted drafts will not give points to the submitter. I've manually given points to Dechristianizer for his submission, but some might slip by. If you care about points, just let me know and I'll take care of it (if you don't, well, it's all good).


Sorry, can't find them in the deletion log. Were they deleted over 3 months ago? If so, they are not recoverable, as all deleted and rejected bands older than 3 months are purged.


Digital EPs might be accepted, but it's at the moderator's discretion. Basically, "professional" EPs might get in, assuming they're all original songs too. An EP with 2 covers and 2 original songs, not so much. A rehearsal/garage-sounding demo, no way. Submit digital-EP bands are your own risk.


Since you say it's a demo, I doubt it. Does this digital release meet any of these criteria?

Before I take the time to submit, I guess I'd better ask... Do you take the band's definition of a "full-length" or are you holding them to the 30-minute guideline? For example, there's a death metal/grindcore band I'm considering submitting, who have a "full-length" with eight tracks that add up to about 11 or 12 minutes. It's completely professional in all regards - recorded in studio, cover art, defined tracklist, and so on. Assuming their music was considered metal enough, would such a band be accepted?

11 minutes is in no way a full-length no matter what the band says. Again, professional EPs might be accepted, submit at your own risks.

Then the site will soon be flooded with digital "singles" with one or two tracks, shitty cover arts, etc. Before this day, the digital singles, ep, full-lengths can be added only when they are available for sale, that is, an ep uploaded to mediafire would not qualify, no matter how professionally made. Now since free digital albums can be added, then a band could release a high quality full-length, enter into MA, and then release "single 1", "single 2",... all of which are to be added. Look at Muldjord's page, we already got one single in the discography. There are more such singles in the bands homepage, so let's add them one by one. Is that what you want?

Call me old-fashioned if you like, I fully disagree with the new policy. If we open the breach, then we will soon be accepting bands whose music is completely computer generated, since you can hardly distinguish it from real guitar sounds with human ears.

Uhhhh, it's literally always been that way, dude. The rules on standards of acceptance for *releases* (not bands, but releases) hasn't changed.

Let's see:

It has no current official digital distribution (its a 2003 release from before the real dawn of the digital distribution boom. And as i said; also distributed as a CDr.)
As for quality; I am fairly sure that both digital and CDr version contained the exact same files, no difference in quality. However, one could hardly call it high-quality in the first place.
The length is just shy of 32 minutes of original material.
Fixed tracklist; check. It has that.
Final mix; nope, this is a demo.
Cover art; check.

I'm not sure if it matters or not, but the artists involved are already on the archive with different, later, projects.

Anyway; from what I gather this doesn't meet the more important criteria and would not be worth resubmitting. But you can probably see why I felt it was a bit in the grey-area in the first place.
Thanks for the answer.

How the heck are the two connected, dude? What's to stop artists from producing completely computer-generated music on CD?

@Snow Listener
We wont accept digital singles as proof of a valid release, Snow Listener. The criteria we have put forward as guidelines for valid digital releases is meant to represent a greater principle; that principle being that we want to ensure that the bands that do end up on this archive contribute to the archive being a credible source of information on legitimate bands. This change in policy originated, in large part, because we (as staff) were not entirely comfortable with the PR rule being a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in itself. By that, I mean, as an arbitrary limiter, the PR rule did not tolerably align with the vision of this site towards being a comprehensive metal encyclopedia. For example, we would end up in situations where we would have to reject metal bands for the sole reason that they don't have a metal physical release, despite the fact that that band might go above and beyond what could be considered a "serious" or "professional" undertaking. In that way, the physical release rule actually worked against the site's whole purpose, and - now at least - it seems like its gotten to a point where such digital-only projects are no longer "fringe" enough to reject. It just no longer felt right to reject them, and truthfully it never really made sense either.

That said, the reason the physical release rule existed in the first place is to be an objective limiter. In order to maintain some form of legitimacy and credibility as an encyclopedia, you do require a base to judge what makes a band legitimate or credible. In our case, that came down to the idea that with a release, a band can surely have an impact as a contributor to the metal scene. In our case, we narrow that even further to ensure a level of consistency with the bands we accept; that releases must be "valid" (in the many ways we define valid in the guidelines -being of a certain form, metal, published, and distributed). This change is not meant to replace that viewpoint. The same principles that form the reasons for having the physical release rule continue to exist with this new rule. So no, we wont accept every bedroom band, and we sure as hell will use the same level of criticism on the nature of a valid release as we were with a valid physical release. In many ways, little changes except for the use of another medium as a way of judging what makes a valid release "valid."

Let it be known that reservations have existed among the staff about the implementation of this change, but we are certain that this change will be managed well and will help further MA towards being a comprehensive encyclopedia. Rest assured, we wont accept everything willy-nilly. We haven't in the past, and we wont start now. Having been one of those who originally rejected this move, I realize that it's no use being Canute and trying to rule the waves by commanding them to stop; the best route is to build a wave energy converter, and make the waves give back to you.

Except that I already said that we wouldn't.... seriously you guys, did you even READ this thread at all?

If what you say in your notes are true, I'd lean towards unacceptable, personally. Let me explain why.

One thing we look for when we judge bands is that there is proof that the release is or was distributed. Without a source for digital (or in this case physical) distribution, we cannot be certain that it was distributed in any significant manner. A review wouldn't cut it. When we do use reviews for proof, it's either to support another form of proof or it's used in the rare case where the band (more often than not) existed in a time before the Internet and before digital releases. That's rare, because it's really not preferred. Without something to prove that, I'd be inclined to reject it at that point. This is beyond the fact that the release is a demo.

As far as the "full-length" criteria is concerned, view it more as an operational guideline and less as an "11th Commandment." We, as staff, are pledged to use our full discretion on determining acceptability, and so there may be exceptions. The best we can do at this point in time, however, is to build off what we have, and see how things go as they come up. There's been some interesting cases brought up in this thread, and altogether with more and more cases we can see what works, what doesn't, and what solutions could exist to solve dilemmas that appear.

Maybe you can't but I bet you that most guitarists in here can!

If a band was previously blacklisted for not having a physical release, can we report it in the band rejection thread? This is probably a given, but it was never stated in the rules, and I wanted to make sure.

Yes. Most definitely.

We do ask that if there are bands on the blacklist that would follow the current criteria on a valid release, that you do what you would normally do with blacklisted bands and request for it to be reviewed and taken off the list. Think of this change in the rule giving another reason for you to have a blacklisted submission reviewed for acceptability. Remember, as with any blacklisted or rejected band, the onus lies on you to prove it's acceptable. In this case, we need to know that it is metal (as we define it) and has a valid release (as explained in the criteria we have set for what makes a release "valid").

Of course I read, I read carefully! What you said is that a band must have a "nice" digital release *to be accept*. BUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER IT GOT ACCEPTED? Previously, a digital release CAN be added to a band that is already accepted (that means, that band has at least one physical release, but may have some digital releases as well), but that digital release must be for sale. Now let's look at the new policy: suppose that band A is here because he has a super nice digital ep. But once he is already here, should we add his other poorly-made, two-track eps with a shitty cover? You might say we only add good quality eps. But once the band is already here, how can we tell if his other ep (not the super professional one based on which it is accepted) is good enough or not? Are the moderators going to listen to every single digital ep and determine if it deserves to be added to the discography? If we add all other eps, badly made or not, then we will get flooded by these digital currents.

Please just look at Muldjord's page. It may got accepted based on "The Ignorant Crown", OK, fine. But should we add the two eps? Should we add that single "Jingle Bells Xtreme"? If the two eps are fine but the single is not, then what is the clear borderline?

Source, please. I never saw any rule stating such.

Yeah I think I getcha. And that sounds fair.
For now I will stay my hand at resubmitting it; I too think it falls slightly outside of the guidelines as they stand. But I guess I can ask again after the rules have been tested in practice for a while to get a final say on the whole thing. I'm not really to fussed about whether or not the band gets added to be honest, it just immediately came to mind as a "tricky case" when I read this topic so I figured I'd bring it up.
Again, thanks for the answers guys.

What? if we do not have this rule before today, we would have already been flooded with digital singles, eps! I remember seeing moderators talk about this issue on the forum many times and they unanimously support it. I did not know if this sentence was ever encoded in the rules or nor, as they have been changed today. Please answer my question in the previous post.

Once a band is up, its official discography can be added. So yes, if a band gets accepted because of a digital release, than the rest of their discography (demos, eps, whatever) can be added along with that release. As far as digital singles go, we've had a contentious history with them in the past. In many cases, there's little to differentiate a "digital single" from a track leaked on Myspace or whatnot. In the past, we've placed emphasis that such a single ought to be published and distributed much as any other valid release; when they're not we remove them. In short, a track on Myspace/Bandcamp/etc. =/= a digital single. A single (in any form) often involves serious effort towards its publication and distribution.

Now, I think another point you were trying to get across is that by doing that (having whole discographies) it might come across to visitors that we accepted those bands based on other albums in that discography. That's a problem that probably wont go away; we already deal with it when it comes to bands with non-metal discographies and a few metal albums. This is especially bad when it's a popular band that has a long history of popularity for its non-metal albums, and not for its metal albums. The same will be true for digital-only bands. You will have some people probably claim "but this band has a digital demo, can I submit my band too?" in which case the answer will be "No, because we didn't accept that other band for that reason." We have a good way of tracking why we accept bands nowadays. And, unlike during V1, mods on the band queue now work towards discussion and consensus over individual mandates. We have ways of keeping track on why a band was accepted, so we'll know in advance why a digital-only band was accepted.

EDIT: I recall something about "purchasable" digital singles, but that was more to support the idea of an acceptable digital single being published and distributed in a "professional" form, if that makes any sense. It's not as though if a digital single is free, we're going to say "NO." It's just less likely such singles are valid releases.

Then my worry -- MA being flooded with singles, eps --is not a phantom. Of course, a track on myspace does not qualify as a single. What I call single is like this or this, a release with a "main" "hit song". But now what is most important to me: I need to know if the single on Muldjord's page is valid or not! If it is qualified, then there are seven more such "singles" on their website, let's add them one by one. If it is not qualified, then we not only need to delete it, but also need to draw a very clear borderline between what is an acceptable single/"two-track"/"three-track" and what is not. Am I clear enough?


My mind skips a little too further. I mean, if we are going to change a ground policy which we have stuck for 10 years 5 months, what is to stop us from deviating further? I once saw a contention regard a "computer metal" band, and the final verdict: "no" because it was not *true* metal. I've seen similar arguments against bands without PR. The most classic one: If some children from Finland (referring to Hevisaurus) could release CDs, then what is the difficulty to spread some CDRs? Another argument: If we accept digital-only bands, then we may end up accepting bands whose members never walk out of their damp basement and never met once. These are your moderators/webmasters' words, not mine. I don't see why these arguments fail today. So by implementing the new policy, is it not so like that you guys are slapping your own faces??!!

Slippery slope fallacy.


Yes it is, Derigin already explained why very carefully. You're not good at paying attention, are you?

Muldjord was accepted based on its digital full-lengths. That they also happen to have singles is completely irrelevant. The same way Ulver was accepted for Nattens Madrigal and not their ambient albums, even if we list their ambient albums as well. This doesn't mean we started accepting ambient bands that sound like later Ulver, because we aren't morons.

Now if you can explain why having 50 (or less, in many cases) shitty CD-Rs with shitty "raw black metal" and shitty xeroxed white logos on black background as "cover" are somehow more meaningful and serious than, say, this, I'd like to see you try. Because we discussed and debated this extensively among the staff, and the correct decision appeared obvious to pretty much everyone.

Out of curiosity, why does Muldjord keep getting mentioned in this debate? The database says they were added all the way back in 2008, so I'm kind of confused as to why they're relevant in regards to the digital release policy.

It was here before and was recently deleted for not having a physical release.

Then Muldjord's Jingle Bells Xtreme seems to violate Derigin's definition of "single". Please give me your final decision whether you will delete it or keep it here!

Second, although Derigin explained it, he used many weasel words which are not practical for implementation. "A single (in any form) often involves serious effort towards its publication and distribution." What efforts do we deem serious enough? I study science, and rigor is what I respect the most. Also, even if I am careful enough when adding singles, it does not prevent other less careful users from adding "meaningless singles".

Third, I'm not talking about the sense that people may think MA accepts a band based on the whole disco. Let the doubts dwell with those. Doesn't concern us.


No I never said they are more meaningful. It is just a personal predilection which coincides with the opinions of the mods, including you, for the past years. The words I quoted were not from me. And now you suddenly swerve from this ground rule, the first clause of the Constitution of Empire MA, and you just expect everyone accept it?


A blatant lie!!! If the correct decision is so obvious, you wouldn't have had a *extensive debate* among the staff at the first place!!!


Please refer to the third post of this thread.

So I'd submitted 403 Forbiddena a while ago (http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/403 ... 3540326323) and while they have released a couple physical full lengths, they also have a bunch of digital singles which they actually do sell to their fans, with what you said, should these be restored to their discography or remain deleted?

Oh right, duh. I just read that earlier today. Oops.

So with the common lossy audio formats (MP3, WMA, etc.), what qualifies as high-quality? 192, 256, 320 kbps? Imagine the "kvlt" black metal bands who use 32 or 64 kbps ...

I don't care. If it's not a valid single we'll delete it eventually. What is your problem exactly?


Oh boy. You "study science". Good for you, you want a medal?


So what was this worry about "MA being flooded with singles" then? Just whining for its own sake? I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. For someone so scientific you sure as hell don't know how to make sense, nor how how argue coherently and rationally.


Excuse me? When have I ever said I preferred shitty xeroxed CD-Rs? I was opposed to bands with only a few songs on Myspace who called that a "demo", that doesn't mean I'm against professional digital albums sold on Amazon.


1) There is no "suddenly". Stop being dishonest.
2) "Constitution of Empire MA" Could you sound more like a douche? Besides, the first clause is "be metal", not "have a physical release". And Constitutions can get amended.
3) Actually, yes I do expect that. And I'm going to let you guess why.


And why the hell not? Some things are counter-intuitive at first, but become obvious after we iron out the issues. The rule was in place to prevent bedroom Myspace bands in a time where professional digital albums were uncommon. Times have changed, things have changed, that's why we discussed it. And after discussion, the decision was nearly unanimously supported.

Just FYI: I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Now, this thread is for those who require clarification about the rules, or for those who want to request restorations of deleted drafts (e.g. the last few posts before mine). If you, or anyone else, have something to say about these, go ahead.

Oh holy fuck, what was I doing in these 4 hours? Just arguing about something that is not even mine? After all, Morrigan, this is your site (and Hellblazer's), and you can do literally whatever you want to without asking others' approval. Even if you someday close the entire site, that is your freedom, and I cannot blame you. I fully respect that, trust me. What I did was to try to "save" the site for my own sake, never thinking that it was not even mine. I acted as if I were part of the inner circle - I am not, not even close. And my words went a little too far for a descent man - I sincerely apologize for that.

Finally, I wish that in the future, MA will become better and continue to serve as the first source of metal music. Farewell.

I.... oh. Assuming you are not sarcastic... well I didn't expect that, and I accept your apology. I admit I was getting angry myself, mostly at being called a liar (that really set me off). Now I feel bad for my harsh tone. Sorry.

We salute you? Seriously, this is a very welcome development. Thank you!

I must get back to this thread as soon as possible, but at this point, I must say that you obviously don't have ANY idea of what Hevisaurus is. The average age of the band is probably well over 30, there are no CD-rs in their history, and if you wish to discuss bands who do stuff professionally, it's actually difficult to top Hevisaurus without talking about stadium dinosaurs.

And even if you're looking for "children from Finland" with releases, I'd say even this goes beyond your average local BM band in professionalism: http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Mir ... ness/78458

Snow Listener: Don't you worry one single bit. I will soon open my own branch of a metal encyclopedia.

The True Metal Archives, where you have to release your stuff physically exclusively on cassette and in some cases vinyl. Cassettes have to be limited to no more than 66 copies and vinyl's no more than 99. No actual member names will be printed and the less info on the net the better.

But seriously... There are rules for valid releases that are not much different than the old Physical release rule, as everyone before me has tried to explain.

And yes, I was sarcastic this time.

Snow Listener, rules always change, some people like certain changes, some despise them, and disputes are bound to happen. A change such as the most recent one takes some time to get used to is all.

He said he was leaving because he disagreed with the rule too much. Sigh.

I'm sure he'll be back.