Meshuggah on prog archives???

The Miracle wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: No offense, but only ignorant people confuse Trash with Thrash. BTW: Meshuggah compare to Pantera as Dream Theater compare to Metallica ( in terms of complexity). Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference?

"Trash Metal" doesn't exist as a genre. It is just misspelled. Thrash Metal it is, and Thrash means this:

It doesn't have anything to do with garbage.

Thrash Metal is just a label for Metal bands that play agressively and use complex riffs. If you look at their performance, it looks like they're constantly "thrashing" their instruments.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Arsillus wrote: Meshuggah shouldn't be on here. Just because a band is complex doesn't mean they are "prog" or "prog-metal." Well, too bad for you ... they're more than just complex.

How so?

Please enlighten me!

Arsillus wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Arsillus wrote: Meshuggah shouldn't be on here. Just because a band is complex doesn't mean they are "prog" or "prog-metal." Well, too bad for you ... they're more than just complex. How so? Please enlighten me!

Just listen to their new records (the ones I mentioned above). "More than complex" is of course a subjective attribute, what seems like "more" to me may appear to be just silly to you ... but maybe not.

Many people can't hear the King Crimson complexity in Tools sound, but they're still Prog

Many can't spot the Prog i Mars Volta, but they're still Prog

Many can't hear the difference between Trash and complex Prog, but it's still Prog!

Rune3000 wrote: Many people can't hear the King Crimson complexity in Tools sound, but they're still Prog   Many can't spot the Prog i Mars Volta, but they're still Prog   Many can't hear the difference between Trash and complex Prog, but it's still Prog!

What's Trash?

Arsillus wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Just listen to their new records (the ones I mentioned above). "More than complex" is of course a subjective attribute, what seems like "more" to me may appear to be just silly to you ... but maybe not. Yeah, I guess I kinda see what you mean. But you kinda threw me off with "more than complex."

I just meant that they don't just use odd signatures. They have complex lyrics, recurring themes in the songs, and - and that's again subjective - are quite consistent on their albums and not really predictable.

    To Mike, now we're talking personal preferences, that is always highly debatteble.

Catch 33 doesn't do anything for me. It is one mush of sound. Erase was although chaotic at times more clear.  But mainly it is a feeling. And that sometimes is difficult to explain or to write down.

Meshuggah are NOT prog - not by several long chalks and a blackboard.

Progressive in the metal genre maybe - but Led Zeppelin were progressive in the rock genre, and I would not expect to see Led Zep in the archives.

There are too few elements in Meshuggah's music (on Catch 33, at least) to warrant the label Prog Rock or even Prog Metal. Prog is FAR more than a few time signature changes and a minimalist approach to heavy metal riff-writing. And there's NOTHING progressive about the death grunt vocals either - they were quite funny 20 years ago, but very tired now.

It's certainly put me off exploring their back catalogue - the execution is not of a particularly high level (remember, we are comparing them to real prog rock, not their metal peers), and Metallica's first 4 albums are many factors of progginess more progressive.

Still, the admins can make the choices they want to, and I'm not the first to state that I think they got it wrong this time.

I put the first review in, and it sums the album up well, I think - does anyone disgree with my assessment? Which comments particularly?

/edit: Useful - didn't you rate it as a masterpiece of prog? How can you reconcile that with the position you're taking here?