Talk:Technical death metal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nile[edit]

Nile are brutal death metal metal, not tech death. They don't fit the description. Unless anyone has evidence that they are, I'm removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.10.126 (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly you failed to notice the source next to their name which provides exactly the evidence you ask for; in the meantime your opinion has been reverted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah[edit]

Meshuggah is hardly a technical death metal band. Sure, they are complex but they do not have strong elements of death metal in their music. Nonreliable/unknowledgable sources(in terms of death metal)were also supplied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.32.250 (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I said before: "they fit the description (unexpected, difficult to play, difficult to comprehend, written without distinct choruses, layered time signatures, dissonant or atonal guitar riffs, jazz fusion influences).". They have significant death metal traits like guttural vocals, fast paced (older albums) heavily distorted downtuned guitars, fast solos, etc. And why would the sources be "unknowledgable"? Blender is a respectable review site, and about.com:heavy metal is a well known metal site. Meshuggah have a lot in common with bands like Coprofago and Martyr if you ask me. They're not the average technical death metal band (if there is such a thing) but they definitively fit the genre. Emmaneul (Talk) 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love Meshuggah and all, but surely they lie on more progressive/experimental side of avant-garde/math metal. I mean, sure they have elements of tech death, but the predominant elements of their music lie in a more progressive sense. Their latest efforts are also vapid of tech-death elements; they are fairly easy to play, not terrible difficult to comprehend, and theres little to no jazz fusion left(as Fredrik hardly writes leads anymore.) I also wouldn't trust Blender personally for anything Death Metal related, but that's just me.
Also, Encyclopedia Metallum categorizes them as 'Technical post-thrash.[]' Perhaps it would be better to put them under that category? --Tsunekuni 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. Their latest efforts aren't fast but still are extremely difficult to play. Have you ever heard their timing? The timing is extremely complex. Polyrhythms, odd time signatures, unpredictable turns, long chromatic riffs difficult to memorize, thing reminiscent of f.e. fusion band Steve Coleman And Five Elements. Nearly all professional reviews I read are praising their technicality. Their music might not be fast (anymore) but it's still technical. Listend to Mind´s Mirrors (Catch 33). They play the exact same thing live.
Encyclopaedia Metallum is a nice site but not a metal authority. The genres you mentioned "progressive/experimental ... avant-garde/math metal" aren't mentioned either. Many sources consider Meshuggah death metal and I can understand why. Listen to songs like The Mouth Licking What You've Bled and Concatenation (Chaosphere) and you will hear many characteristics of death metal: fast low tuned heavily distorted guitars, fast chromatic riff, and solos, fast double bass parts, grunted/screamed vocals. They're technical death metal, amongst other genres such as avant-garde metal and progressive/experimental groove metal. Emmaneul (Talk) 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I've heard all their CDs and am quite a big fan. Catch 33's material is far easier to perform then the stuff present on DEI and CS(which really isn't too bad either, minus the leads). It's not terribly tough to remember, either.
I'm not denying the death metal elements they may indeed have, but I'm trying to say that they are more progressive in their approach(IE, odd time signatures/structures). I think they'd be more at home in the progressive metal list(and are already present there.) --Tsunekuni 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like original research, I don't believe their music is "not terribly tough to remember" and relatively easy to perform. Some parts have such long complicated rhythms and variations they almost sound randomized. I've never read a professional review stating their new work was easier to perform. In fact I've often read the opposite, their new work is considered more complex. Emmaneul (Talk) 22:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to get at is that the music is not difficult to perform when compared to technical death metal bands such as Spawn of Possession, Carcariass, Martyr, Gorguts, Misogyny, etc etc etc. Also, when reading a "professional review," you must keep in mind that the reviewer may not, in fact, be a musician. He/She might not have any idea what a polyrythm is at all(I would hope someone reviewing Meshuggah does, heh). Then you are left to your ears. And when I listen to Meshuggah I hear far more progressive elements(oddball time sigs, complex rhythms with traditional instruments, unique song structures and such). Sure, some of the elements of progressive metal are akin to technical death metal, but that does not mean that they are tech death.
I'm trying to make a point, being a tech death fan, enthusiast and player that Meshuggah just doesn't quite cut it as a "tech death" band. Progressive death is a far more suitable title that accurately describes their compositions, much more so then "tech death" can. --Tsunekuni 03:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you've provided no argument to what Tsunekuni said, I removed Meshuggah from the page. --205.144.32.250 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't reply because Tsunekuni was not bringing new arguments to the discussion. They are considered death metal by many sources (see here). They are certainly technical (just listen to Thordendal's solos and look up Haake on youtube). They fit the technical death metal description in the article. There are sources to back it up. Emmaneul (Talk) 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If technical death metal were decided on solos, then certaintly we could count Morbid Angel, Obituary, and many other old school death metal bands. If we counted drums, then a good portion of brutal death metal could be counted as technical death metal. You need all the elements combined. Which, when combined, I wholeheartedly agree with Tsunekuni. The overall sound is more progressive, and the approach they take is progressive. Thusly, I would deem them progressive death metal. --205.144.32.250 17:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go, brutal death metal and old school death metal (like Morbid Angel) are fast but generally are not that difficult to comprehend and have no jazz fusion influences. Both jazz fusion influences and extremely complex song structures are typical technical death metal (and Meshuggah) traits. All Meshuggah members play complex, jazz fusion influenced, technical beats and riffs. Emmaneul (Talk) 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out your sources. Blender? Hardly a decent source of death metal news. Sure, it's a source, but it's not a decent source of death metal news at all. I was not able to access the second source, but the first source(about:heavy metal) has conflicting statements on Meshuggahs music, and the fact that God Forbid is in a top metal list slightly discredits the news source. --205.144.32.250 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the sources be death metal news oriented? Blender has a good reputation and is considered a good source of professional reviews by WikiProject Albums. The 2 metal sources, Metal Storm (I don't have any problem accessing it) and About:Heavy Metal (conflicting statements?) are respectable metal sources as far as I know. Please stop all the original research. Emmaneul (Talk) 17:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meshuggah is not death metal. Some use death metal as a derogatory term meaning anything the speaker finds extreme. Meshuggah technically isn't even music, since they continue to play the same rhythm over and over again with no variation for the whole song, or often the entire album. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit late here only by around 3 years. Try to comment in more recent discussions from now on please. Thank you. Also, just to let you know, opinion and point of view gets you nowhere here fast. It's good practice to back it up with a viewpoint that confirms your views. It's the science of Wikipedia and we're not mad scientists here who concoct anything out of nothing, no, definitely not. FireCrystal (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. Meshuggah isn't even death metal at all. Jens Kidman does not use deathgrowls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.62.186 (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I looked up sources for the bands in the list, mainly from Encyclopaedia Metallum, to be assured the listed bands should be in the list and to comply with WP:LIST. I couldn't find any good sources for some bands (I just did a brief google search), so if someone can find some sources for these bands, please add them (if no sources can be found, after a while, the bands will be deleted from the list). I might do this for other music related lists in the near future. Emmaneul (Talk) 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a serious problem here. Why are people using Encyclopaedia Metallum as a legitimate source? Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastically useful cite, but much like Wikipedia is written by whoever fancies logging on and submitting stuff. We can't possibly use it, so all of the bands you seem to think you have sourced, are in fact not. Find other sources, or I'll have to flag the page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree, it can't really be used as a trustworthy source since anyone can get on there to edit it.Felix-schade (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced bands[edit]

These bands have been added but I couldn't find sources stating they are technical death metal. I've put them here on the talk page (according to WP:VER: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page."). When good sources are found they can be put back in the list.

  1. ^ Hate Eternal band page @ Encyclopaedia Metallum
  2. ^ [1]

Atheist is technical metal as stated on their OFFICIAL webpage. Influences from jazz and prog rock are definately heard in their music (I read the definition on page, maybe it's wrong :P). Too much suggestion from encyclopaedia metallum?? Even wikipedia states it IS technical death metal band! so removing this band from list makes wikipedia a source of incoherent informations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.229.23.182 (talk)

No problem, if you can find a good independent source for Atheïst, then you could add Atheïst+source to the list. I don’t care if whatever band is in the list, as long as one can verify its genre (in this case technical death metal). For the MA refs; they will have to be changed to more reliable ones. Emmaneul (Talk) 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this independent source is enough. Meshuggah on list is a big mistake, I would like to see a review that states Meshuggah is tech death on more metal specialized website, not Blender. MA didn't bother to define tech death, Wikipedia did. Let's stick to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.229.23.182 (talk) 03:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

That Atheïst source is great, you could add it. And for Meshuggah: there are 3 sources for Meshuggah, 1 of them being the metal specialized Metal Storm and another is about.com:heavy metal. I think that's enough to prove it and they fit the description (unexpected, difficult to play, difficult to comprehend, written without distinct choruses, layered time signatures, dissonant or atonal guitar riffs, jazz fusion influences). Emmaneul (Talk) 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's leave Meshuggah here. I've no doubt it was technical band at some point of their career, maybe it fits more in the technical thrash subgenre, but it's only stated in Italian Wiki (I probably could some sources if necessary). But since there is no article about technical thrash in English Wiki we may leave it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.229.23.182 (talk) 15:29, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I haven't noticed it earlier. Vader is death metal (earlier thrash) it shouldn't be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.23.182 (talk) 15:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Moved it to talk page. (and by the way, to avoid sinebot signing your comment you could end your post with 4 tildes) Emmaneul (Talk) 20:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem with this page... specifically, almost none of the so-called notable bands are sourced correctly. metal Archives, BNR Metal, Metal Storm et al are not reliable sources; in fact I believe Metal Archives is specifically mentioned on oneof the guidelines pages as being a no-go. I'm going to go trhough the list and remove these citations and then me, or someone else should go and try to find sources we can actually use. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started by removing all citations to MA and removed bands that do not have their own Wikipedia pages. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now the BNR metal links have gone... this is not a site I've used before. Is there any reason to regard BNR as a reliable source as per Wikipedia policy? It appears to be just the website musings of a lone guy, but if someone can demonstrate he's a 'professional' then we could possibly use published work by him as a source. Otherwise it's much like citing someone's blog. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't know whether I find this amusing or not. Was looking for a source saying whether Dying Fetus are 'technical death metal' or not. Um, their official website bio describes them as 'death metal' and 'technical', but as the words aren't directly juxtaposed I'm not sure whether that counts :-). I'm just going to rock with 'it does'. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really fail to see (or more accurately: hear) how dying fetus is a technical band. They play straight ahead rhythm, have no classical or jazz influence, have simple song structures... As the source you used is a primary source (a band is not objective toward it's genre) and not even stating they truly are TDM I think it may be removed. About the other sources: metal-archives and BNR metal are good sources used all around Wikiproject:Metal. Good sources considering how underground TDM is. TDM is a niche (but notable) genre and there are very few websites (let alone books) categorizing bands as TDM. I think it's an error to remove the refs. I'll put them back up. Kameejl (Talk) 18:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree here. I know the Dying Fetus name is thrown around a lot among fans of tech death, but they just aren't the same thing. Necrophagist and Dying Fetus? (Yeah, OK, they're on Summer Slaughter together—but deathcore bands do SS too.) I could see them as "death metal" or conceivably "brutal death metal" but never, ever "technical death metal." Ronocdh (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY[edit]

Are Beneath The Massacre, Spawn of Possession, Psycroptic and Anata really notable enough to be considered "icons"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlogBot1999 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they were iconic for tech death? for the genre, they are just notable bands (bands of the genre who have an article). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could perhaps call them "paragons" instead? I.e. I don't really see the issue here. I think Circafucix's pragmatic approach is really the best way to ensure a solid Wikipedia entry. Ronocdh (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opeth[edit]

Do Opeth really fit in here? In my opinion, they can barely even called a death metal band at all - of course, they do the death growls as well as some death metal riffs now and then, but draw just as much influence from jazz, 70s progressive and psychedelic rock, et cetera. But if we really need to put this band into a category, I'd (reluctantly) say progressive metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.124.169.91 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""Well, Opeth are pretty universally considered progressive death metal. (I realize Metal Archives has them listed as "Extreme Progressive Metal" but lastfm tagging http://www.last.fm/tag/progressive%20death%20metal is pretty clear.) The question is is progressive death metal going to pass Wikipedia's notability test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronocdh (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last FM tags are completely unreliable. However, they are still progressive death metal, as they have elements of death metal and progressive music in their sound. The article needs to be split back into technical death and progressive death.71.208.35.129 (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to complain simply, but seeing Opeth in this list just seems too strange. The source used to state it is not reliable. I just find the distinction of "progressive" and "technical" too obtuse. For the sake of finding a genre to Opeth I think they should be considered progressive, as they do not show much technicality as in other artists that are paradigms for the genre those one uses to describe a new artist in the genre. Why Martyr is not in the list while Opeth figures on it, just makes no sense. I believe that is hard to come up with a description or a proper source for the genre. I might be biased as Opeth is not a band I really enjoy, but if one listens to "canonical" technical death metal, i.e. , Death, Atheist, Gorguts, it is hard to relate to Opeth. Zlogdan (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source for Martyr they can be added. Progressive death metal redirects here and is a better description of Opeth (and also the one that has been sourced). Syxxpackid420 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it. Anyway, I am looking for a reliable source for Martyr. They are one of the finest gems in the genre, I know that is just a personal opinion I admit. Maybe it will make the list better despite Opeth. 189.78.18.113 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

opeth is NOT techdeath, it's progressive death. (nowadays it's neither any more though, sadly) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.123.188 (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came in here to ask this very same question. I see it's been going since 2008. I think it's about time we adjusted this. Naturally you don't and will not find the word tech death etc. anywhere on Opeth's page, because it just doesn't fit. If they've exhibited deliberate complexity anywhere it was Martin Lopez's drumming, which would itself make their relevance to this genre even less probable. Pixel Eater (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Job For A Cowboy[edit]

Job For A Cowboy's debut album can be considered to be technical death metal, it reminds me of Death's album Human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepulwiki (talk • contribs) 19:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can Genesis be tech death? It's just plain (though more modern) death metal with a light hardcore influence. If a reviewer says they are then fine, otherwise it's original research. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 07:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JFAC is deathcore.

After seeing all these deathcore bands, and the fact that meshuggah is on here, finally does point me to how unreliable wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.112.228 (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been said before, but JFAC are definitely JFAC—not technical death metal, and therefore do not belong on this page. Ronocdh (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i beleive that Job For A Cowboy are now technical death metal band due to their new album,Ruination, the music critics say that it is tech. death metal. The band actually is admitting that they are. panicpack121

If many music critics state this, provide those sources. What you (or the band) "believe" is unimportant (see WP:OR). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

//JFAC is deathcore.

After seeing all these deathcore bands, and the fact that meshuggah is on here, finally does point me to how unreliable wikipedia is.//

No, not for a while have they been Deathcore. 68.32.114.10 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree JFAC are definitely techdeath now and not just deathcore Syxxpackid420 (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins[edit]

I don't care what standard of sources we require for inclusion, but it seems an odd double standard to remove any reference to progressive or technical metal when the article is named technical death metal, with progressive death metal redirecting here and also mentioned in the lead as an equivalent name. Removing these as unsourced makes about as much sense as removing death metal as an origin, which the editor seems not to agree with. Mdwh (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me it would be wise to create a progressive death metal page and get rid of the redirect. Certainly would clear up the Opeth stuff on this talk page, and perhaps even the Meshuggah debate too. ;) Ronocdh (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech death/Prog death[edit]

Tech death metal and progressive death metal are 2 completely different beasts.. Listen to Decapitated, Beneath the Massacre and Cephalic Carnage, then listen to Opeth and Becoming the Archetype and you'll see what I mean.. This is a great article but it needs to be split in half for Technical death metal and Progressive death metal. ~Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.235 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hard part is finding references that intelligently differentiate them as separate genres as it is now they are just looked at as one genre. I'm well aware of them being two separate genres but we need sources to make this so. I doubt we could even find the right references any time soon (if ever) to even have a separate article. 137.124.9.20 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The technical death metal genre is pretty new, thus there are not many reliable sources to backup the inclusion here. But the list is a bit strange, for example, Nile considered tech death while there is controversy as to Atheist being technical death metal or not. Seems that there must be a judgement based on a definition created here and not based on web sites. People will need to define a base canon for the genre and then starting to create the list from it. I know that is always possible that Wikipedia is misused and this list gets filled with deathcore. But then look at the list of bands not included in the TDM genre. At least two of them are but are out of it due to the lack of sources. Death obviously is pioner of the genre, however it is not in the list due to the requirement of sources telling that. The Faceless is clearly TDM but lacks sources. Theory In Practice as well.--Zlogdan (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, recently someone came by and cleaned up most of the bands where no reliable sources could be found. The "references" like MA that were originally there were put in place 'somewhat' temporarily until a reliable source could be found (since they were the only place where they were known as this). I'm pretty sure the tech death pioneers; Cynic, Atheist, Death and Pestilence have sources for them out there, somewhere. As far as my research goes, they only refer to them as "technical metal" at the instances I've found which is correct in a way, though they're "forgetting" to put "death" in there or "technical" for the death metal instances. In general, 'metal' sources are very hard to come by and is the main reason for the deletions and major article changes recently. And who would not feel stressed at this time because of it? Anyway, I'm not sure why it was required to just remove them in this way but I think it is for the best because they could have used sources anyway. I think I'll continue searching for sources and google news, and its original search, books (if any mention in heavy metal/extreme metal ones), etc are good places to start. FireCrystal (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that progressive death metal and technical death metal were the same genre. Now I don't have a formed opinion. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I saw it here now in the Necrophagist's official website:
"In 1999, NECROPHAGIST recorded their self-released, full-length debut 'Onset of Putrefaction.' Despite the limited number of copies that were made, 'Onset of Putrefaction' only solidified the growing reputation that NECROPHAGIST had started with their self-titled demo. Soon, NECROPHAGIST became the standard for progressive death metal. Uniting influences from different styles, including classical music, 'Onset of Putrefaction' showcased NECROPHAGIST’s demanding dexterity, inhuman brutality and fury."
And then, prog death and tech death are the same genre? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is a long-running argument, and I haven't seen a single reliable source produced to suggest either that they are the same or that they are different. Something from the official Necrophagist website is obviously not a reliable source. Until something is produced I'm going to err on the side of removing anything not reliably sourced with the words "technical death metal" as that is fairly uncontroversial. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a source to tell us that they are different? Listen to them. You aren't going to find a reliable source that says "Yup, they are different." Should Black Metal and Death Metal be in the same article because there is no source that says they are different? Of course not. Mason092 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a progressive death metal article on my userpage, feel free to contribute, also is allmusic a reliable source? I've found some good references there. Chairmaneoin (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is in some respects. It would be nice day for Wikipedia heavy metal / extreme metal to have a reliably sourced article for prog death that differentiates between tech death. FireCrystal (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a few; lots of sources saying 'combination of progressive rock and death metal' and lots of bands tagged "progressive metal", "Death Metal" a few who refer to "progressive death metal" and a couple explaining what the genre is. I also have a good source saying that Cynic's 'focus' was a benchmark progressive death metal album, or something along those lines.Chairmaneoin (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All sounds good, barring the ones tagged both "death metal" and "progressive metal"; that' not good enough, because it doen't actually say the band played "progressive death metal". They could have played both styles at different points in their career. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look; first five sources don't pass WP:RS (particularly not anus.com!) and Pitbulls in the Nursery don't have an article so shouldn't be on the list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally disagree with the lumping of progressive death metal into this article, but perhaps in the list of bands another column should be made to denote what kind of "tech death" they are; whether they're proggy, mathy, jazzy, experimental, or whatever. Good idea? 65.95.60.38 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not doing that unless you find a damn good separatg all those out. Otherwise that would be a POV nightmare. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed band list[edit]

I decided to leave bands here that were initially removed to keep here for later reference. FireCrystal (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same source used to backup Arsis inclusion could be used to add Death as well.--Zlogdan (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't. Can you find me the part where it states that death Are tech death? No? just read the article. The only statement made is that Death was influential to tech death bands, which is a big difference from being a tech death band. 75.159.30.121 (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you find a definite source that states they are technical death metal? Just listen to them and decide.Mason092 (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources out there but they are kind of thin and will take awhile to find. And just determining their genre by listening to them is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. FireCrystal (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went to check about Allmusic has to say about the Canadian technical death metal band Martyr and they simply confuse this Martyr with another Martyr: their discographies are mixed with titles from each other. I simply do not find Allmusic a very reliable source. Unless someone convinces about.com or allmusic to do their jobs properly, we won't ever find a way to include bands like Martyr here. Zlogdan (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found out a source to include Spawn Of Possession here http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=141793.Zlogdan (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bands[edit]

Bands that were removed from the list, though will be incorporated back into the article once sources for them can be found:

Progressive metal as an origin[edit]

how can it possibly not be?

where 'progressive metal' is 'progressive rock' AND 'heavy metal'

therefore 'progressive death metal' is 'progressive metal' AND 'death metal'

in my opinion 'technical death metal' is just 'death metal' that are more technical due to improved musicians, but as 'progressive death metal' redirects here surely it must either be kept, or a seperate article created. i would create it, but some a-hole will probs delete it!

XTomScottx (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a "progressive death metal" page at one point, although I may be wrong. You should feel free to create one if and only if you can find reliable sources talking about "progressive death metal" as a separate subgenre; we can't use editors' opinions or original research. Sourcing is a problem for this page as well, obviously. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, this is the page for TECHNICAL death metal, not progressive death metal. This are two different things. Tech Death has bands like Suffocation and Cannibal corpse, who are in no way progressive. Progressive death metal is bands like Opeth and edge of Sanity. And since no one can find a source that states prog metal as an influence to the ENTIRE genre (as opposed to a few bands) it should be removed like all OR. 75.158.57.82 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturnus[edit]

I was wondering why Nocturnus isn't up on this list. Afaik, Nocturnus was one of the first tech death metal bands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.216.214 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meshuggah[edit]

I've removed Meshuggah from the list as their own article on wikipedia states them as experimental metal(a more fitting genre anyway.) PS I don't mean to use the wikipedia page as a source, but I figure consistency is important. --96.239.171.13 (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen their genre section? It was decided that it would be easier to label them experimental metal in the infobox (which is for quick info anyway) and then have a section that discusses their genres in full. FireCrystal (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cannibal corpse?[edit]

cannibal corpse has always been very straight forward death metal, no real emphasis on technicality, just standard death thrashing. remove from list? 76.220.195.8 (talk) 03:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, so it stays Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources suck. Anyone with ears can hear that CC isn't technical death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfKarelia (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GhostOfKarelia. CC is simply death metal, no technicality to it whatsoever. Also, the source proves nothing. All it is is a list of the "best Cannibal Corpse albums", and all it says is that some albums are technical. I don't think that the opinion of one about.com writer is important when there are so many contradictory sources.99.228.7.20 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to put a "reliable source?" tag on that about.com review. It just cannot be that CC is on this list while some cutting-edge bands like Theory in Practice aren't. This just affect the credibility of the article as a whole. Neither the popularity nor the number of records sold what is being measured here, it goes on musical complexity. 88.79.167.94 (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Ok[reply]

As per http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/gr/cannibalcorpse.htm the same site that referenced kill as technical death metal acknowledged they are death metal which is a completely different genre Syxxpackid420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a completely different genre; one is a subgenre of the other. Cannibal Corpse are as such listed on this article as per the About.com source and also over at list of death metal bands. Please do not remove sourced material. 81.132.21.144 (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source I have is also frm about.com and if you see what it says that the album the other source came frm has technical drumming which is different to being technical death metal I understand it is a subgenre but my point is the adjective technical can be used without a ban having to be technical death metal. I am removing it as my source is from the same site's official thereby rendering the other source contradictory.Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant source states, "Cannibal’s move to technical death metal began in earnest when George “Corpsegrinder” Fisher joined the band and peaked with this album [Kill]", which is fairly clear; the author is saying the band moved from playing fairly straightforward "death metal" to "technical death metal" from Vile onwards. The word is not simply being used as an adjective here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So even though when the same website reviewed [ Kill] it calls it brutal death metal, (which i know wikipedia says doesn't exist) we have to say its technical death metal that makes no sense so am reverting. User: Syxxpackid420 —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
How does it not make sense? Why can a band (or album) be more than one genre at the same time? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while I'm at it, the Kill review doesn't even use "brutal death metal" as a genre-descriptor; the synopsis simply states that the album is "brutal, devastating death metal", which is certainly is, whilst alos comfortably fitting a "technical death metal" bracket. I also note that the Kill review is written by a different staff writer than that that wrote the other About.com source in use; is it therefore hugely surprising that two different journalists may use different descriptions of the same album, even if they write for the same publication? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it calls the source into disrepute as an album review is more comprehensive than an review of an album as part of a band review. I disagree with you that the genre is "brutal, devasating death metal" I have never heard of this genre i think it is death metal. If you really think the genre exists go make a page for it.(talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not claimed that "brutal, devastating death metal" is a genre, as can be seen above. You have failed to address any of the points raised above, and have simply tried to imply the About.com does not pass WP:RS. It very clearly does, which means your persistent edit-warring is merely disruptive. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, article from prolific metal journalist Cosmo Lee over at Stylus Magazine here. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is you who says my source from about.com is not reliable but you are caught up in the spiderweb of the logic you used earlier "its sourced so it stays" which was more or less an admission of falsehood, into admitting it is also see [2] I will apologise if this source is unrecognised by wikipedia(talk) 14:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.143.181 (talk) [reply]
I have not said your source from About.com is unreliable; however it does not contradict the other About.com source, contrary to what you appear to be claiming. Secondly, Chronicles of Chaos is a webzine that fails WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok according to this www.popmatters.com/.../review/70025-cannibal-corpse-evisceration-plague/ they are old school death metal User: syxxpackid420
You appear to be struggling with this sourcing concept. I will say it again... they can be both, either at the same time, on different albums, or in the eyes of different journalists. That is exactly why they can be, and are, listed on multiple lists. There is no problem with that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so why does the band's page contain no references to [[technical death metal] Syxxpackid420 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because no-one has added references? Possibly because infoboxes (unlike list articles) try to be as general as possible in terms of genre. Without looking, I'd guess the Cannibal Corpse article infobox simply states death metal, which would be the most appropriate general term for that article; if it has a style and influences section, mentioning technical death metal might be appropriate there, but to be honest I've been spending most of my time editing list articles, as they attract a lot of genre warriors. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is WP:Lame as you know nothing about the band I am therefore reverting Syxxpackid420 (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal Corpse are reliably cited as tech-death. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources; if there's a reliable source citing Cannibal Corpse as tech-death (which there are two of), then they stay on the list. I don't think Cannibal Corpse are tech-death, but they're sourced as such. If Tool are going to be kept on the list of nu metal bands with one source, then Cannibal Corpse can stay on here with two. --LordNecronus (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Tool are not on the list of nu metal bands so i am reverting Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not anymore they're not. Here's an idea: if one more reliable source is found that says, specifically, that Cannibal Corpse are tech-death, then will you accept their placement then? Two sources is more than enough, but if you really disagree with their placement, one more source is probably in order. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per WP:FRINGE Syxxpackid420 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obscura?[edit]

The 2009 release Cosmogenesis is very technical, progressive, melodic and its definitely death metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.13.85 (talk) 09:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source calling Obscura "technical death metal" and feel free to include. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how is Despised Icon techdeath?[edit]

Despised Icon is all deathcore they should not belong in the techdeath section at all. this is like when people start to post on ultimateguitar.com saying Meshuggah is deathcore because they have breaks in their songs. i can understand how the Faceless is in this section because they are mostly techdeath with some deathcore, however Despised Icon has no techdeath elements. Beneath the Massacre should also not be on this list just because they do a few sweeps in their songs, that does not make it techdeath. no techdeath bands i listen to have that many breakdowns in a single song and still call it techdeath. please someone remove those 2 bands. it's bad enough deathcore has made death metal the laughing stock of the extreme music community but now it's trying to bring down all the sub genres of death metal? come on guys someone has to clean some of this up.(173.77.100.11 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

If it's reliably sourced, it stays. Simple as that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even the sources say it is deathcore i read the sources.(173.56.193.224 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

But it also says Tech Death.Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you know there are sites that say metallica is death metal and warwick is a electric guitar company. just because 1 person found 1 site that saids something about the band don't mean it's true. hell there are even alot of reviewer saying in flames and dark tranquility is metalcore. you can't really call it a reliable source unless the band saids it themselfs that they are techdeath. i gave this band a listen they are not techdeath. no matter how much i hate deathcore i will admit that the faceless is techdeath but saying despised icon is techdeath is going a little too far.(173.77.103.193 (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are mistaking truth and verifiability, or reliability as is relevant to Wikipedia, and what you happen to believe is true. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other alterations[edit]

Bands to be added

Bands to be taken off

Find sources for the bands you want added, and they can go on. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you, if you don't mind, I have also two bands that needs to be added:

Anata and sourcing.[edit]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=28397 http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/anata http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=3116&page=&message_id= http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/fr/anata.htm

Would these suffice as sourcing for Anata being tech death? 108.15.17.159 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only the About.com one passes WP:RS, but I added that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important bands that are missing from the list...[edit]

Viraemia: Just why in hell haven't they been added to the list? They're one of the most technical death metal bands out there, and certainly very influential in the modern death metal scene. I tried adding them to the list, but references hate me.... I have loads of sites that could be used to verify their genre and importantity, but for some reason I just can't get the references to show in the page. So here's a nice list of stuff, in case anyone wants to put them there:
http://www.metalkingdom.net/band/6404_viraemia
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Viraemia-l-en.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzCiLEKWwjc (I know, this is associated with the band themselves, but meh)
http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Viraemia/

Archspire: They were really underground half a year ago, but they had an explosing breakthrough and they are quite much grindcore-influenced (speed, etc) tech death. If you honestly think they don't belong to the list... you're possibly an owner of retarded ears.
http://technicaldeathmetal.com/archives/393
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Archspire-l-en.html
http://www.myspace.com/archspire (look at the reviews, if you don't believe after just listening their music)
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1401468

Flesh Consumed: Not necessarily always cited as "tech death", but their songs (especially newer ones) are very complex and have everything needed to classify them as technical. I don't know of many websites where they're called such, but a normal metalhead listening their newest album (Ecliptic Dimensions of Suffering) and thinking "this isn't technical, I can easily play any song by this band" is either a very skilled musician or just plain stupid, or owns, you guessed it, retarded ears.
http://metalnshit.com/showthread.php?tid=479
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aif34vfkQ70
http://www.last.fm/music/Flesh+Consumed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by SekoIdiootti (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, not a single one of those references passes WP:RS. Before you add those bands to the list, please make sure they have Wikipedia articles and are reliably sourced. Good luck!--3family6 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that Sadist aren't on here. Could someone find sources for them so they can be added? I've found nothing at the moment. Their first two albums (especially their debut 1993 album Above the Light) are landmark releases within the technical death metal realm the same as their contemporaries Cynic, Atheist, and later Death. They certainly don't sound like plain old death metal with their jazzy/classical death metal and that says a lot. Thank you. 74.101.104.191 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=91450 Syxxpackid420 (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oceano[edit]

Oceano is in now way technical. Their melodies and rhythms are about as simple as they come. They're a deathcore band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.228.24 (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical death is nothing similar to progressive death.[edit]

I was just listening to some progressive death metal bands and they don't sound anything similar to the technical death metal bands.

Here's an example... Necrophagist and Becoming the Archetype or... The Faceless and Opeth.

It's like two different worlds, so I'd like to make a change. In my opinion for technical death metal the stylistic origins are death metal (because of it's structure), jazz fusion (because of it's technicality) and grindcore (becouse of it's speed. I don't think there should be a different page for progressive death metal because there are too few progressive death bands, but I think technical death metal and progressive death metal should be listed as two different types of music, not falling in the same category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.244.199 (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating stuff obviously, but would you like to provide a source? Otherwise, would you mind not clutttering up this talk page? Cheers. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be a jerk, but where is the source that says progressive metal is a stylistic origin for technical death metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.13.112 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True say. Blackberry are you aware this was once two separate articles and [progressive death metal] redirects here. And would you rather people edit the artichoke without discussing it. 82.6.157.29 (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever a source found that showed that the two terms are equivalent. I haven't found anything online yet, maybe it was in a magazine or something?--¿3family6 contribs 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in 2009, "This is a long-running argument, and I haven't seen a single reliable source produced to suggest either that they are the same or that they are different. Something from the official Necrophagist website is obviously not a reliable source. Until something is produced I'm going to err on the side of removing anything not reliably sourced with the words "technical death metal" as that is fairly uncontroversial." As far as I can see has progressed on this matter. Pun fully intended ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear that was a terrible pun. Will you be creating a page for Progressive Death Metal which redirects here such as Opeth. Or merely deleting them and removing the redirect. I suggest you create that new page you have suggested.Or redirect them to djent. Get on with it, pronto Syxxpackid420 (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People must be genre blind[edit]

Removed Born Of Osiris, Meshuggah and Gojira for mislabelled genres, they are respectively Deathcore, (Meshuggah are pretty much their own style, cannot be characterised as any subgenre of Metal, unless Djent could be considered an actual genre.) and the last is Progressive/Groove Metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GojiraIsNotTechDeath (talk • contribs) 12:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia does consider djent a genre but does not consider Meshuggah to fall within this genre. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Djent" is not an official genre. Not yet, at least. Meshuggah are technical thrash metal and in no way associated with death metal, Osiris are progressive deathcore and Gorija is indeed progressive death metal. You're the one that's genre blind if you think it's progressive/groove metal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.246.129 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it "official?" There are already plenty of sources that call it a genre or subgenre.--¿3family6 contribs 20:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djent is an official genre.There are no reliable sources calling Meshuggah djent but plenty say death metal. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive death metal[edit]

Here we go again. Someone told me that I needed reliable sources. But there is but 1 article to support technical death metal, and it's by a guy who wrote for a magazine. He makes no reference to 'progressive death metal' whatsoever, so there's no reliable source saying that technical is the same as progressive. Also, for the Opeth reference, which I doubt is a reliable source, it says 'progressive death metal'. So not technical. So Opeth doesn't belong here. And if you just listen to Opeth and then to Origin or Aborted, you can hear just how different they are.. And that difference is the same difference between progressive and technical death metal. So if I need a reliable source to say they're different, why doesn't there need to be a reliable source to say they're the same? Because there is no source that says technical and progressive are the same, so at least the first line of this article should be adjusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthSivius (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added. ABC paulista (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are referring to bands, not the genre in general. So they do not count as actual sources that state that technical and progressive are the same. Also why would those people be considered as 'authorities' and the people from progarchives not? This doesn't make sense. I'm deleting them for obvious reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarthSivius (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First: progarchives is an encyclopedia-based site. Encyclopedias without third reliable resources aren't considered reliable.
Second: progarchives aren't professional, since the informations in there, differently from About.com, Allmusic, Terrorizer, Kerrang, etc. weren't made by people who were paid, or employed for it.
These are the two main criteria for why progarchives, metal archives and related, aren't considered reliable (there are other reasons, but are minors and almost irrelevant). ABC paulista (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DarthSivius that those sources don't actually support what they are supposed to.--¿3family6 contribs 02:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Progressive Death Metal] redirects here and is enough to add a band to the list like Opeth. This should be reflected in the prose. Either that or unmerge the articles. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still think those sources shouldn't be there as they talk only about specific bands. It's like reading a review about a death/doom band and then concluding that death and doom are the same genres, which is obviously not true. As Syxxpackid420 said: There should be a distinction on the page itself, or a different page about progressive death metal. I prefer the later, but I'll be more than happy if it is progressive death metal is made distinct on the page itself. The main focus of my efforts is to make a difference between progressive and technical. And my main argument is to just listen to the bands. Origin sounds nothing like Opeth. So the difference has to be made clear. DarthSivius (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, from a purely personal perspective, that I intuitively agree with Sivius, but obviously my opinion is neither here nor there. A couple of points though - About.com passes WP:RS, whereas Progarchives does not (see the guideline); however those sources provided are not referrring to the genre as a whole, just two bands which fall under both the "progressive" and "technical" death metal banners (which is of course entirely possible; we'd only need a source stating Opeth is a technical death metal from a suitable source and their inclusion here should be uncontroversial, regardless of editor feeling). At the minute though we don't have any sources discussing "progressive death metal" as a movement, at all, which calls into question its notability - until sources are found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scout around finds this from Paul Lester at The Guardian, claiming the two are one and the same, although despite clearly passing WP:RS, he does state he knows little about the genre. A general feeling I'm getting from Internet usage is that (whilst I understand Sivius' point), in reality the terms are used interchangeably in a significant number of quarters. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I took a quick look and it looks to me he took the information from this very page. He also says 'apparently', and because he says himself he didn't know a lot about it, I don't think this should be used as a reliable source. Is there no way to make a distinction between the two on this page? Then this page would still be called 'Technical death metal' but you could perhaps include soundfiles to let people hear the difference between say Origin or Aborted and Opeth? DarthSivius (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aborted isn't so different of Opeth ... Winter, Asphyx and Anathema are much more different from each other that these DarthSidius cited. But, no one discuss their belonging to the Death/doom genre. Even Anthrax and Slayer has mõre differences, but everyone agrees that they are Thrash Metal bands.
I don't know... I think that Opeth only has a different playstyle, like the bands I cited above (different playstyles in a genre is pretty much common). But it may not be sufficient to create a new subgenre.
Besides, Techdeath and progdeath have the same origin, and there's no defined differences between them at all. No sources cites any kind of differences. ABC paulista (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use soundfiles, as that constitutes original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point Paulista a genre needs diversification and the two terms are one and the same sides of the coin. Blackberry found a reliable source but disputes it himself, noone said sound files should be added the reliable source he himself found is ok and exactly what the article needs. Wiki focuses too much on breaking down genres into mathematics rather than art when labelling the wall of sound. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever listened to Aborted and Opeth? They are nothing alike!! Just listen! They have different playstyles, as well as different genres. I don't think Aborted would use an oboe or acoustic guitar or clean vocals or a funky solo in their music. And why can't we use soundfiles? That's the main reason genres are created, to make a distinction between sounds, so what better source is their than the music of the bands in question? DarthSivius (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use sound files because it constitutes original research by the editor putting them up there. You need a professional journalist as a source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, soundfiles can be used to illustrate a style, but the research has to be written by a professional/expert.--¿3family6 contribs 17:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, he said it more clearly than I did. Soundfiles can be used, but not as a source in and of themselves. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sondfiles enter in the original source question, and it's forbidden by Wikipedia's politics and criteria, since it's creation. You can use to exemplify, but can't use them as sources.
And yes, I listened (and listen) Aborted and Opeth. But I'll say again: Aborted and Opeth have much more things in commom than Anathema and Winter. And I don't even cited diSEMBOWELMENT and My Dying Bride, or the diversificaton would be much greater. While Anathema, My Dying Bride and Paradise Lost are somewhat melodic and kinda gothic (with violins, clean vocals and melodic riffs, for example), diSEMBOWELMENT and Winter are totally obscure and slow as hell (close to a funeral doom tempo) and Asphyx, Autopsy and Amorphis are much Death metal-oriented. And all bands I cited are considered the creators of Death/doom. Just listen to them, and you will understand how small is the diference between Opeth and the others, compared to the ones found in Death/doom (I could cite Thrash Metal too, but the text would become too long). ABC paulista (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive death metal and technical death metal are actually different genres. I'm removing progressive. Der unaussprechliche (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the music of bands such as Nile can be described as a kind of death metal (just more intricate and complex in composition and arrangement and therefore more difficult to perform than typical death metal, by and large), while the music of bands such as Opeth can be described as a kind of progressive metal (with death metal influences), tech-death being more stylistically "pure" in terms of instruments and vocals at least, and not really having a lot in common with typical progressive rock or metal, while prog-death tends to be considerably more stylistically eclectic and melodic than typical death metal. Is that the crux of the whole controversy? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

band[edit]

from a disambig page: Neath (sometimes known as 'Neath), a Progressive Death Metal band from Brisbane, Australia. can be added if a reference is found.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Death Metal=Progressive Death Metal[edit]

Technical Death Metal and Progressive Death Metal are the same thing[1].just because Death,Cynic,Opeth,Nocturnus,Atheist played more emotive than nbands like Nile,Dying Fetus,Sarcofago it doest mean they were/are Progressive Death Metal and the others were/are Technical Death Metal.even Nile,Sarcofago and Suffocation had/have emotive guitar solos in their songs.same about the Progressive Metal and Technical Metal,same about the Progressive Black Metal and Technical Black Metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by GREYBOYY (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.wikihow.com/Appreciate-Death-Metal
Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable sources. Various wikis including Wikihow are not considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol -- "Just because they sound different, take different levels of skill, are produced differently, have differing fan bases, and came about at different points in time doesn't mean they're different!11!11!1one" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.199.114 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Is there a way to get at the useful content the old page had?66.51.137.242 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Second Skin: The way that the presented source used both "progressive" and "technical" identifiers interchangeably clearly implies that technical death metal and progressive death metal are considered the same thing. Other sources also make use of such interchange, which shows that most consider that technical death metal and progressive death metal describes the same thing. Yes, I know that it is a bit stretchy, but the evidences are here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a fan of both I'll tell you that it's two different things. Prog death metal is an off-shoot of prog metal, which is an offshoot of prog rock. It sounds like a heavier version. Technical death metal is a sub-genre of death metal that's consistently super fast and doesn't sound like prog metal or prog rock whatsoever. Know the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.131.64.184 (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Technical death metal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This genre had changed a lot untill right now?[edit]

I've seen so many bands on the level like Necrophagist, Spawn of Possession, Obscura (band) or even more further like Origin (band), Viraemia, Archspire, First Fragment, The Zenith Passage and Vitrified Entity, they sound so different from the origin (Although the description on the top fits with it, would anyone want to add more about this genre's history?).

It is growing so fast. Adrianiq1551 (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I don't want to put my opinion on there at first but I'd like to give some suggestions. That one of the experimentations was the old-school technical death metal in the 1980s to 1990s era and then after that, the new era began in the 2000s the new sound of it and then continued to the 2020s era (until right now) started to push more on technicalities. Adrianiq1551 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the process of "Experimentation" has been ongoing up until this point, which could be the reason for the genre sounding so distinct and diverse. Artists and musicians have likely been trying out new techniques, sounds, and styles to push the boundaries of the genre and create something unique and fresh. This ongoing experimentation could be the reason why there is such a vast range of sounds and styles within the genre, making it difficult to define and categorize. Adrianiq1551 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_death_metal&oldid=1205584807"