Death: Death-Metal Vs. Prog-Metal

[legion]

I was with Death from the very beginning, no pun intended.

Death = Deathmetal

The first 2 albums are the definition of the genre, but the 3rd being borderline of Prog only for the aspect of James Murphy entering the picture.  Of course there's nothing wrong with the James Murphy style of classical soloing imo, but unfortunately that cemented the fact that Death would NEVER again return to DM!  Call me old-fashioned, but in the mid to late 90's I never understood how the younger generation of metal-heads preferred the newer "prog" style of Death over the older, brutal, and obviously more genuine and honest style of metal that they once had.

Death = Progmetal

There's no denying the muscianship, but the meaning and atmosphere quickly disolved.

[atxryan]

Which are "the first two albums" of Death Metal?

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

he was talking about the band, he just said death = death metal to get across the idea that there earlier works where closer to the heart of death metal then his later works (as he described it death = progmetal)

the two first death albums were scream bloody gore and leprosy

[atxryan]

Oh I see, thanks.

[JaPeL]

the problem was, chuck never have the ability to write "Tech music" so he forced himself to do that, and the result was (in human) a bad rip-off of the 1991 cynic demo, and later it just become worse... the only thing that bothers me is that now people think that death is the most representative band of "tech death", and others (because of that) are underated Ej. (cynic demos, and at some point atheist too ,etc etc...)

p.d: sorry about my english.

[LostWithin]

I enjoy Human, but your argument is true. It also makes sense as some of his players were from Cynic. After that he became too obsessed with Priest and Helloween styled power metal with some edges of death metal remaining, and created flashy, overfilled rock based metal music. I think we all understand the legions of people who proudly state that Chuck created death metal and was the most technical, philosophical band. I think he was a solid guitarist but like dimebag darrel, wasted it on lesser, empty music.

[runtoftheshitter]

Death could never write an album like Unquestionable Presence.  I'm trying not to bash Chuck, but i always get edgy every time someone mentions Death's later albums during a conversation about Atheist, Cynic, or even Watchtower.  During the early nineties, Atheist was one metal's defining moments, even if no one realized it.  It seems that around '95 everyone suddenly "understood" the vitality of this fresh approach Atheist gave them and decided to receive credit for exploring mind-blowing technicality, melodic playing, and philosophical issues.  I think that attracted a lot of the nerds and psuedo-theologians you see...like when you open up a Gordian Knot booklet.

[LostWithin]

I meant to say "dealt with the legions who proudly state chuck created death metal.." in case of confusion. And I second the previous post, no matter their strengths Death was never at a level with Atheist. The people who don't believe this are the same that say Far Beyond Driven is a better album than Ride the Lightning or Under a funeral moon.

[FE-XIBXABH]

Death Metal is a product for those fans who want to go to a show and hear some blast beats, 2/4's and that slow heavy riff, so that they can start that pit and let all that energy out.

Prog Metal is a product for those fans who want to hear intricate time signatures, mach five melodies, and structures that really only make sense as an algebra equation.

When did music stop becoming an art form and rendered itself as a product? Don't answer that, I was just kidding! Although, if you want to answer that, you should make your way back to the "what is art?" thread


*(don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of both.)

[FE-XIBXABH]

I think we all understand the legions of people who proudly state that Chuck created death metal and was the most technical, philosophical band. I think he was a solid guitarist but like dimebag darrel, wasted it on lesser, empty music.

Wow, not only do Chuch and Dimebag have a spokesman, but "we all" do! I wish I could ask, not only them, but the many musicians that they've inspired if what they did was a waste. They are not Athiest, Cynic, or Watchtower, but they found their own voice in the music they wrote. Maybe they didn't want to be more techinical, maybe they liked what they did, and maybe that's why they did what they did. THAT IS TRUE METAL! Now if they tried to play DM, BM or play like Athiest and so forth, then they would have been fake. But that probably doesn't make sense to an elitist, I'm starting to gather that an elitist has only the capacity to understand his own way of thinking. Now I'm not point fingers at who I think an elitist is, I'm just stating an opinion which could very well be wrong.

[LostWithin]

If you notice my post a few ways down I referred to my own mistake. I was merely making mention of the common experience with people who put people like Chuck and Dimebag on monstrous pedestals, which was a comment from a previous poster.
I'm not sure if chuck found meaning within his later work, only that it certainly fell away from creating something expressive and moved more towards proving himself as a musician within mixed genres.
Dimebag lived for playing his guitar, and adored it as an aspect of his life, but as an artist its always been apparent that his work was more of passion through skill rather than vision. That's my observation, and it may be wrong. It is opinion in that it can never be knowledge, because as Hume would say, the contrary is always possible, making it only probability.
As for whether their passions or feelings towards their creations render them as meaningful art in the whole and abstract sense, its a bit harder of a question to ask. They may have developed their specific talents and creations to the point of an artform, much like a builder can precisely cut wood or a man shoot a deer, but whether that in itself is a work of art is another matter.

[FE-XIBXABH]

I'm not sure if chuck found meaning within his later work, only that it certainly fell away from creating something expressive and moved more towards proving himself as a musician within mixed genres.

You're not sure that he found meaning in his later work, but you have the audacity to accuse him of not..... that is COMPLETELY MORONIC! He knew he had cancer by then and you think he's just gonna throw a bunch of shit together just because he wanted to prove he can play guitar, all the while disregarded expressing what he was going through. That's just laughable.

Dimebag lived for playing his guitar, but as an artist its always been apparent that his work was more of passion through skill rather than vision.

Always the spokesperson, so now you know what Dimebag's vision was. I can see that you're definitely an elitist. His vision doesn't fit yours, so it must be shit. So you have to dog everyone else just so that you can feel special, well your music is just as shitty as everyone else's.

Which brings me to ask;
are you a musician?
If so, Are you in a band?
I will not ask who, but I want to hear some of it, because it has to be amongst the greatest of artforms.

as Hume would say, the contrary is always possible, making it only probability.

Does that eliminate the process of making intelligent accusations? Judging by that quote, I can accuse you of being a gay, dog lover and only beastiality keeps you from commiting suicide. You may say that you're not, but the contrary is always possible. Now I'm just trying to establish how much freedom you're providing yourself to accuse others of (or not) living up to your greatness, then maybe we can be on the same level of what can be established based on opinion.

I'll leave this response with, "You're a work of art!"

[kontinual]

Always the spokesperson, so now you know what Dimebag's vision was. I can see that you're definitely an elitist. His vision doesn't fit yours, so it must be shit. So you have to dog everyone else just so that you can feel special, well your music is just as shitty as everyone else's.

Which brings me to ask;
are you a musician?
If so, Are you in a band?
I will not ask who, but I want to hear some of it, because it has to be amongst the greatest of artforms.

Why bring up Chuck's cancer?  LostWithin made the easily observable assertion that his later works (which include mostly those long prior to any cancer diagnosis) are a product some disparate aims and influences which never quite congealed into something of unity.  

Clearly, there was no implication that he was solely trying to " throw bunch of shit together just because he wanted to prove he can play guitar;" leave the semantic games for another place.  In fact, I'm sure he thought he was "expressing himself" in the same sentimental way in which you are using the term, but the end results show otherwise.  This is all explained pretty clearly - in the first post.

On the other hand, all you have done is throw around vague notions of worth based on your obvious reverence for these people.  What makes your ideas on the validity of said musicians' output ("they found their own voice") more sensible?  Are you just another fanboy?  

[Dylar]

You're not sure that he found meaning in his later work, but you have the audacity to accuse him of not..... that is COMPLETELY MORONIC! He knew he had cancer by then and you think he's just gonna throw a bunch of shit together just because he wanted to prove he can play guitar, all the while disregarded expressing what he was going through. That's just laughable.

If you read know how to read between the lines, Chuck died of AIDS.  It doesn't take 5 years to die of an aggressive and inoperable brain tumor.

AZT is expensive, especially if your chosen career path leaves you uninsured.  That certainly would account for the agressively commercial leanings of Chuck's later material.

[born for banning]

I'm starting to gather that an elitist has only the capacity to understand his own way of thinking.

Isn't that what you're doing?

An elitist is a realist who recognizes that some things are more important than others. Your TV, politicians and friends will try to convince you of the opposite.

An elitist knows that good technical death metal that pushes for artistic supremacy is more impressive than simpler stuff, but also likes the good simpler stuff.

Death... I think Human's their peak. Maybe it is a "bad ripoff of the Cynic demo" but it's better than their other stuff, as music. After that it was all hogwash, and calling it progressive is misguided (no disrespect "LEGION"). It's not prog, it's guitar wankery. It cannot stand alongside Yes and King Crimson. It's predictable. It's awful.

I have a soft spot for early Death, but I can't listen to it these days. Not enough going on besides rhythm, and having discovered the early years of European and American DM, well, I have no use for early years Death.

If you want to know what Death wanted to be, check out the first two Morgoth EPs and Possessed.