Jump to content

Talk:Meshuggah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMeshuggah is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 24, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 16, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 19, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 22, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 27, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 20, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Vandalism

[edit]

Members of the Facebook group Prog Snob have apparently heavily vandalized this article, can someone more familiar with the band go through the article and make sure I got all tge vandalism undone? I am on a phone and cannot revert back to the last good version.

WP:METAL Importance

[edit]

I've added a top-importance tag because the band seems to be very important. Rolling Stone calls them "One of the ten most important hard and heavy bands"[1], Yahoo! Music includes them in their list of "the 25 performing outfits who have made heavy metal what it is" among bands like Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Deep Purple, Metallica, Slayer, etc. [2]. Alternative Press: "most important band in metal" [3]; Exclaim!: one of the most acclaimed and distinctive acts in metal history [4]; and something here: [5] --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a press release from the band's label, and it doesn't provide a citation of where this quote comes from. Also, you want to be wary of hyperbole when checking sources. Honestly, out of the entire 40-year-history of heavy metal, is this one of the defintive, utmost-important bands? Are they as important to the understanding of the genre for a general reader as heavy metal music, Black Sabbath, or Metallica? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stated in one of the publications of Rolling Stone, I do not know when exactly. But that does not matter. It is just a fact and it is sourced. That is what RS said and we do not need the direct sources (indispensably). It is a generally known statement. You can hear it in many interviews, articles etc.
I would answer your question yes, when I read the sources. Regardless, those sources seem not to be enough for you. I accept your opinion and I will write down "high" insted of "top". But I definitely do not agree with "mid" importance.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

Instead of adding many, many genres to the infobox why not simply add Various genres (See musical style)? Unless this labeling of avant-garde was meant as a catch-all term. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ kaiden 22:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it actually was. They're just experimental, experimenting with all the genres.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. I think experimental metal suits them better (which indeed would be a catch-them-all term) but on wikipedia we consider experimental metal to be synonymous to AGM (which I think is incorrect, AGM is part of the more broad genre exp. metal but that's an irrelevant discussion). I've reverted the edit as the Musical style section explains it better then some random genres (they seem random as Meshuggah have been labeled dozens of genres). So no genre or 1 catch-them-all term is best. Kameejl (Talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I perfectly agree that the avant-garde/experimental tag suits Meshuggah, indeed my original removing of the tag was due to a misunderstanding of how the term was being used in that context. However, it seems some object to it reading "experimental metal" in the info box. Why is this? The opening line of this band page reads "experimental metal", and it would seem cleaner to have the two match up, and the avant-garde metal page itself notes that the terms are interchangable. So why refuse to have it? In addition, Garry Sharpe-Young's "Metal: The Definitive Guide" specifically calls them "experimental metal", not using the term "avant-garde", so this would, by wikipedia's rules, be more than enough reason to use that term rather than avant-garde. Prophaniti (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please do not edit the article so rapidly. Discuss and wait for an answer before you edit it please. The reason for this is that the article is a current Featured article candidate and such a changes could make it look unstable, which would be a problem for the nomination. Thanks.
2. For me is avant-garde metal and experimental metal are synonym. And the same says also the wikipedia article. The reason why I used Avant-Garde is the name of the wikipedia article and its sources. On the other hand, Meshuggah is often called experimantal. So I used both of the terms - one for infobox, the other one for lead section. For me it is also allright to keep both the same, but if there is some support to keep both experimental and avant-garde (as it was), I support it as well.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right that the two terms basically mean the same thing, and thus it ultimately makes little difference. Personally I think them matching looks best, and given we have a published source that uses that term I'd say that's reason enough to keep it as is. Prophaniti (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, They aren't really experimental. They're your standard thrash/groove metal outfit with hints of proggressive. Experimental/Avant-Garde applies more to bands like Arcturus, Age of Silence, Manes, and Naked City. It has a in-distinct sound, were as Meshugga has a mix of styles that have already been in use. This is why I suggest removing the "Experimental" label and include the genres this band represents: Progressive metal, Groove metal, Death metal, Thrash metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.142.218 (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP, this seems to be a much more accurate and helpful description. Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to find reliable sources. But if we are going to discuss it, I must say that I strongly disagree. Perhaps you could say that for their earlier stuff, but later they became extremely experimental. And don't forget that they always had polyrhythmic math metal elements, which is a highly experimental genre. Also, what you said about Meshuggah you could say for all the bands you named up there. They all take elements from other genres and add some vibe to it, make something different. You always need to have something to develop upon. Whole music has been created for ages. You can't invent something completely new just like that, you need to build upon something. So, I would definitely say that Meshuggah belongs to experimental metal genre. — NikFreak (leave message) 10:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Djent could be considered a possible genre descriptor, as that is what they have supposedly founded, and its becoming a widespread phenomenon Alastairmctavish (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if wiki is going to recognise other bands like periphery as djent, it surely must allow meshuggah to be classifies this way Syxxpackid420 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V--Der Golem (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source in the article http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/10/06/tesseracts-acle-on-the-birth-of-tesseract-and-the-djent-movement/ confirms Meshuggah are the innovators Syxxpackid420 (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That's not a reliable source. And you have to explain that subject in the article body before it's added to the infobox. Reading WP:LEAD might also be helpful. Cheers--Der Golem (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't that a reliable source? I checked WP:RSN and didn't see it listed anywhere, and the site appears to have an editing staff (as opposed to just anyone being able to edit it, such as metal-archives or discogs). I agree with the rest of what you say (this "djent" thing needs further expansion in the article first), but I'm not sure why it's not a reliable source. Please elaborate. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, something must make a page reliabe so the question over reliability is rather "why is that a reliable source?". The site does not seem to have any editorial overcheck, as they don't say much about their staffs and editorial policies- it's just another a-bit-pro-looking de facto fan page. But there already is a source by Guardian.co.uk in the djent article so what are we talking about anyway?--Der Golem (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that makes sense. I just wanted to know about the site and its reliability. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob.--Der Golem (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example of what could possibly be a "reliable source" for such a thing? I understand that Wikipedia has certain policies, but it seems impossible to prove that a band is part of any genre according to these policies. Meshuggah is for sure the band that influenced the djent scene, and I'd love to find something good enough for this article. Mason092 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:RS. Also check out articles listed under WP:FA#Music and WP:Good articles/Arts#Music for featured and good articles, and take note of what sort of sources they use. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/mar/03/djent-metal-geeks a relable and verifiable source Syxxpackid420 (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yea, the one i talked about, and?--Der Golem (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I quote "pioneers Meshuggah coined the term "djent" a decade ago" this makes it clear they are djent Syxxpackid420 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote is actually "inspired by bands such as Sweden's tech-metal pioneers Meshuggah – who coined the term 'djent' a decade ago". The quote given above makes it look like the word "pioneers" refers to "djent", when it actually refers to "tech-metal". Just wanted the full quote to be here, not taken out of context, for purposes of discussion. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see how the quote was taken out of context, I merely removed the word of so the quote would make sense, an acceptable type of quoting by the way, as the quote clearly states what i said. Revert Syxxpackid420 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained how it was taken out of context: "The quote given above makes it look like the word "pioneers" refers to "djent", when it actually refers to "tech-metal"." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nice, you've got 1 reliable source finally, but please, proceed as i explained already before. Editing just the infobox is not acceptable and a source on some takpage is not relevant to an article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Der Golem (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also, please, stop reverting unless the discussion is over with a conclusion of consensus, otherwise your reverts will be treated as edit warring--Der Golem (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted on the ground I had no relaible souexw which you now admit i have. Unless you provide another rationale i am treating your reverts as potential edit warring but as noone is reverting 3 times a day here i don't see how this is relevant. Revert Syxxpackid420 (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that you keep reverting despite not having consensus is edit warring. Why don't you take Der Golem up on his/her offer and actually WRITE about the band being "djent" in the article? And I mean more than a single sentence in the lead (which doesn't even belong there, as there is no mention of "djent" in the article itself). Maybe search out more than one source, to show that the band being "djent" is notable (and not just some offhand mention that doesn't even explicitly say "Meshuggah are djent"). Finally, please stop marking your edits as "minor" when they clearly aren't minor. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha!, no i didn't. I reverted on the ground of Your unawareness of Wikipedia:Article development, Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Consensus and mostly on the grounds of You ignoring my recommendations. To be clear, when i told you to stop edit warring, i was not pointing at WP:3RR as you seem to think but at edit warring, which says "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so".
I usually avoid biting the newcomers like you but please stop wasting my time. I know the policies, unlike You. So shut up your complaints, accept my good faith advises on how to edit according to Wikipedia policies, don't try to act like you know Wikipedia when you don't. I am only trying to help you to make good edits but I DGAF much if you intend to be a pain in the ass instead of improving this website, because then i along with any participating editor will get rid of you just like the community got rid of this guy recently (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive160#User:Itsbydesign reported by User:Der Golem (Result: 1 week)), who was trying to annoy the shit out of us as you are trying now.--Der Golem (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your are assuming bad faith, its sources so it stays Syxxpackid420 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is assuming bad faith. You, however, are engaged in edit warring, and adding information without gaining consensus. Your source doesn't really establish that Meshuggah is djent, just that they coined the term, and "inspired" djent. Why haven't you tried coming up with a couple lines of prose to add to the article first? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), the infobox should "summarize key facts about the article in which it appears". This means the info should be in the article prior to being added to the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay i found this source http://askearache.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-meshuggah-invented-djent-and.html I think it's from earache records so should be reliable. I will ask a couple of lines based on this and the bad faith was intended for der golem whose vulgar tone use of bad language and threatening behaviour are reprehensible. He is trying to claim dictatorial authority of this article and preventing anyone from improving it Syxxpackid420 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Der Golem isn't trying to take authority of the article, they're trying to get you to edit within Wikipedia's policies, which you so far have been ignoring. I question this site as being a reliable source; blogs are generally not considered to be reliable. I cleaned up the addition for spelling, grammar, formatting, that sort of thing, and added a tag questioning the reliability of the source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your last two posts, MrMoustacheMM, were pretty much what i was trying to say. Thanks for translating into civil English--Der Golem (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem! Between the two of us, I think we got our explanation across. Here's hoping. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly, that self-published blog post by mr. unknown-random-guy is quite obviously not reliable (common sense?). Secondly, why do you use some blog post when you have an article by guardian.co.uk?
So finally, since your behaviour does not cease to display disarray and you do not seem to own the ability to make a primitive edit in a period of several weeks; I did it for You! In order to avoid further wasting of your and my time. I hope you're happy now, cheers! sorry for my sloppy English--Der Golem (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the information added to the article does not explicitly say "Meshuggah is djent", and so it's still not a viable addition to the infobox. Until a reliable source can be added saying "Meshuggah is djent", "djent" should not be added to the infobox. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made several "primitive edits" as you call them, and the problem was you wasted my time by deleting them all. Your edit is unacceptable, uses sloppy english and is not even close to what the source says. Also sorry i thought that source was straught from earache records. Well as neither of you think the guardian article is correct even though it says they are pioneers of the genre, Wikipedia is not a democracy therefore i will add it to the infobox. I teach english by the way and would be more than happy to help you with your sloppy (i.e. directly transposed with no regard for colloquation) language Syxxpackid420 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the quote. It clearly says "Sweden's tech-metal pioneers Meshuggah". "Pioneers" refers to "tech-metal", not "djent". I checked the entire article, nowhere does it say Meshuggah are the pioneers of djent. This is what I was referring to earlier, in that your version of the quote takes parts out of context (specifically, "pioneers").
As for the rest of what was written, it is exactly what the source says. Hell, "elastic, syncopated guitar riff" is a direct quote. And the part about coining the term is almost a direct quote: "Meshuggah – who coined the term "djent"".
I do think the first section, "According to guardian.co.uk", can be removed, as the ref indicates the source of the information. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

djent is essentially a subgenre of tech/prog metal with mathcore. This is how meshuggah are pioneers they have invented a genre Syxxpackid420 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't have a source saying "Meshuggah are the pioneers of djent". Your above analysis is just WP:OR. Until you have a source stating that, your edits are disruptive. Please stop them until you can back up what you say with a reliable source. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, so I removed the according to guardian bit as you suggested are adding in a note that they were the first band to play djent like black sabbath was the first metal band. I hope this helps. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It still needs a citation, otherwise it's just your opinion. Blackmetalbaz has already reverted it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source that labels Meshuggah alt metal [6] but im not sure where to put it, since this article doesn't seem to list all the genres the band have categorized as in the musical style section, or elsewhere. I call the big one bitey 07:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Added to Meshuggah#Genre and typical traits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw after hearing their first album a while back (the album the source describes as alternative metal) i can say it doesn't sound too much like alternative metal, but more like thrash/groove metal, but i can understand why Allmusic categorizes the album and Meshuggah as such, since in it's description for the genre it describes the early bands as "too offbeat and their influences too eclectic to fit into the thrash underground". I call the big one bitey 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Meshuggah

[edit]

Hi, I noticed the article mentions the meaning of Meshuggah as "Crazy" in the Yiddish language. I happen to be Israely and my mother tongue is Hebrew - so I can verify that "Meshuggah" does mean "crazy," but in Hebrew. I'm actually not familiar with Yiddish but I find it hard to beleive that it is the same word exactly.

I can understand the reason for confusion, as both Yiddish and Hebrew are Jewish Languages, but in reality those two languages are very distinct (and actually belong to seperate language groups, as Hebrew is a Semitic Language, unlike Yiddish which is a Germanic language written with hebrew alpha-bet).

So I think this issue needs a clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajoran Priest (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that is interesting, but the sources that I used in the article talk only about the Yiddish language origin, so I can not really do something about it. But the point is that "meshuggah" is an English word with Yiddish origin. This word pobably got to the English language from the Yiddish language and not from the Hebrew language, because Yiddish was used in the European territories more than Hebrew. So the English "meshuggah" has Yiddish origin. The meaning of the word is not the crucial fact. It is the origin of the English version of the word. But thanks for giving information.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish, although indeed a Germanic language, integrated many words of Hebrew origin into its vocabulary; it seems that "Meshuggah" is one of these words. It is the same word with the same meaning. Some words travel a lot :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit in progress

[edit]

Lykantrop requested that this article be copy edited in preparation for FA status, so here I am. I will try to get through the article in the next week or so and will post improvement suggestions when I'm finished.

As I go through the sections, I may add inline tags to information that needs to be reworded/expanded for clarification, etc. I don't like mucking up articles, but I find that's one of the easiest ways to bring attention to things that need work. If you need to edit the article while I'm doing my thing, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll kindly excuse myself. mo talk 09:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that you started the work! I have some comments/questions already:
  • About the further information in the Destroy Erase Improve (1995–1997) section: when was "the Hamburg show" and which "Swedish television...": I do not have any sources with specific information. Only what I have is that the tour was "In the autumn of 1995" and the Hamburg concert was after "The first couple of shows". The TV is in the source written with capitals: Swedish Television. This maight suggest that it is the national Swedish TV broadcaster Sveriges Television. But that is a speculation. What do you suggest?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have more information on either of those subjects, I would suggest removing them, as they are awkward in their current forms. mo talk 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the TV. The sentence "Nordin had to leave the band because of his sickness and was replaced by bassist Gustaf Hielm beginning with the Hamburg show." could be reworded to something like "Nordin had to leave the band because of his sickness and was replaced by bassist Gustaf Hielm during the tour." Is this suitable?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works well. mo talk 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I fixed that.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of "often with Hagström using a pitch shifter to play his guitar at an octave lower than usual."? mo talk 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is good. I used it.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit finished

[edit]

As promised, here are some suggestions for improving the article:

  • Remove non-essential album info from lead: everything after Destroy Erase Improve
  • Catch Thirtythree and obZen section: the image of the band performing is similar to the one in the infobox. You may want to replace that one with the image of Hagström and Thordendal, which appears out of place in the Destroy Erase Improve section because it is not from the 1995–1997 time period.
  • Keep captions succinct by limiting them to short, essential descriptions of the people/things depicted; see WP:CAP for guidance.
  • Move some of the quotations to Wikiquote; see WP:QUOTE for more info.
  • The links to several of the Decibel articles are dead. I suggest using an archiving tool such as Webcite to avoid future dead links.

--mo talk 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll sort it out.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WebCite archives for Meshuggah sources as of Jan 20, 2009

[edit]

Links to some online sources became dead sometimes, which sucks if an article is based on them. So I archived most of sources for this article on WebCite as of January 20, 2009. Below this text there is a hidden note with those links. To see the hidden note, edit this page and it will show up. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Yeah, pretty cool. I saw it one the home page a little bit ago. Congrats to all who contributed positively to this page. BTC 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Cannibaloki 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was taken aback when I saw my favorite band on TFA. Well done, everyone involved. Nufy8 (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floating participle

[edit]

The floating participle has been fixed in the article, but is still on the front page - can something be done about that? --5telios (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. For future reference, Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is the best way to request changes to the TFA blurb. Nufy8 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation Key

[edit]

I think this page could use a pronunciation key to show people how you pronounce the name (such as metallica's. 24.226.55.107 (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 124.87.106.67 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influenced by?

[edit]

What are the musical and lyrical influences of Meshuggah? I know that the early work of Meshuggah is influenced mainly by Metallica, but and later?--Cannibaloki 05:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that their later work is influenced by Gorguts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.62.186 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing an interview with Thomas Haake, stating that they on more recent material deliberately try to avoid influence from other bands, instead focusing on the creative process of each other in the band. I'm not sure where i saw it though, if we find it, we could use it as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.226.89 (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo changes, really?

[edit]

I've listened extensively to the songs by Meshuggah, especially from Destroy Erase Improve and onwards. Frankly I haven't been able to notice any signifigant tempo changes on their more conventional albums, like Chaosphere, Nothing and obZen.


"Fast tempo changes" is used in the article to describe the musical style of Meshuggah. However, tempo changes only seem to occur RARELY, as many of their songs seem to stay in the same tempo all the way through. If we are to keep the part about them changing tempos often, I would very much like som solid examples of this. If it occurs only once in several songs or only on a few albums, this should not really be one of the main ways of describing their sound.


"Fast tempo changes" seems to me like a sloppy, unspecific and misleading way of trying to describe the style of Meshuggah, which i understand can be difficult to comprehend on a deeper basis at first listen.


I would very much like to hear other opinions on this, and corrections if I'm wrong. //Ragnar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.226.89 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of I they're pretty consistent with keeping their tempos stable, they're more likely to change time signatures than they are tempo

Jnbek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Legacy

[edit]

Anyone think there should be an inclusion of information on the band's influence on the modern "djent" scene in this section? Don't get all elitist on me folks.109.154.141.11 (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as it would be appropriately sourced and verified, then I wouldn't think it's a bad idea. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And in fact, there already is such a sentence in the article here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that. It's cool that that the sentence is on there, then. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, now that I look at it, that sentence is in the "Musical style" section, not the "Legacy" section. I think maybe it should be moved to the "Legacy" section, as it isn't really about Meshuggah's style as much as it is a term they came up with. Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Meshuggah isn't djent per se, but seems to have made a profound impact on the genre, as fans of Meshuggah have made their own bands with a similar yet progressive (that term can have two meanings in this context) musical style. The band could be considered proto-djent; with that said, though, I wouldn't be silly enough to want "proto-djent" in the infobox. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end of the Legacy section, as it seems to fit right in there (right after the "Meshuggah are really influential" part). How does it look? Anyone disagree? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Bassists

[edit]

The article states that "the band has been through a number of bassists" I do not think two former bassists quite qualifies for 'a number' of bassists. Especially when comparing the number of bass players most other bands in the genre are notorious for going though, for instance Dismember have been through 5 bassists, and bands like Entombed, I propose this get corrected to read more specifically either "the band has been through 2 bass players with Dick Lovgren filling the position since 2004." instead of the current misleading text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnbek (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, "2" is "a number". I really don't see a problem with the sentence. If people want to know the history of the bass players, they can start reading the full article, or click on the "Members" heading in the TOC. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While true that "2" is "a number" it implies the band having a reputation for "going through" band members, which is not the case. Meh it's not critical or anything, but it's bothered me since I first read the article way back when. But when you compare the history of many other groups, who have been through a number of bassists, like, a bassist or two for every album they've released, it just seems excessive to me. Jnbek (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
[edit]

Maybe I've not read the article comprehensively enough, but I'm not sure this article is still FA standard. Especially, considering a new album has just been released, there doesn't seem to be much info on that. It's also been a very long time since this article's last review.

The Nuclear Blast website has a fair amount of information on the sales progress of Koloss, which ought to be incorporated into the article.Drumkid13 (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Polyrhythm vs. Polymeter

[edit]

This article confuses polyrhythm and polymeter quite often. These are not the same things. Polymeter is "tactus-preserving polymeter," whereas polyrhythm is "measure preserving polymeter" (i.e., the former takes place within a pulse whereas the latter takes place within a measure). This is very problematic in the "genre and typical traits" subsection of the musical style section. Playing two different time signatures with two different instruments until they equal out is not a polyrhythm; it's a polymeter. I will go ahead and fix these. Starvinsky (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haake vocals in the timeline

[edit]

An editor added the vocals colour for Haake in the timeline here, but I'm not sure that doing a handful of songs on albums really qualifies as being a "vocalist" for the band, at least as far as showing it in the timeline is concerned. But, other thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meshuggah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Meshuggah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Meshuggah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Meshuggah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meshuggah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Meshuggah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Meshuggah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Meshuggah. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style section

[edit]

I want to add more info regarding Koloss and The Violent Sleep of Reason, some subsections about those records specifically. I noticed in the other sections that there are little sound bites of songs from other records. How would I go about finding/adding excerpts from Koloss and maybe even Contradictions Collapse (just to show their thrash influence better)? Tactical Fiend (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meshuggah&oldid=1209013950"