Reviewing non-metal releases is not allowed !

Today we launched a new features (or remove 1 , depends on how you see it) - reviewing non-metal releases is not allowed anymore.

Yes, they do, but when you open one of their pages, you will see that the review window is missing. I know that because this morning I started moving some of Rush's albums to Non-Metal, and noticed this. 

Excellent! I still don't love opening a metal website and seeing lots of Led Zeppelin reviews, but OK, they were fundamental in bringing this genre to life. 

micky wrote: For what is worth..  really impressed with the subtle differences between MMA and PA. Creating not just a clone.. but a better site.   Not sure the underlying reasons... different/new ideas.. or correcting 'mistakes'/weaknesses of the flagship site.

It is interesting reading, however, the weight of a single album of Proto Heavy Metal or 70's Hard Rock in the development of Metal in general.  

Edited by 1967/ 1976 - 09 Apr 2010 at 4:36am

m@x wrote: Today we launched a new features (or remove 1 , depends on how you see it) - reviewing non-metal releases is not allowed anymore. Based on suggestion from valuable members, we decided to make this change. Please post your comments and thoughts. Max for the admins

Edited by Sean Trane - 09 Apr 2010 at 7:19am

I think you all understand why the decision was taken. After years of reading people's complaints on PA about non-prog reviews 'defiling' the site's home page, it was time to make a brave, if radical, decision. Personally, I thought that many albums other people considered non-prog were instead very much prog, and I understand it might be the same here with metal vs. non-metal.

However, especially at the beginning of the site's activity, we have to tread very carefully in order not to alienate potential new members. You all know how purist many metal fans can be - there are already people wrinkling their noses at LED ZEPPELIN reviews on the home page. Can you imagine what would happen if they saw a review of, say, Rush's Presto? My view is a very inclusive one, but I can't force my beliefs on others, nor do I want a repeat of the 'wars' that have spoiled the PA atmosphere for me. 

Sean Trane wrote:   I'm not sure I get this straight....   1- only metal bands are allowed here, right??? Yes. Or proto-metal bands.  2- very few metal bands changed sound or style(unlike prog bands)..... they pretty well stayed metal bands, even if they changed metal style, False. Many metal bands changed their style. But most of the times their core sound remained metal 3- some bands might have moved to metal music after starting out differently - I'm thinking of Status Quo (for ex) who started as psych and got into a proto-metal-boogie rock (>>> Not sure they're in the MMA yet)  >>> would this mean that we're only allowed to review their metal-sounding albums., and not the others??? Correct. 4- if what I assume in 3- is correct, how do we (and who) discern which albums are metal enough to be reviewed? That's what the teams are for. That's why, and I can't stress this enough, we have to know who people are before we give them this faculty... Reviews and work will let us know who is ready for deciding what is metal and what is not and who isn't 5- in other wordsif we don't agree about the album tagging and consider an album metallic enough despite the tag, we can't write a review to explain why we think otherwise?In principle, I would agree with that... But if the album's tagged as "nonmetal" then it will be impossible  6- This new rule seems aimed at the proto-metal genre mainly, right???No. It's aimed at bands like Bon Jovi whose last albums are not metal at all, the same as Rush, and many more. It's really aimed at pleasing the fans who come to a metal site expecting to find METAL.  7- If what I assume in 6- is correct, is it to avoid their presence from spoiling the metal contents in the top list ???I'm not sure that's the objective but it certainly is a much welcomed consequence 8- If so, why not just letting this proto-metal genre out of the top list algorythms???Is not only proto-metal that falls under this rule... (in fact, LZ reviews are in the front page).  Remember people this site is not PA. Is MMA. Right now most of our members are PA'ers and if we allow it albums that are not strictly metal will end up on the first places of the lists... We have to attract METAL fans... Who can be very specific about their music and who would probably run to metal-archives if they see a review of Bon Jovi's latest release on the front page.

Edited by The T 666 - 09 Apr 2010 at 12:11pm

The T 666 wrote: Pekka wrote: Just to clarify, I definitely support the idea in general  but I'd like to know if it applies to those bands who are unquestionably metal in the big picture, but might have some rare unplugged stuff in their catalogue? DAMNATION by Opeth is a metal album by a 100% metal band. That it is played on acoustic instruments doesn't change the fact that it is seen as metal by pretty much everyone else. Deviations from this norm will affect albums that are not only acoustic but also clearly depart from the band's core sound. Unplugged=/=nonmetal....

The T 666 wrote: Sean Trane wrote:   I'm not sure I get this straight....   1- only metal bands are allowed here, right??? Yes. Or proto-metal bands.  2- very few metal bands changed sound or style(unlike prog bands)..... they pretty well stayed metal bands, even if they changed metal style, False. Many metal bands changed their style. But most of the times their core sound remained metal 3- some bands might have moved to metal music after starting out differently - I'm thinking of Status Quo (for ex) who started as psych and got into a proto-metal-boogie rock (>>> Not sure they're in the MMA yet)  >>> would this mean that we're only allowed to review their metal-sounding albums., and not the others??? Correct. 4- if what I assume in 3- is correct, how do we (and who) discern which albums are metal enough to be reviewed? That's what the teams are for. That's why, and I can't stress this enough, we have to know who people are before we give them this faculty... Reviews and work will let us know who is ready for deciding what is metal and what is not and who isn't 5- in other wordsif we don't agree about the album tagging and consider an album metallic enough despite the tag, we can't write a review to explain why we think otherwise?In principle, I would agree with that... But if the album's tagged as "nonmetal" then it will be impossible  6- This new rule seems aimed at the proto-metal genre mainly, right???No. It's aimed at bands like Bon Jovi whose last albums are not metal at all, the same as Rush, and many more. It's really aimed at pleasing the fans who come to a metal site expecting to find METAL.  7- If what I assume in 6- is correct, is it to avoid their presence from spoiling the metal contents in the top list ???I'm not sure that's the objective but it certainly is a much welcomed consequence 8- If so, why not just letting this proto-metal genre out of the top list algorythms???Is not only proto-metal that falls under this rule... (in fact, LZ reviews are in the front page).  Remember people this site is not PA. Is MMA. Right now most of our members are PA'ers and if we allow it albums that are not strictly metal will end up on the first places of the lists... We have to attract METAL fans... Who can be very specific about their music and who would probably run to metal-archives if they see a review of Bon Jovi's latest release on the front page.

hmmm...  interesting.  Having a great discussion here at the dining room table of the metal mansion..



SPOT ON!!! Teo.. This is NOT PA's.   Look at Judas Priest...  this site is NOT PA's where round bands are stuffed into square boxes.  The current tag represents a portion of their career.. and tagging individual albums handles the rest. Judas Priest is listed in the NWOBHM because they.. with Maiden pretty much started it.  The difference.. is Maiden's debut coincided with it.  Priest did not.. they had a different sound in their first 4 or 5 albums.. that was not NWOBHM.. but something different... call it... NWOPM.  Yes...  they though history doesn't acknowledge it... or PA's.. were the first prog metal group.  It was prog... showing all the facets of it.. yet were undeniably metal. When they streamlined their sound/music.. they changed.. and became one of the creaters of the new wave so to speak. 




Edited by micky - 09 Apr 2010 at 2:33pm