Encyclopaedia Metallum

mc666 wrote:

the sentinel wrote:

mc666 wrote:

It's ok. I prefer spirit-of-metal.com.

I don't know that one. It's not Painkiller's site is it?

No. You are thinking of fortressofsteel.

Oh, okay. I will check it out then. Thanks, MC.

Lari wrote:

Not to mention all of glam metal. Basically taking away perhaps the largest, most iconic and most popular era of heavy metal.

It's like if someone hypothetically decided Iron Maiden isn't NWOBHM (because they are popular or whatever), then writing a book about NWOBHM being careful not to mention Iron Maiden in any capacity. It seems very petty.

Actually, they have a number of bands generally considered glam metal there. Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Twisted Sister, and Stryper, just to name a few, are all on the site.

MA is good for reference material. No more, no less. Most album reviews are a joke. I will not go into the forums at all. I refuse to get baited into arguments with a bunch of "kvlt kiddies"

the sentinel wrote:

mc666 wrote:

It's ok. I prefer spirit-of-metal.com.

I don't know that one. It's not Painkiller's site is it?

if it was would you even join?.

HeavyThrashhead wrote:

the sentinel wrote:

mc666 wrote:

It's ok. I prefer spirit-of-metal.com.

I don't know that one. It's not Painkiller's site is it?

if it was would you even join?.

Maybe. I never had any issues with the guy?

Required Fields wrote:

Lari wrote:

Not to mention all of glam metal. Basically taking away perhaps the largest, most iconic and most popular era of heavy metal.

It's like if someone hypothetically decided Iron Maiden isn't NWOBHM (because they are popular or whatever), then writing a book about NWOBHM being careful not to mention Iron Maiden in any capacity. It seems very petty.

Actually, they have a number of bands generally considered glam metal there. Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Twisted Sister, and Stryper, just to name a few, are all on the site.

It's lacking badly. And worse yet, it's on purpose.

I just use it to get some data on bands, although it lacks so many good ones.

Never bother with the reviews anymore. They are too contradictory and i only trust my own ears.

Haven't checked the forums.

Lari wrote:

Not to mention all of glam metal. Basically taking away perhaps the largest, most iconic and most popular era of heavy metal.

It's like if someone hypothetically decided Iron Maiden isn't NWOBHM (because they are popular or whatever), then writing a book about NWOBHM being careful not to mention Iron Maiden in any capacity. It seems very petty.

Glam bands that are missing aren't missing because they were popular, they're missing because most (if not all) of the music they play(ed) is not metal.

Gilbert wrote:

I just use it to get some data on bands, although it lacks so many good ones.

Never bother with the reviews anymore. They are too contradictory and i only trust my own ears.

Haven't checked the forums.

Not a fan of the reviews either, but how are they contradictory?

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Lari wrote:

Not to mention all of glam metal. Basically taking away perhaps the largest, most iconic and most popular era of heavy metal.

It's like if someone hypothetically decided Iron Maiden isn't NWOBHM (because they are popular or whatever), then writing a book about NWOBHM being careful not to mention Iron Maiden in any capacity. It seems very petty.

Glam bands that are missing aren't missing because they were popular, they're missing because most (if not all) of the music they play(ed) is not metal.

I know that's what they say, but it doesn't make it true. It's just hindsight bias.

The only thing I don't prefer about the site is the way the reviews are designed. I don't think most of those heads are responsible enough to deal with a 0-100% style form of rating. You usually have some dude who will rate a decent album at 20% while everyone else who actually liked it is giving 80% etc completely throwing off the average review.

Lari wrote:

TheGreatDuck wrote:

Lari wrote:

Not to mention all of glam metal. Basically taking away perhaps the largest, most iconic and most popular era of heavy metal.

It's like if someone hypothetically decided Iron Maiden isn't NWOBHM (because they are popular or whatever), then writing a book about NWOBHM being careful not to mention Iron Maiden in any capacity. It seems very petty.

Glam bands that are missing aren't missing because they were popular, they're missing because most (if not all) of the music they play(ed) is not metal.

I know that's what they say, but it doesn't make it true. It's just hindsight bias.

The lack of glam bands is fine anyway...you have Heavy Harmonies that is specifically geared towards and celebrates that sub-genre and every imaginable related sub-genre, and it's done by people who love that sub-genre. I'd rather just look at HH for glam/melodic/sleaze/AOR whatever.

Twisted Sister, Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Stryper, W.A.S.P., Skid Row are all on there because they have albums/material that is unquestionably Metal. Most of the Hair/Glam/Sleaze bands or whatever are prominently Hard Rock.

i would say Europe and Ratt should be on there.

Europe's their first two albums are no different from bands like Mindless Sinner, Torch, Gotham City, Axewitch, Overdrive, Behemoth (not to be confused with the Polish band), etc...

and Ratt is metal, their 1983 ep and songs off the first three full length albums are pretty metal if you ask me.

kyleblack wrote:

Twisted Sister, Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Stryper, W.A.S.P., Skid Row are all on there because they have albums/material that is unquestionably Metal. Most of the Hair/Glam/Sleaze bands or whatever are prominently Hard Rock.

Hard rock is hardly even a thing. Mostly used by elitist metalheads. Originally interchangeable with heavy metal. Because at some point "Rock" sounded cool and "Heavy Metal" sounded dumb and lame, a lot of acts preferred 'hard rock'.

80's hair bands are all prominently heavy metal. Stuff like Y&T, Cinderella and Extreme are heavy metal. They are not extreme metal, they are not what you consider 'metal' now, but they are originally heavy metal.

And that is until you wish to remove 'heavy metal' as a subgenre of 'Metal'. Because there is this movement away from 70's heavy metal bands, those original heavy metal bands, and towards this kind of modern "metal" sound, and the need for some to separate Heavy Metal from 'Metal'.

HeavyThrashhead wrote:

i would say Europe and Ratt should be on there.

Europe's their first two albums are no different from bands like Mindless Sinner, Torch, Gotham City, Axewitch, Overdrive, Behemoth (not to be confused with the Polish band), etc...

and Ratt is metal, their 1983 ep and songs off the first three full length albums are pretty metal if you ask me.

Ditto for Black N Blue (they were even on Metal Massacre!) and Rough Cutt (the first album is surprisingly heavy)

Lari wrote:

kyleblack wrote:

Twisted Sister, Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Stryper, W.A.S.P., Skid Row are all on there because they have albums/material that is unquestionably Metal. Most of the Hair/Glam/Sleaze bands or whatever are prominently Hard Rock.

Hard rock is hardly even a thing. Mostly used by elitist metalheads. Originally interchangeable with heavy metal. Because at some point "Rock" sounded cool and "Heavy Metal" sounded dumb and lame, a lot of acts preferred 'hard rock'.

80's hair bands are all prominently heavy metal. Stuff like Y&T, Cinderella and Extreme are heavy metal. They are not extreme metal, they are not what you consider 'metal' now, but they are originally heavy metal.

And that is until you wish to remove 'heavy metal' as a subgenre of 'Metal'. Because there is this movement away from 70's heavy metal bands, those original heavy metal bands, and towards this kind of modern "metal" sound, and the need for some to separate Heavy Metal from 'Metal'.

Hard rock is hardly even a thing? Used by elitists? When the bands that ARE hard rock call themselves HARD ROCK, I'd say that it is definitely a thing.

It seems people at a certain age are afraid to call a band hard rock, get over it. They are hard rock, nothing wrong with that at all.

HeavyThrashhead wrote:

i would say Europe and Ratt should be on there.

Europe's their first two albums are no different from bands like Mindless Sinner, Torch, Gotham City, Axewitch, Overdrive, Behemoth (not to be confused with the Polish band), etc...

and Ratt is metal, their 1983 ep and songs off the first three full length albums are pretty metal if you ask me.

Europe actually used to be there years ago, but they got expunged for some reason.

Ratt are one of the most asked about "absentees" in the site's history, being brought up almost every week, and they've never been added, so I think it's safe to say they'll never be added.

Lari wrote:

kyleblack wrote:

Twisted Sister, Dokken, Mötley Crüe, Stryper, W.A.S.P., Skid Row are all on there because they have albums/material that is unquestionably Metal. Most of the Hair/Glam/Sleaze bands or whatever are prominently Hard Rock.

Hard rock is hardly even a thing. Mostly used by elitist metalheads. Originally interchangeable with heavy metal. Because at some point "Rock" sounded cool and "Heavy Metal" sounded dumb and lame, a lot of acts preferred 'hard rock'.

80's hair bands are all prominently heavy metal. Stuff like Y&T, Cinderella and Extreme are heavy metal. They are not extreme metal, they are not what you consider 'metal' now, but they are originally heavy metal.

And that is until you wish to remove 'heavy metal' as a subgenre of 'Metal'. Because there is this movement away from 70's heavy metal bands, those original heavy metal bands, and towards this kind of modern "metal" sound, and the need for some to separate Heavy Metal from 'Metal'.

Early Y&T approached metal at times and Cinderella's only metal-ish song was Somebody Save Me. Extreme I don't remember producing anything really metallic.

There's a pretty obvious difference between the bands you named and bands like Maiden, Accept, WASP, Judas Priest, Running Wild, Manowar, King Diamond etc.

Europe, though, is a band that I'd personally consider metal for their first two albums, which were somewhere between NWOBHM and Europower that was to come. They should indeed be on the site.

I'd like to use the mods there (Morrigan, Hellblazer, Diareah etc) as tackling dummies for an NFL training camp.

I haven't looked at that site in a long time... I would hit it for discog stuff, but when it came to Christian metal they seemed to be all wrong... not that they would care about that stuff I'm sure but still... if you're gonna be a "Encyclopaedia" get your facts right!

mr.electric39 wrote:

I haven't looked at that site in a long time... I would hit it for discog stuff, but when it came to Christian metal they seemed to be all wrong... not that they would care about that stuff I'm sure but still... if you're gonna be a "Encyclopaedia" get your facts right!

From my earlier post regarding one dealing regarding facts, the mod's there are only concerned with "facts" as they dictate them.

Poor site and it got worse after the re-formatting of the archives a couple years back. NOt as user friendly for searching as it once was.