100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Yoho on September 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM

Title: What divides good technical deathmetal from bad
Post by: Yoho on September 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
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?

Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: FIAT on September 26, 2007, 02:28:21 PM
Composition--that's it. One is either communicative, or else, a distraction.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Necrolust on September 27, 2007, 12:17:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: wEEman33 on September 27, 2007, 05:51:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Stranger on September 27, 2007, 04:54:59 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Divus_de_Mortuus on September 27, 2007, 07:52:07 PM
Winds of Creation is a front runner for the best death metal album released since the turn of the century.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Stranger on September 28, 2007, 03:57:19 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Necrolust on September 28, 2007, 04:54:11 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: born for banning on September 29, 2007, 07:46:48 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Divus_de_Mortuus on September 29, 2007, 08:14:04 PM
Quote

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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: in abyssia on September 30, 2007, 11:20:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: in abyssia on September 30, 2007, 11:21:31 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: AttheGates1996 on October 04, 2007, 10:39:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: TiTanTHPS on October 04, 2007, 12:22:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: K on October 04, 2007, 01:01:21 PM
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?
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: Taipan on October 05, 2007, 06:59:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: I_Stab_People on October 08, 2007, 03:10:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Vorax on October 12, 2007, 06:01:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: What differs good from bad technical deathmeta
Post by: blood on October 12, 2007, 07:24:25 PM
Quote

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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: born for banning on October 15, 2007, 05:53:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: JJ on October 15, 2007, 08:18:27 PM
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?  
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: born for banning on October 20, 2007, 07:09:41 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: shadowmystic on October 21, 2007, 12:41:51 AM
Bad tech death

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

etc...
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Svmmoned on October 21, 2007, 01:36:20 AM
That kind of structure is not a priori bad. It can be played in the right way...
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: shadowmystic on October 21, 2007, 01:43:51 AM
Got an example for me?  :)
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Skjold on October 21, 2007, 02:19:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: shadowmystic on October 21, 2007, 02:22:31 AM
Well it's better than verse-chorus-verse i suppose.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: born for banning on October 21, 2007, 09:36:43 AM
Quote
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!
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Svmmoned on October 21, 2007, 10:31:20 AM
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.

Quote
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.



Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Septicemia on October 21, 2007, 10:43:40 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: What divides good technical deathmetal from ba
Post by: Toe-nail_harvest on October 21, 2007, 12:02:57 PM
I think good technical death metal is written by musicians with longer attention-spans. They have the ability to justify a part of a song in the context of what happens before and after it - they always keep an eye on the bigger picture. There's obviously other factors involved in making good music but I think the attention spans of the musicians comes into play throughout the development of these other factors, not just during the writing process. Overall I would say it comes down to intelligence, attention span and original methods of thought which aren't massively influenced by the general consensus of what is thought to be original.