What divides good technical deathmetal from bad

[Taipan]

Good technical death metal like Immolation and a number, don't necessarily aspire to dexterity but more less allow it's incorporation within the music to be completely random, to capture as particular essence within the genre.

Bad examples of this are when the musicians focus on speed, much like Necrophagist and later Nile. Despite their unbelievable skill, the music itself rarely contains any real satisfactory musical attributes.

[I_Stab_People]

Bands like Cryptopsy and Centurian cover up their lack of creativity and originality with fancy guitar work but no one in his right mind is fooled by this. Much like those faggots in those guitar magazines, nothing but artsy fartsy instrumentalist dickheads.

[Vorax]

I've found that bad tech death is made only with the left half of brain.

Bad Technical Death forgot the meaning of "death" for the sake of "technical", thus, it doesn't  achieve a coherent languaje between music, text, and of course, the listener.

[blood]

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.

who the hell believes this? even muhammed says morbid angel is better, hes a really a really down to earth guy, he was just hanging out in front of the club during the summer slaughter tour where i saw him... and no one knew who he was lol.

that said this guy is still an awesome musician, the dude couldnt even legally drink when he put together his first album as a one man project. he might not be better than trey, but hes damn good and better than alot of shit pushed out now... mainstreme and underground.

[born for banning]

This topic is parallel to the jazz topic.

Good death metal has intent, is poetic. Bad death metal is like jazz, a whole bunch of random stuff tied together with some big sloppy obvious emotion at the end.

It's kind of like bad postmodern fiction. I'm thinking of David Mitchell here.

[JJ]

Bad technical metal has become trendy and most of the fan base consists of trend-hoppers, but what about the few fans who genuinely enjoy wankery? Should they be criticized because they experience more stimulation in one half of the brain than the average metal consumer?  

[born for banning]

Bad technical metal has become trendy and most of the fan base consists of trend-hoppers, but what about the few fans who genuinely enjoy wankery? Should they be criticized because they experience more stimulation in one half of the brain than the average metal consumer?  

What about people who listen to the amplified buzz of anal dildos? They feel it more intensely, man, so it's real to them even if it isn't real to anyone who thinks.

Man, you guys are all cut off from reality. Reach outside the self. You're drowning in there. And it's not your fault, I think. I think this shithead society preached bad values into your young minds.

Fucking sucks. Fight back.

[shadowmystic]

Bad tech death

Riff A *4
Riff B *4
Riff C *4
Riff D *4

etc...

[Svmmoned]

That kind of structure is not a priori bad. It can be played in the right way...

[shadowmystic]

Got an example for me?  

[Skjold]

If riff b builds upon riff a and the song continually evolves, it could be effective. I don't have any examples of this, just a thought.

[shadowmystic]

Well it's better than verse-chorus-verse i suppose.

[born for banning]

If riff b builds upon riff a and the song continually evolves, it could be effective. I don't have any examples of this, just a thought.

I think what he's saying is that, like jazz, it's linear, not a structure.

Classical:

riff A  \  __ theme A
riff C  /

riff B \___ theme B
riff D /

These develop into leitmotifs or their precursor, motifs. So you may see riff A several times, but often it mutates so that it's variations of riff A to complement the current theme. Riff A1, Riff A2, and so on.

This kind of structure is much brainier than anything you find in popular music, but metal and some electronic music come close. Fuck neofolk, it's garbage. So is jazz. Raise your standards or be slaves!

[Svmmoned]

Metal quite often have structure like that : riff1 few times, then riff2 few times etc. but then, at some point it returns to some previous riff or riff sequence. And I think it's only because it simply "fits" in certain places of song structure or some musicians were unable to wrote piece (and I mean long, complex) where riffs are constantly changing without repeat. Some newer bands made experiments on that field, but from the past I can only remember Deeds of Flesh End of All (short but complex, and I can hear some "leading motif" through it). It's also important how riff itself is structured.

If riff b builds upon riff a and the song continually evolves, it could be effective. I don't have any examples of this, just a thought.

Metal is great when it's "unpredictable" at least during that first few listens, until you find connection between riffs or intent of musician.
It was first thing about metal that I've noticed and which fascinated me (knowing only "popular" genres at the time) - it doesn't conform to rules of harmony that made of almost all other music formless mass.

[Septicemia]

If riff b builds upon riff a and the song continually evolves, it could be effective. I don't have any examples of this, just a thought.

Deeds of Flesh executed this expertly with their earlier material (well, up to their last two at least); likewise with Pyrexia on Sermon of Mockery. Linear structuring is somewhat evident on Suffocation's Pierced from Within as well.

No black metal bands come to mind, but only bands of the "brutal" school of the death metal tend to use the aforementioned structuring. Usually it comes off as choppy and directionless. Hence the insular and rotting death metal scene as of late.