Talk:Technical death metal

message: 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)
replies: text: Sadly you failed to notice the source next to their name which provides exactly the evidence you ask for; in the meantime your opinion has been reverted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Nile

message: 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)
replies: text: I think we have a serious problem here. Why are people using Encyclopaedia Metallum as a legitimate source? Don't get me wrong, it's a fantastically useful cite, but much like Wikipedia is written by whoever fancies logging on and submitting stuff. We can't possibly use it, so all of the bands you seem to think you have sourced, are in fact not. Find other sources, or I'll have to flag the page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll agree, it can't really be used as a trustworthy source since anyone can get on there to edit it.Felix-schade (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: Who said they were iconic for tech death? for the genre, they are just notable bands (bands of the genre who have an article). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NOTABILITY

message: 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)
replies: text: I came in here to ask this very same question. I see it's been going since 2008. I think it's about time we adjusted this. Naturally you don't and will not find the word tech death etc. anywhere on Opeth's page, because it just doesn't fit. If they've exhibited deliberate complexity anywhere it was Martin Lopez's drumming, which would itself make their relevance to this genre even less probable. Pixel Eater (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opeth 

message: 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)
replies: text: How can Genesis be tech death? It's just plain (though more modern) death metal with a light hardcore influence. If a reviewer says they are then fine, otherwise it's original research. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If many music critics state this, provide those sources. What you (or the band) "believe" is unimportant (see WP:OR). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Job For A Cowboy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: I decided to leave bands here that were initially removed to keep here for later reference. FireCrystal (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same source used to backup Arsis inclusion could be used to add Death as well.--Zlogdan (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: There are sources out there but they are kind of thin and will take awhile to find. And just determining their genre by listening to them is original research and is not allowed on Wikipedia. FireCrystal (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed band list 

message: 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)
replies: text: There was a "progressive death metal" page at one point, although I may be wrong. You should feel free to create one if and only if you can find reliable sources talking about "progressive death metal" as a separate subgenre; we can't use editors' opinions or original research. Sourcing is a problem for this page as well, obviously. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive metal as an origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nocturnus 

message: 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)
replies: text: Have you ever seen their genre section? It was decided that it would be easier to label them experimental metal in the infobox (which is for quick info anyway) and then have a section that discusses their genres in full. FireCrystal (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Meshuggah

message: 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)
replies: text: Find a reliable source calling Obscura "technical death metal" and feel free to include. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscura? 

message: 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)
replies: text: If it's reliably sourced, it stays. Simple as that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But it also says Tech Death.Inhumer (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You are mistaking truth and verifiability, or reliability as is relevant to Wikipedia, and what you happen to believe is true. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  how is Despised Icon techdeath? 

message: Bands to be added
*Blotted Science
*Fleshgod Apocalypse
*Gorod
*Odious Mortem
*Pavor
*Quo Vadis (band)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.33.150 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other alterations 

message: 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)
replies: text: Only the About.com one passes WP:RS, but I added that. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anata and sourcing. 

message: 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)
replies: text: So far, not a single one of those references passes WP:RS. Before you add those bands to the list, please make sure they have Wikipedia articles and are reliably sourced. Good luck!--3family6 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm surprised that Sadist aren't on here. Could someone find sources for them so they can be added? I've found nothing at the moment. Their first two albums (especially their debut 1993 album Above the Light) are landmark releases within the technical death metal realm the same as their contemporaries Cynic, Atheist, and later Death. They certainly don't sound like plain old death metal with their jazzy/classical death metal and that says a lot. Thank you. 74.101.104.191 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important bands that are missing from the list... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oceano 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fascinating stuff obviously, but would you like to provide a source? Otherwise, would you mind not clutttering up this talk page? Cheers. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Not to be a jerk, but where is the source that says progressive metal is a stylistic origin for technical death metal?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.13.112 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Was there ever a source found that showed that the two terms are equivalent. I haven't found anything online yet, maybe it was in a magazine or something?--¿3family6 contribs 12:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in 2009, "This is a long-running argument, and I haven't seen a single reliable source produced to suggest either that they are the same or that they are different. Something from the official Necrophagist website is obviously not a reliable source. Until something is produced I'm going to err on the side of removing anything not reliably sourced with the words "technical death metal" as that is fairly uncontroversial." As far as I can see has progressed on this matter. Pun fully intended ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical death is nothing similar to progressive death. 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Djent" is not an official genre. Not yet, at least. Meshuggah are technical thrash metal and in no way associated with death metal, Osiris are progressive deathcore and Gorija is indeed progressive death metal. You're the one that's genre blind if you think it's progressive/groove metal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.246.129 (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it "official?" There are already plenty of sources that call it a genre or subgenre.--¿3family6 contribs 20:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  People must be genre blind 

message: 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)
thread_title: band

message: Technical Death Metal and Progressive Death Metal are the same thinghttp://www.wikihow.com/Appreciate-Death-Metal.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)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses WP:Reliable sources. Various wikis including Wikihow are not considered reliable. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The way that the presented source used both "progressive" and "technical" identifiers interchangeably clearly implies that technical death metal and progressive death metal are considered the same thing. Other sources also make use of such interchange, which shows that most consider that technical death metal and progressive death metal describes the same thing. Yes, I know that it is a bit stretchy, but the evidences are here. ABC paulista (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Death Metal=Progressive Death Metal 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930184925/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/norway/bekkestua/extol to http://musicmight.com/artist/norway/bekkestua/extol
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213032428/http://heavymetal.about.com/b/2009/01/14/meshuggah-tour-dates.htm to http://heavymetal.about.com/b/2009/01/14/meshuggah-tour-dates.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423053758/http://heavymetal.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/top5abysmaldawn.htm to http://heavymetal.about.com/od/toppicks/tp/top5abysmaldawn.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603233654/http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/latestsub.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=870&fid1=37988 to http://www.exclaim.ca/musicreviews/latestsub.aspx?csid1=115&csid2=870&fid1=37988
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314054611/http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/gr/neuraxisthinlin.htm to http://heavymetal.about.com/od/cdreviews/gr/neuraxisthinlin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016092602/http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/florida/tampa/nocturnus1 to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/united+states/florida/tampa/nocturnus1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110919012735/http://musicmight.com/artist/sweden/sorskogen/opeth to http://www.musicmight.com/artist/sweden/sorskogen/opeth
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606092929/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118019 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=118019
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Anyway, I don't want to put my opinion on there at first but I'd like to give some suggestions. That one of the experimentations was the old-school technical death metal in the 1980s to 1990s era and then after that, the new era began in the 2000s the new sound of it and then continued to the 2020s era (until right now) started to push more on technicalities. Adrianiq1551 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible that the process of "Experimentation" has been ongoing up until this point, which could be the reason for the genre sounding so distinct and diverse. Artists and musicians have likely been trying out new techniques, sounds, and styles to push the boundaries of the genre and create something unique and fresh. This ongoing experimentation could be the reason why there is such a vast range of sounds and styles within the genre, making it difficult to define and categorize. Adrianiq1551 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This genre had changed a lot untill right now?