![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
""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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
//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)
I agree JFAC are definitely techdeath now and not just deathcore Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I decided to leave bands here that were initially removed to keep here for later reference. FireCrystal ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bands that were removed from the list, though will be incorporated back into the article once sources for them can be found:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok so why does the band's page contain no references to [[technical death metal] Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 13:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Your answer is WP:Lame as you know nothing about the band I am therefore reverting Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
But Tool are not on the list of nu metal bands so i am reverting Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove per WP:FRINGE Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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))
even the sources say it is deathcore i read the sources.( 173.56.193.224 ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
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))
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)
Totally agree with you, if you don't mind, I have also two bands that needs to be added:
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)
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)
http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=91450 Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
Progressive death metal and technical death metal are actually different genres. I'm removing progressive. Der unaussprechliche ( talk) 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
""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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
//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)
I agree JFAC are definitely techdeath now and not just deathcore Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I decided to leave bands here that were initially removed to keep here for later reference. FireCrystal ( talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bands that were removed from the list, though will be incorporated back into the article once sources for them can be found:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok so why does the band's page contain no references to [[technical death metal] Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 13:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Your answer is WP:Lame as you know nothing about the band I am therefore reverting Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 17:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
But Tool are not on the list of nu metal bands so i am reverting Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Remove per WP:FRINGE Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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))
even the sources say it is deathcore i read the sources.( 173.56.193.224 ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
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))
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)
Totally agree with you, if you don't mind, I have also two bands that needs to be added:
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)
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)
http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=91450 Syxxpackid420 ( talk) 05:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[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)
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)
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)
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)
Progressive death metal and technical death metal are actually different genres. I'm removing progressive. Der unaussprechliche ( talk) 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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)