What divides good technical deathmetal from bad

[Yoho]

I can feel affectionately the big difference between Gorguts, Demilich and, let's say, Necrophagist, Decapitated.
But, besides the beautiful lyrics of Demilich, what are objectively, and technically, the differences between good and bad Technical DeathMetal?

Such atmosphere, it's very subjective to me to put into words.

What makes one authentic, and the other, trendy?

[FIAT]

Composition--that's it. One is either communicative, or else, a distraction.

[Necrolust]

Nespithe and Obscura, likely the end-all, be-all of this particular styling, set you out to sail and NOT ONCE bring you back to the same place. They are a trip - a journey. Every riff, solo and harmony has its purpose and holistically ties into the macrocosmic trip of the album.

Can the same surely be said about the directionless, mindless wankfest that is Necrophagist?

Decapitated's Winds of Creation was decent, but the mere fact that I have yet to listen to it a third time is testament to its averageness.

[wEEman33]

I think the scaffold metaphor remains the most pertinent one when trying to discuss the value of technique, such that both devices allow the artist to "reach" places that those without access to them cannot.

Yet, with increased "height," the project becomes more difficult and dangerous for the artist; too, there is the potential that, when working at such lofty "heights," the artist loses his sense of perspective, and forgets that his audience will be looking at his work with their feet planted firmly on the ground.

Ideally, technique is nothing more than a means of achieving a musical/artistic end. Unfortunately, many musicians think that "being technical" is the goal in itself, without thinking out the purpose for which technique should serve.

In other words, there is nothing wrong with virtuosity, so long as the virtuoso is not simply using it to cover the gaps wherein he has failed to create real musical content.

[Stranger]

Composition--that's it. One is either communicative, or else, a distraction.

That's it right there. Many bands bite more than they can chew.

If it doesn't make sense, it's useless.

[Divus_de_Mortuus]

Winds of Creation is a front runner for the best death metal album released since the turn of the century.

[Stranger]

Winds of Creation is a front runner for the best death metal album released since the turn of the century.

The last Gorguts album still gets my vote, but that album you mentioned is surely one of the better albums of the millenium.

[Necrolust]

Winds of Creation is a front runner for the best death metal album released since the turn of the century.

Maybe I'll relisten to it today, but it just screamed "ordinary" to me every time I listened to it.

I feel there are at least a few venerable albums out there, namely Reduced To Ashes, From Wisdom To Hate, Elvenefris, Close to a World Below and Unholy Cult.

[born for banning]

Nespithe and Obscura, likely the end-all, be-all of this particular styling, set you out to sail and NOT ONCE bring you back to the same place. They are a trip - a journey. Every riff, solo and harmony has its purpose and holistically ties into the macrocosmic trip of the album.

Most technical death metal is regular heavy metal or death metal with technical flourishes, like fast fills or riff salads. The good stuff uses its technicality to make a journey of its complexity, where the bad stuff distracts you with complexity that is really linear and hides the fact that it's the same old stuff.

[Divus_de_Mortuus]

Most technical death metal is regular heavy metal or death metal with technical flourishes, like fast fills or riff salads. The good stuff uses its technicality to make a journey of its complexity, where the bad stuff distracts you with complexity that is really linear and hides the fact that it's the same old stuff.

I agree with this. It amazes me how many people today are fooled by smoke and mirrors. The sad truth is a lot of people really believe the guy from Necrophagist is a better guitar player than Trey Azagthoth.

[in abyssia]

In a general statement I would like to say that "bad" technical death metal is boring (and i remember reading once on this board that it is just like speaking high-technical jargon words in run on sentences) whilst "good" technical death metal is...lets see...how can i put it...like think of old GORGUTS and DEMIGOD. Argh. I cannot express it in words but I prefer less technical stuff.

[in abyssia]

Composition--that's it. One is either communicative, or else, a distraction.

Ahh. Why did i not read this earlier. Yes, I agree with you. Composition is everything to me. Where is the music going, you know? That is what makes good death metal MEMORABLE. HEHEHE.

[AttheGates1996]

i find the answer to this question quite simple. there is a distinct difference in technicality (being that of a good instrumentalist) and musicianship (being one who writes to sound good, not to be fast and impressive on the instrument). what simply makes a technical death metal band good in my opinion is that of composition and a good display of musicianship.

when a band is technical, the usual theme i see tends to be becoming faster or using more complex rhythms, in which sometimes is incredible and involves a great deal of talent and physical endurance,  but nothing of harmonization composition and in most cases even a slight melody. this, in my opinion, is pointless.

the genres i am beginning to see today that anger me are those of a hardcore technical style. most likely influenced by the black dahlia murder. i have somewhat of a respect for the black dahlia murder because they do use a bit of harmonization and creativity in their music. but they lack experimenting with their compositional methods and therefore halfway through their albums i tend to fall asleep. this style of technical hardcore really pisses me off because technicality is risen from death metal and now hardcore emo queers claim they can play metal. and this further proves my point that in order for technicality to be good is must contain musicianship... hardcore, absolutely no musical talent... death metal, involves melodies (usually) and displays knowledge of music in general.

[TiTanTHPS]

Technicality as a means to an end is what I think makes good technical death. Which is to say composition takes the spotlight while technicality should be in the background.

Demilich for example takes us on voyages through their songs, and happens to be technical as well. Technicality is more like a plus to me. Melody and structure always matter more to me. That is why I don't enjoy say, Ion Dissonance. Sure, it's technical as hell, but it just doesn't do anything for me.

On a side note, I find Winds of Creation to be a pretty quality album. The songs Winds of Creation and Nine Steps are fairly good in the sense I was talking about before. Miniature riffs are nicely woven into the motifs of each section. I think This album deserves a spot in the DLA. Anything past this album though by Decapitated I don't even think of as death metal.

Alright, here's a question for everyone; what is technical? It's talked about a lot, but I've never seen it very all that clearly defined. It's kind of like people are pussyfooting around it.

To me, technical music is music that incorporates generally higher music theory; Polyrhythms, Odd meters, Counterpoint, Syncopation, etc.

[K]

along ^ lines, where do you draw the line between technical death metal and prog metal? My hypothesis is that it is differentiated by content, message, and experimentation. Prog metal, like death or nevermore, may have a lot of skill and complexity, but are a shallow in meaning, where Demilich are heavy on experimentation, intent/meaning.

do I have the right idea or am I way off?