Why the hell a pure trash metal band is in the archive!  They've nothing of prog...nothing more than Slayer or Pantera (great bands but absolutely not prog!!!)

I'm fighting for Kevin Ayers in the archives without any results, but they add Meshuggah!!!

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).

Yeah, I'm not sure if I agree with the addition of Meshuggah.  They are more "progressive" than many metal bands, but they are more "math-metal" than anything.  You may as well add Mudvayne or Isis.  (again, good bands, but not really prog). 

But then again, why not?  I found this site while Google searching Dream theater, and found out how much great progressive music there is.  Perhaps the same can happen for someone who searches for Meshuggah...

glass house wrote:  Meshuggah in the Archives !   Why not Fear Factory ??!!

Those two bands couldn't be more different. Where's the connection?

glass house wrote:  To MikeEnRegalia.   My comment is pure irony. I do not think either of them belong in the archives

I see ... well, I respect your opinion. In fact, of all the currently debated bands I wouldn't have expected Meshuggah to be included. But:

Their albums Nothing, I (EP) and Catch 33 are NOT thrash, but pure (extreme) Prog Metal.

Any opinions on those albums?

WillieThePimp wrote: I think Meshuggah brings the same thing to prog as bands like Cynic brought. How Cynic rose to progressive fame from the Florida death scene is interesting to me, but then again maybe they were disputed over in the progressive scene during the 90's just as Opeth, Meshuggah or Dream Theater is today. To me, the only thing Meshuggah offers to metal is the use of heavy, distorted guitars and raspy vocals. Other than that, especially with their last two albums and the EP, I consider them as progressive as PoE and DT.

I agree ... they started as a complex thrash band (Destry Erase Improve, Chaosphere) and then continually PROGRESSED, leaving thrash behind, arriving at a truly awkward and very unique style.

BTW: What's PoE(S)? Edit: Thought as much ... and I totally agree. Isn't it great that you can say that Meshuggah is as prog as PoS, although they sound completely different? Infinite diversity in infinite combinations ...

Logos wrote: "Nothing" is pure prog-metal.

No, it isn't, Catch 33 is much more pure. Nothing's great, though. I read an interview with them and they said that Nothing was a bit of a work in progress ...

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?

I wonder... Meshuggah are obviously progressive, but so are some brutal death metal bands, like Morbid Angel, Cryptopsy, Suffocation or Gorguts. IMO they're not prog, though. I love all of those bands but I wouldn't want to see them in the archives - they have just too little in common with most of the bands here. I feel we should have at least some sort of common denominator for the inclusion of bands into the archives, or else the site risks losing focus. 

This doesn't mean I'm going to bitch about Meshuggah in every thread devoted to them, though.  

Hahaha. This is my EVIL post.

Arsillus
Senior Member



Joined: 2005 27 March
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 666

Meshuggah shouldn't be on here. Just because a band is complex doesn't mean they are "prog" or "prog-metal."

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.

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.

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!

It looks like it may be time for the collaborators to really think about what this site should be.  Should it be an all-encompassing progressive music site?  Or should it be restriced to groups that are specifically of the Prog Rock genre? 

It's a tough debate that seems to be going on in random places throughout the forums.  One argument is that the inclusion of any progressive band, such as Meshuggah, can lead to the unnecessary addition of bands that are related to other bands that are only loosely related to prog rock ("well, so and so should be on the site because they sort of sound like such and such, and such and such sort of sound like this other band who is DEFINITELY prog...). 

However, the inclusion of a more diverse array of progressive bands leads to the inclusion of more people on the site and can promote a growing prog rock community.  People often groan in the forums about how prog isnt popular anymore.  Well, maybe it is, just in a different form, and if you open up your eyes a bit, you can find some really great things.  Also, fans of these 'outsider' prog bands may find this site, and their eyes can be opened to more 'traditional' prog.

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!

glass house wrote:   To Mike : imo Catch 33 is a very poor album.  Destroy, Erase, Improve however is one of the more innovative metal albums ever.

Define poor.

It is more daring, and completely different. I'd prefer Catch 33 over Nothing, and Destroy Erase Improve over Chaosphere. But that's only me ...

What's bad about Catch 33?

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?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: 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.

Yeah, I guess I kinda see what you mean.

But you kinda threw me off with "more than complex."

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?

I don't hate it - I just don't find it prog - at least, not as prog as say Metallica.

I don't see how it is progressive - I picked it apart in absolute minutae, and can hear a very few progressive elements, but certainly nowhere near enough for prog rock.

We must be listening with different ears - the death grunts are there for all to hear! I have nothing against them, being a fan of Chuck Shuldiner's Death, but there's no mistaking that style of vocals.

If they're not a prog band, they shouldn't be in the archives, and if the albums aren't prog, they can't get 4 or 5 stars, since those ratings only apply to prog albums - this isn't Amazon.

Let's get Queen, Deep Purple, System Of a Down, Muse and Cradle of Filth in the archives, quick!

Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band?

Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive. 

Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band? Also... no, those aren't death grunts.  There's a big difference between growling and screaming, and Jens Kidman is clearly doing the latter. I'm really not in any kind of mindset to debate "how prog" Catch 33 is, but I stand by my review.

I've listened to Catch 33 several times now to see what I was missing, and have come to the conclusion that I have missed nothing. It isn't prog, IMO, so I'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not trying to say what you are and aren't allowed to do - and it's hard to listen to text on a page... I just wanted to understand what I was missing, and, since you can't seem to texturalise your thoughts, or plain don't want to in a kind of "I say it's prog, therefore it is" kind of way, then I guess I'll never know.

Growling, grunting, screaming, tomato, tomato, whatever - it's all been done before and is not a progressive vocal style, and that minimalist style of riffing and medleyising of songs is simply an element of prog - it does not make this album a prog rock album, IMO.

You call it what you like, and I'll keep calling "Master Of Puppets" the first prog metal album

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band? Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive.

Potential for prog is not good enough, IMO - otherwise why aren't Muse here? As I said, Catch 33 is NOT a prog album.

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: You're not listening to me.  I consider Catch 33 a prog album, but that doesn't mean I consider them a prog band.  See my reviews for Contradictions Collapse and Destroy Erase Improve.  As a result, am I not allowed to consider Catch 33 a masterpiece of prog, despite it not necessarily having been made by a prog band? Exactly. But I think that they are on their way to become a prog band. I think that Nothing, "I" and Catch 33 qualify as prog, everything before that is simply complex Thrash. When they continue that direction with the next album, they can be called a prog band ... as long as only two of 5-6 albums (don't know how many the have) are prog, it remains to be seen if they continue to be progressive.  Potential for prog is not good enough, IMO - otherwise why aren't Muse here? As I said, Catch 33 is NOT a prog album.

Yes it is. I think we are both right. It's a borderline decision.

Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive.

I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline.

I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so...

The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

Certif1ed wrote: Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive. I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline. I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so... The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects?

I read your review of "I". I must say that I'm annoyed. In the last paragraph, you complain about this music being not similar to Yes or Genesis etc..

It makes no sense to compare Meshuggah to 70s symphonic prog. The reviews and ratings cannot be based upon the similarity of arbitrary music to songs like CttE. I think that the rating should always be based on comparing the music to similar albums of the genre, not bash the genre as a whole.

In your review, you mention various positive attributes of the album (song). Why isn't this reflected in your rating? 3 stars would be appropriate. It is not for collectors only. It is essential for fans of the band (5 stars). It is a very good album (4 stars) for fans of extreme prog metal like Dillinger Escape Plan or Fantomas. It is a good, but not essential album (3 stars) for prog metal fans. It is a 2 star album for 70s symphonic prog fans. It is a 1 star album for prog metal bashers.

You mention Cradle Of Filth ... IMO they are not the slightest bit progressive. I'd like to take the opportunity and hurl this "Probably rightly so" right back at you.

Useful_Idiot wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Hmm - you also said that you would consider Catch 33 a prog album - pardon the repeated questioning, but in what ways would you consider it prog as opposed to progressive. I'm happy to accept that I must be missing something - neither you or Useful are the "fanboy" types, indeed, quite the reverse - but I don't even see it as borderline any more than Led Zeppelin would be borderline. I checked out "I", and that is not prog to my ears either. I really like it, and for metal, it's quite progressive - although not as progressive as Cradle of Filth, and I've been laughed at for suggesting that CoF should be in the archives. Probably rightly so... The question I still have is what have I missed that makes "Catch 33" or "I" prog rather than simply progressive in one or two aspects? Okay, let's look at "I" for a second.  It's an extended track with numerous different sections, which could easily be given individual titles and be divided into a "suite".  It contains numerous different time signatures (which are extremely complex, of course), which it alternates through every couple of minutes.  In addition, there are some extremely fusion influenced guitar solos.  What I'm being forced to wonder is... what is it you're looking for that would make it "prog" but aren't finding?  Just because it doesn't sound like Yes or Genesis, doesn't mean it isn't prog.  As somebody who fought valiantly for Radiohead's inclusion on the site, I figured you of all people would know that Cert... Also, I disagree with the idea of giving something 2 stars just because it isn't prog.  Tool's Undertow isn't a prog album, but Tool is on here and I love Undertow, so I gave it 4 stars.  Same goes for No-Man's Wild Opera.  Brian Eno's Ambient 1: Music For Airports isn't prog either, but I gave it 3 because I consider it a pretty good album, regardless of what genre it may fit under.  Trashing something for "not being prog" is what created that whole Radiohead debacle back when they were added, and is still consistently a problem among the reviews on this site.  That's just my opinion though, and who am I to criticize your rating system?

You'd think I was indulging in some heavy-duty bashing... I'm only asking simple questions!

On the first point, Venom wrote a 23-minute track called "At War With Satan", with different sections that could easily be given individual titles, but that's not prog.

Time signatures alone do not make it prog - are you familiar with Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"?

The guitar solos are the weakest part - there is little or no technical creativity in the solos.

It doesn't have to sound like Genesis or Yes, of course - but it does have to be progressive. If rhythm was the only aspect a band needed to become prog, then Steve Reich's "Drumming" and much of Philip Glass's minimalist catalogue would be prog. And how about Harrison Birtwhistle?

Metal with interesting time signatures is metal with interesting time signatures. You could say it was progressive, but it was just as progressive of Jimmy Page to play the guitar with a violin bow.

This is a single approach used all the way through "I", and it stops being progressive very quickly, as it simply becomes a style - do you get the difference? The music does not "grow", it simply changes over time. That's but a single, some might say compelling reason why it is not prog.

The textures rarely vary, there is no apparent influence from other genres, there is no melodic or harmonic development, form is pretty much ignored, and rhythmically, the goal is to be as complex as possible. Vocally, there's not much to say - a subtle variation on a single style that has been done so many times before in the last 20 years.

And you wonder why I don't hear any prog?

I've posted the site guidelines and the rating system into another thread because you're not the only one having difficulties understanding how to rate a prog album.

3 is a fair rating for "Airports", as the 3 rating concedes that the album is not for every collection of prog rock - to me it suggests an album that falls somewhere just outside of prog, but is still interesting to a progger.

I have not trashed anything for not being prog - I'm not trashing "I", simply evaluating it in terms of prog. I even said in my review that I liked it. 

As far as the Radiohead debacle is concerned, all I did was inject some common sense - I didn't "Fight valiantly" - but I could, if you wanted...

I had many PMs from people who finally "saw the light" - not so much converts to Radiohead, but greater understanding of why their music is so very progressive thanks to their inclusion.

MorgothSunshine wrote: A band is not necessary prog because of the complexity of the music...prog is not only complexity!

Thanks for clarifying that, I had no idea ... now I've seen the light!