Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
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.
I already know what your view is. I don't have to glean any further at this point. I'm not confused about what your position is; I'm completely in the dark as to how you would justify your view. As far as I can tell, OCI's post establishes only that (1) there is some way of distinguishing between types of bands that are technical such that an idiosyncratic usage of the term 'technical' could be adopted (namely on the grounds he mentioned), and (2) the term, 'technical death metal', by itself, does not adequately characterize what Atheist's music consists of. But I do not see how it establishes that 'technical death metal', as a genre term with an exceedingly restricted domain of application is in wide use (and it's certainly not orthodoxy among metal fans, which is made quite clear by how many people disagree with you). Furthermore, even if it were established on independent grounds that such a usage is widespread, I do not see how his post shows that we all ought to adopt such a usage.
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.
At least we agree on two important things: Atheist is technical and is a death metal band. Ultimately, that is more important than whether or not we agree on finer points of terminology.