While it is true the term neoclassical can apply to any art form, when it relates to music it means modern composers who take to the conventions of the classical period (and to a lesser extent that of the baroque). A similarity in musical conventions naturally brings one closer to the ideals expressed in these times. It should also be noted that imitating Beethoven is not neoclassical despite the fact he was a classical period composers. The term is usually meant to describe the early style of the classical period like Mozart and HAYDN.
As such the Anus definition of the word is a slight adaptation from the original. Since Anus extends this to all kinds of classical music rather then just the early classical period and treats idealogical similarities to be neoclassical even if no real musical link is evident.
For the most part I agree with you, I just think the "ANUS uses its own definition" argument is lame, and generally used by the untermensch that come in here and try to take a cheap and uneducated stab at the site.
My one/main point, that probably was unclear in my first post, was that neoclassicism (as interpreting concert music) is a thoroughly vague term and can hardly be applied with nearly as much precision as can even classicism or Romanticism. Most of the neoclassical composers cited by that wikipedia article do not strictly (if at all) adhere to the classical forms/structures and do not write using the triadic interpretation of tonality, which was probably the largest artistic bit of that era (and indeed the Romantic era as well, though that began to fade come the wacky exploits of Wagner and Liszt).
The fact that such a vague grouping of composers can "lay claim" to neoclassicism, considering their music as classified is only neoclassical in that it was something of a reaction to the exploration that was happening around the early 20th century seems ridiculous. Probably a more accurate way of seeing their writing is as the spiritual vestiges
of classicism that stood out because of what composers like Ligeti and Schoenberg were doing/had done to classical music.
However some of those "neoclassical" composers are quite good, despite writing 20th century music. I highly recommend listening to Prokofiev or Scriabin, who actually did (later in his life) write non-triadic music strictly in the classical form; weird that they wouldn't consider him a neoclassicist (yet they included BERNSTEIN?!)
On Rigor Mortis:
I have a self-titled album by this band, sounds like early Slayer to me.
Yeah, in hindsight it does (mostly Show No Mercy though). I don't really listen to Slayer frequently and I guess I never made that connection.
Their EP(?) "Freaks" was actually the work of theirs that I was recommending. Most of the soloing is in that Malmsteen-esque neoclassical (minus the "shred"), and the songs are relatively long and cleverly assembled.
Other releases that come to mind:
Dark Angel's "Darkness Descends" and Helstar's "Nosferatu". "Nosferatu" even has an instrumental track with a harpsichord interlude to boot.