Reviewing non-metal releases is not allowed !

Ok I just came from the Cynic Re-Traced review where it seems that people want to keep it open to review and rate based on it's metal relatedness. As far as I'm concerned that's just fine and dandy. People also want to keep Opeth's Damnation around for the same reason (I know many consider it a metal album anyways, and I'm not here to argue about that).

However, I've noticed that Pain of Salvation's latest album is in the non metal category. I haven't personally listened to that album, but I trust the site's judgment anyways, and I've sampled it anyways and the bits I've heard only support that decision.

My biggest issue is I'm not sure we have established guidelines on what to keep and what to put in non-metal for the time being. Damnation is an important album in Opeth's discography, and the duality between it and Deliverance wouldn't exist, so it does make sense that we should keep it for it's relation in Opeth's releases. But Road Salt 1 could become an important part of POS' discography as well and could be crucial to understanding the direction they take in the future (metal or not, not even the band itself probably knows at this point). Furthermore, what if Road Salt 2 is a metal release, then you have the same thing going on with Deliverance and Damnation. And then you have Cynics Re-Traced which is an EP and probably will not be an important part of Cyinic's discography, yet we're keeping it? Even with one song on the EP that isn't even quite metal itself?

These are just a few examples. I know this policy is mainly to eliminate albums by bands like Bon Jovi that are questionably metal in the first place. But there may be other examples on the site I haven't found. My main question is if we have good guidelines? Cause these three confuse me for this reason:

Damnation - non metal (arguable, though questionably metal to say the least) but important. Reviewable

Road Salt 1 - non metal, but important in a discography. Non reviewable

Re Traced - questionably metal, not important in a discography. Reviewable


Edited by topofsm - 08 Jun 2010 at 2:23am

m@x wrote: Well defended J-MAN. After reading your posts guys, I think we can find a solution here, interesting. Let's allow non-metal releases but.. Only list them in the album pages Do not use the rate value for any calculation in the site Sounds good !! ??

Glad something I brought up actually helped the site instead of causing trouble. 

Good job m@x!

topofsm wrote: Glad something I brought up actually helped the site instead of causing trouble.

m@x wrote: GUYS, after reviewing what needs to be done technically to implement this, we need to let you know that we will handle this, but later. I am going to ask you to be patient.  Thanks , I am sure you understand

In my experience, there are 14-year-olds that are more 'adult'  than adults. And I'll stop at that...

I've always been a college student on the inside. Which explains why I waste my time on sites like these 

^That's better than what I would do, I wouldn't let them on at all.

I wonder why we allowed them on when there was a statement that there weren't going to be any controversial hard rock additions...

^I just tried to post a review of this one: http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/rush--retrospective-3(compilation).aspx and still get this message:

"Review a non-metal album is not allowed."

From what you wrote above m@x I was under the impression that reviews of non-metal albums should be possible, even though they won�t appear on the frontpage. Is this in your implementation backlog?