Deathcore and metalcore suck?

[Eligos]

Arguments on the internet are most often stupid.

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

no they're not

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I would say for sure Atheist could be considered technical/progressive death metal.

 

[Belligerent]

That's because it's impossible for you to encounter anyone as awesome as yourself.

 

[Ross]

Hahahah. I just read through that whole argument and i must say i didn't realize until now how dumb WAIF is.

 

[The Butt]

Genre arguments are always so fucking stupid.

No.

 

[waif]

I would agree that they're progressive death metal but I don't see how in the world you've come to the conclusion that they're not also technical death metal. What does the fact that they have jazz influence or the fact that they don't play like other death metal bands have to do with their music not being technical? I don't see the connection.

Saying Atheist were technical death metal is like saying Morbid Angel were progressive; they were progressive in the sense that they did something new, but they weren't progressive in the sense that they sound like Dream Theater. Atheist are technical in the sense that their music is hard to play, but I don't think they fit in the technical death metal genre.

 

[CF87]

I don't think you understand 'progressive'.

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Atheist are technical in the sense that their music is hard to play, but I don't think they fit in the technical death metal genre.

WHAT THE FUCK????



That's an oxymoron if I've ever read one.

 

[arg]

Atheist dont even sound like DM to me

 

[skeptik]

Saying Atheist were technical death metal is like saying Morbid Angel were progressive; they were progressive in the sense that they did something new, but they weren't progressive in the sense that they sound like Dream Theater. Atheist are technical in the sense that their music is hard to play, but I don't think they fit in the technical death metal genre.

Seriously, just shut up, because you're just making an ass out of yourself.. "Technical Death Metal" isn't even a genre proper. Technical is merely a descriptive term, under which anything that is technical falls. Whether or not they sound like what is most often associated with the term "tech death" today is irrelevant as to whether or not their music is technical death metal.

 

[Cythraul]

Saying Atheist were technical death metal is like saying Morbid Angel were progressive; they were progressive in the sense that they did something new, but they weren't progressive in the sense that they sound like Dream Theater. Atheist are technical in the sense that their music is hard to play, but I don't think they fit in the technical death metal genre.

You haven't shown that Atheist is not technical death metal. All you've shown is that your use of the term 'technical death metal' is idiosyncratic. You have not demonstrated to anybody's satisfaction that there is anything more to being a technical death metal band than being technical and being death metal. Why should anybody accept that the case under consideration is analogous to your Morbid Angel/Dream Theater example? It's not enough to just assert that the two cases are analogous in some important way without justifying such a claim, because those of us who disagree with you would deny that the two cases are analogous in just such a way. Where is the motivation for making this distinction you want to make? Why not just acknowledge that there are vastly different types of technical death metal bands but that THEY ARE ALL TECHNICAL DEATH METAL?

 

[Ultimate_Symphony]

Holy smokes, it's gangbang time against WAIF

 

[Orion Crystal Ice]

..........................

mk.................


Wrong or right, I don't find it to be rocket science to get some of what he's saying, and aren't sure why ya'll do. Of course the music of Atheist is technical music in reality, it's just that the TERM in metal has very very much been built up to encompass bands who are much choppier and stiff in their polyrhythms: WatchTower, Meshuggah, Zero Hour, Spiral Architect, etc, and who go from one to the next and on to the next with very little 'loose' feeling, if any at all, in between. However, many 'technical' bands also have little other progressive sense or evolution in their music besides that facet of their sound, and Atheist does, so while I DO THINK THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY TECHNICAL METAL, progressive is a much better TERM to me, in relation to how things are grouped in metal, because their music extended beyond simple technicality over the course of the 3 albums, yet the term does not EXCLUDE the technical aspect either. Whereas little can be spoken of the progressiveness of say a Meshuggah apart from discussing their mathematics, thus 'technical metal' is the dominant TERM for *that* band but is too limiting and non-descriptive for Atheist.

Does this make sense? check one:

[] yes
[] no

 

[HavokX]

Metalcore is the very thing that got me into Metal there are afew good bands out there.

 

[waif]

You haven't shown that Atheist is not technical death metal. All you've shown is that your use of the term 'technical death metal' is idiosyncratic. You have not demonstrated to anybody's satisfaction that there is anything more to being a technical death metal band than being technical and being death metal.

I wasn't trying to say they aren't technical. Technical death metal is generally used idosyncratically. How could it not be? Where do you draw the line between what qualifies as technical and what does not? Technical death metal has become a genre the same way progressive metal has become a genre.

Why should anybody accept that the case under consideration is analogous to your Morbid Angel/Dream Theater example?

I'm talking about usage, and I'm not sure whether you're brain dead or just being stubborn. "Technical" and "progressive" are unclear because they can either be used as descriptors ("that death metal band is very technical") or as genres ("they play technical death metal").

Why not just acknowledge that there are vastly different types of technical death metal bands but that THEY ARE ALL TECHNICAL DEATH METAL?

There are vastly different types of death metal bands that are technical.

Wrong or right, I don't find it to be rocket science to get some of what he's saying, and aren't sure why ya'll do. Of course the music of Atheist is technical music in reality, it's just that the TERM in metal has very very much been built up to encompass bands who are much choppier and stiff in their polyrhythms: WatchTower, Meshuggah, Zero Hour, Spiral Architect, etc, and who go from one to the next and on to the next with very little 'loose' feeling, if any at all, in between. However, many 'technical' bands also have little other progressive sense or evolution in their music besides that facet of their sound, and Atheist does, so while I DO THINK THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY TECHNICAL METAL, progressive is a much better TERM to me, in relation to how things are grouped in metal, because their music extended beyond simple technicality over the course of the 3 albums, yet the term does not EXCLUDE the technical aspect either. Whereas little can be spoken of the progressiveness of say a Meshuggah apart from discussing their mathematics, thus 'technical metal' is the dominant TERM for *that* band but is too limiting and non-descriptive for Atheist.

Does this make sense? check one:

[x] yes
[] no

Thank you.

 

[CF87]

Applying the term Progressive to describe something as being really technical makes no sense.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Saying Atheist were technical death metal is like saying Morbid Angel were progressive; they were progressive in the sense that they did something new, but they weren't progressive in the sense that they sound like Dream Theater. Atheist are technical in the sense that their music is hard to play, but I don't think they fit in the technical death metal genre.

There's no designated sound for technical death metal. Technical death metal is death metal that's technical. That's it.

 

[Cythraul]

I wasn't trying to say they aren't technical.

And I wasn't accusing you of saying they aren't.

Technical death metal is generally used idosyncratically. How could it not be? Where do you draw the line between what qualifies as technical and what does not?

So what if there is some issue of vagueness with respect to the term 'technical'? The same is true of almost every other term in natural language. What the hell does that have to do with the idiosyncratic use of a term? You are not being clear.

Technical death metal has become a genre the same way progressive metal has become a genre.

Could you please give me (1) evidence for the above claim, and (2) some argument for why - even if the term 'technical death metal' is in use by certain people as a very specific genre term - anybody else should acknowledge that usage?

I'm talking about usage, and I'm not sure whether you're brain dead or just being stubborn.

Let me get this straight. You used an analogy in your argument and now you're somehow puzzled that I'm asking for you to justify it? What fucking planet are you living on, man? If you actually had any kind of rudimentary understanding of justification you would understand that to justify the analogy would, ipso facto, justify the usage you advocate, which is precisely what I was requesting.

 

[waif]

OCI was capable of understanding and comprehending my argument. Since he strikes me as a fellow of fully normal intelligence, with no telepathic abilities, I put it to you that what I am saying can be gleaned from what I have written. Likewise, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying. So essentially this is just going to be us repeating ourselves indefinitely. I don't see the point, so I'm giving up on this.