Super catchy

The opening riff to the title track "Obzen" is simply amazing!!

Killer album

I Need This Album, i Love Bleed. <3

Why do so many people like Bleed? It's a pretty bland song. I'd say Combustion is much more interesting.

This maniacal album feels like having your skull brutalized by some sort of sinister HR Giger machine while being submerged in a cavern full of explosive magma. Sound intense enough? No. Listen to this fucking album, and you'll get it. This is a brilliant, relentless, machine of an album.

Yahh at JOOE.
Bleed is bland. I reckon Combustion is a great song, and so was Dancers to a Discordant System (DAMN DID ANYONE HEAR THAT POLYRHYTYM IN THE SOLO!?!?!??).
Sadly, most of the album was kinda messy. Their were a few good bits but they were lost among the shitty vocals which went "ARGH ARGH YAAAARRGGGH HUMANITY PRAY FOR MY BALLLSSS!!!!!". This isn't a kind of album you can listen all the way through and be left there like "FUCK YEAH THIS IS AWESOME". No. All those epic 8 string brutallity moments are sought of dished out randomly in all the songs. Meanlingless. Meshuggah is kinda over-rated in my opinion.

I think Bleed is successful because of how catchy it is while remaining technically proficient, particularly with the drums. The lyrics rock, the guitar solo is just plain epic and I think it is a song that stands to be repeated over and over again.
The best song on the album is Dancers, though. Far from being "messy", the album intended to display Meshuggah's ability to write catchy, thrashy, polyrhythmic tunes in the same way that they churned out catchy songs on Chaosphere. And on all accounts, they succeeded.

I still find this record to be their "jack-of-all trades" album. There's nothing here that points to a focused style, more like an attempted rehash of D.E.I, especially after the genius that was Catch 33.

Written by [user id=100467] on 03.06.2011 at 23:47

I think Bleed is successful because of how catchy it is while remaining technically proficient, particularly with the drums. The lyrics rock, the guitar solo is just plain epic and I think it is a song that stands to be repeated over and over again.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't quite get the idea that it's a "rehash of DEI." It sounds nothing like it-- very few parts indicate a return to that kind of style.
I've already explained what I thought Meshuggah were trying to do-- produce a set of similar sounding catchy, THRASHY, polyrhythmic songs. It wasn't intended to be as focused sounding as Catch-33-- it was intended to show people how they can write full-fledged songs that just plain ROCK. And while this tends to produce a few monotonous moments, they kept THIS focus. I've ranked C-33 and Obzen the same-- hard to compare the two.

Written by [user id=100467] on 04.06.2011 at 04:03

I don't quite get the idea that it's a "rehash of DEI." It sounds nothing like it-- very few parts indicate a return to that kind of style.
I've already explained what I thought Meshuggah were trying to do-- produce a set of similar sounding catchy, THRASHY, polyrhythmic songs. It wasn't intended to be as focused sounding as Catch-33-- it was intended to show people how they can write full-fledged songs that just plain ROCK. And while this tends to produce a few monotonous moments, they kept THIS focus. I've ranked C-33 and Obzen the same-- hard to compare the two.

If you look at all the albums that came before it they all had a very specific focus in sound and structure with the exception of DEI which was much looser and non-specific. ObZen is an attempted conflux of most of the styles seen on previous outings on one album. In that sense, its lack of focus is like DEI except much less successful - a rehash of the simpler, friendlier song-structure record. Fact is they stretched themselves too thin with this one. Fun tracks marred by boring and forgettable ones, like the overlong, instant-thrills fodder of Bleed (incidentally I didn't realise banging the same note for four and a half minutes, going into a predictable clean solo then grinding the same repeated notes over again constitutes "technical proficiency" - in all honesty it has to be one of the most repetitive and simplistic songs they're ever done, and one of the longest ironically). And I don't know where you got the idea that this was a "THRASHY" album as only three of the tracks, Combustion, Bleed and Pravus are thrashy in orientation, a mistake I think stemming from how endlessly people talk about Bleed, thinking it's representative of the album. The others mill around midpaced structures, highlighting my point it's a varied album with equally varied success. With their other records you could hear a song and instantly say "Yep, that's from the X album". On this one it's a case of "Well this song sounds like it should be on Chaosphere, whilst this one sounds like it belongs on Nothing..." etc. It's like snapping bits and pieces off their most accomplished records and stapling it together resulting in a record that lacks identity compared to the best Meshuggah can do. If they want to do it like this then they need to improve on each individual song have interesting and memorable tracks like on DEI instead of extracting formulas used on old albums. Regardless the relatively palatable approach of this album combined with 'Bleed' has done a lot for this band who deserve larger success than they garner and its almost, say, compilation-like approach is quite ideal for the first time listener.

Written by [user id=4365] on 04.06.2011 at 19:25

Written by [user id=100467] on 04.06.2011 at 04:03

I don't quite get the idea that it's a "rehash of DEI." It sounds nothing like it-- very few parts indicate a return to that kind of style.
I've already explained what I thought Meshuggah were trying to do-- produce a set of similar sounding catchy, THRASHY, polyrhythmic songs. It wasn't intended to be as focused sounding as Catch-33-- it was intended to show people how they can write full-fledged songs that just plain ROCK. And while this tends to produce a few monotonous moments, they kept THIS focus. I've ranked C-33 and Obzen the same-- hard to compare the two.

If you look at all the albums that came before it they all had a very specific focus in sound and structure with the exception of DEI which was much looser and non-specific. ObZen is an attempted conflux of most of the styles seen on previous outings on one album. In that sense, its lack of focus is like DEI except much less successful - a rehash of the simpler, friendlier song-structure record. Fact is they stretched themselves too thin with this one. Fun tracks marred by boring and forgettable ones, like the overlong, instant-thrills fodder of Bleed (incidentally I didn't realise banging the same note for four and a half minutes, going into a predictable clean solo then grinding the same repeated notes over again constitutes "technical proficiency" - in all honesty it has to be one of the most repetitive and simplistic songs they're ever done, and one of the longest ironically). And I don't know where you got the idea that this was a "THRASHY" album as only three of the tracks, Combustion, Bleed and Pravus are thrashy in orientation, a mistake I think stemming from how endlessly people talk about Bleed, thinking it's representative of the album. The others mill around midpaced structures, highlighting my point it's a varied album with equally varied success. With their other records you could hear a song and instantly say "Yep, that's from the X album". On this one it's a case of "Well this song sounds like it should be on Chaosphere, whilst this one sounds like it belongs on Nothing..." etc. It's like snapping bits and pieces off their most accomplished records and stapling it together resulting in a record that lacks identity compared to the best Meshuggah can do. If they want to do it like this then they need to improve on each individual song have interesting and memorable tracks like on DEI instead of extracting formulas used on old albums. Regardless the relatively palatable approach of this album combined with 'Bleed' has done a lot for this band who deserve larger success than they garner and it's almost, say, compilation-like approach is quite ideal for the first time listener.

I still find Bleed is technically proficient and catchy, which Momo agreed with. I still find they have reintroduced thrash elements into the album in both songs and passages THROUGHOUT the album and I'm inclined to call it a thrashy sort of album, albeit extreme metal is how I would generalize the sound. I do see an identity to these tracks, a separate Obzen one that you fail to register. They have a similar kind of groove to them that makes it feel fun and thrilling, but also provides a bit of cohesion to it. The title track is really the epitome of this groove. It doesn't feel like they are copy and pasting new stuff: they are looking for interesting, groovy, sometimes thrashy progressions of their typical sound. And for the most part, I found the songs to be consistent throughout, albeit not as awesome as Nothing and DEI. What's hilarious is that our numerical assessments of the album are almost the same. It's clear we have different views about many different albums and that's likely not going to change. Stop arguing that I "made mistakes" with regards to my opinion and maybe stop commenting on every single thing that I do on Metal Storm. It's getting rather annoying. This discussion is done.

Written by [user id=100467] on 05.06.2011 at 17:07


I still find Bleed is technically proficient and catchy, which Momo agreed with. I still find they have reintroduced thrash elements into the album in both songs and passages THROUGHOUT the album and I'm inclined to call it a thrashy sort of album, albeit extreme metal is how I would generalize the sound. I do see an identity to these tracks, a separate Obzen one that you fail to register. They have a similar kind of groove to them that makes it feel fun and thrilling, but also provides a bit of cohesion to it. The title track is really the epitome of this groove. It doesn't feel like they are copy and pasting new stuff: they are looking for interesting, groovy, sometimes thrashy progressions of their typical sound. And for the most part, I found the songs to be consistent throughout, albeit not as awesome as Nothing and DEI. What's hilarious is that our numerical assessments of the album are almost the same. It's clear we have different views about many different albums and that's likely not going to change. Stop arguing that I "made mistakes" with regards to my opinion and maybe stop commenting on every single thing that I do on Metal Storm. It's getting rather annoying. This discussion is done.

Let's see:

Quote:
I don't quite get the idea that it's a "rehash of DEI." It sounds nothing like it

and

Quote:
but most agree that this album is far from being "Meshuggah's most accomplished release."

If you don't want me responding to your comments then stop quoting me. I didn't realise you were feeling victimised here, from where I'm sitting it looks like fairly standard forum discussion with good points on either side. My comment concerning making mistakes was a comment aimed at a general audience, not at you specifically but while we're on the subject one could regard such statements like 'but most agree that this album is far from being "Meshuggah's most accomplished release' as a sweeping statement designed to sex-up your own argument without any real material, capiche? Anyway if you're feeling the pressure then I'll leave you alone

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.06.2011 at 17:15

Written by [user id=100467] on 05.06.2011 at 17:07


I still find Bleed is technically proficient and catchy, which Momo agreed with. I still find they have reintroduced thrash elements into the album in both songs and passages THROUGHOUT the album and I'm inclined to call it a thrashy sort of album, albeit extreme metal is how I would generalize the sound. I do see an identity to these tracks, a separate Obzen one that you fail to register. They have a similar kind of groove to them that makes it feel fun and thrilling, but also provides a bit of cohesion to it. The title track is really the epitome of this groove. It doesn't feel like they are copy and pasting new stuff: they are looking for interesting, groovy, sometimes thrashy progressions of their typical sound. And for the most part, I found the songs to be consistent throughout, albeit not as awesome as Nothing and DEI. What's hilarious is that our numerical assessments of the album are almost the same. It's clear we have different views about many different albums and that's likely not going to change. Stop arguing that I "made mistakes" with regards to my opinion and maybe stop commenting on every single thing that I do on Metal Storm. It's getting rather annoying. This discussion is done.

Let's see:

Quote:
I don't quite get the idea that it's a "rehash of DEI." It sounds nothing like it

and

Quote:
but most agree that this album is far from being "Meshuggah's most accomplished release."

If you don't want me responding to your comments then stop quoting me. I didn't realise you were feeling victimised here, from where I'm sitting it looks like fairly standard forum discussion. My comment concerning making mistakes was a comment aimed at a general audience, not at you specifically but while we're on the subject one could regard such statements like 'but most agree that this album is far from being "Meshuggah's most accomplished release' as a sweeping statement designed to sex-up your own argument without any real material, capiche? Anyway if you're feeling the pressure then I'll leave you alone

*Discussion not yet over.
Yes, but let's remember that I never quoted you using the Metal Storm system with the quotes in brackets-- I just quoted you with quotation marks. The original poster whom I'm quoting would not know I posted unless he A: looked on my profile and my album posts to find my comments or B: was looking back on Meshuggah very recently after I posted my post. A seems more likely to me, so that's entirely why I feel a little weird right now. Am I that fascinating? I guess that's typical forum stuff, though, as you say.
I guess it's not that I'm feeling victimized...it's just weird that you seem to comment on every little thing I do, but it's something I can get used to. Your comments do have substance to them and certainly make me reflect on certain albums. And as for my comment, I could reference the Wikipedia page right now to showcase bad reviews of C-33, but my statement was ENTIRELY sex-up.

Written by [user id=100467] on 05.06.2011 at 17:31

*Discussion not yet over.
Yes, but let's remember that I never quoted you using the Metal Storm system with the quotes in brackets-- I just quoted you with quotation marks. The original poster whom I'm quoting would not know I posted unless he A: looked on my profile and my album posts to find my comments or B: was looking back on Meshuggah very recently after I posted my post. A seems more likely to me, so that's entirely why I feel a little weird right now. Am I that fascinating? I guess that's typical forum stuff, though, as you say.

I don't know about Joe but I usually check out all threads just too see if there's some opinion that is worth commenting on specially if it is an album I have a clear opinion of. I usually don't quote with citations marks since if I'm quoting someone it's because I want them to know what I think of their opinion otherwise I find it kind of sissy but that's just me.

Written by [user id=100467] on 05.06.2011 at 17:31


*Discussion not yet over.
Yes, but let's remember that I never quoted you using the Metal Storm system with the quotes in brackets-- I just quoted you with quotation marks. The original poster whom I'm quoting would not know I posted unless he A: looked on my profile and my album posts to find my comments or B: was looking back on Meshuggah very recently after I posted my post. A seems more likely to me, so that's entirely why I feel a little weird right now. Am I that fascinating? I guess that's typical forum stuff, though, as you say.
I guess it's not that I'm feeling victimized...it's just weird that you seem to comment on every little thing I do, but it's something I can get used to. Your comments do have substance to them and certainly make me reflect on certain albums. And as for my comment, I could reference the Wikipedia page right now to showcase bad reviews of C-33, but my statement was ENTIRELY sex-up.

Everything you do? I see comments on Meshuggah, Ulcerate and Fen, three bands I regard highly. If they pop up on the 'Albums' thread (which they did because you commented on them) which is one of the few I bother to check then I'm usually very likely to comment. I don't make a habit of snooping through people's comments unless there's call for it. You need to worry when I start commenting on stuff I don't like or have never heard.

As for wiki, Popmatters and Allmusic reviews are to be ignored. Stat.

Written by [user id=4365] on 05.06.2011 at 17:36

Written by [user id=100467] on 05.06.2011 at 17:31


*Discussion not yet over.
Yes, but let's remember that I never quoted you using the Metal Storm system with the quotes in brackets-- I just quoted you with quotation marks. The original poster whom I'm quoting would not know I posted unless he A: looked on my profile and my album posts to find my comments or B: was looking back on Meshuggah very recently after I posted my post. A seems more likely to me, so that's entirely why I feel a little weird right now. Am I that fascinating? I guess that's typical forum stuff, though, as you say.
I guess it's not that I'm feeling victimized...it's just weird that you seem to comment on every little thing I do, but it's something I can get used to. Your comments do have substance to them and certainly make me reflect on certain albums. And as for my comment, I could reference the Wikipedia page right now to showcase bad reviews of C-33, but my statement was ENTIRELY sex-up.

Everything you do? I see comments on Meshuggah, Ulcerate and Fen, three bands I regard highly. If they pop up on the 'Albums' thread (which they did because you commented on them) which is one of the few I bother to check then I'm usually very likely to comment. I don't make a habit of snooping through people's comments unless there's call for it. You need to worry when I start commenting on stuff I don't like or have never heard.

As for wiki, Popmatters and Allmusic reviews are to be ignored. Stat.

Well, that makes sense now. Anyway, sorry about alleging you were creepier than you are, haha. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. See you around.

Written by [user id=100467] on 07.06.2011 at 01:08

Well, that makes sense now. Anyway, sorry about alleging you were creepier than you are, haha. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. See you around.

Oh I'm definitely creepy, but I only follow girls so you're safe on this one.

This album, when listened to through your headphones at full volume, feels as if its wrenching the air from your lungs with its mental rhythm and fucking mad guitar work. That said, i can't wait to see them this april, and their new album:D

'Dancers to a Discordant System' - The best song they have ever written.

Very powerful album.

Re-write(romantic lite):
I have come to the realization that 'Bleed' has infected my brain. At any unpredictable moment its soft triplets enter my skull closely followed by physical impulses, then the great urgency for the real vibrations not mental memory. Consumed by pure rhythm, the brain's natural evolutionary perception of beat is exploited. The satisfaction ceases to wither nor fade, the craving always richly fulfilled. It's not music, it's a beat algorithm, virus-like, persistent. Beautiful abuse of our instinctual perception of rhythm and beat.

*Scientific conversion (what I'm thematically getting at) : Of course 'beat' is probably not something we needed for our survival and thus can not be enveloped in the process of 'natural evolution', yet I find it very intriguing just how astonishingly rare the perception and/or comprehension is in the animal kingdom. The consistence of 'beat' in tribal/early man cultures represents something historically and philosophically significant. A fascinating topic on what essentially is?, our understanding of rhythm and beat. I would say neurology is the strongest candidate for providing an explanation. Shouldn't this be one of musics deepest topics?

Written by deadone on 29.05.2014 at 07:07

Seems like a "pure unadulterated passion" moment here!

Haha, quite romantic wasn't it? In my defense I believe I was pretty damn high when I wrote that.

Did a little tweak^^^, it will hopefully at least give others an insightful, Meshuggah fan's perspective as to what makes Meshuggah such a ferociously loved band for many people (my original intention) . BECAUSE this band most definitely possesses a demographic of those that aren't as rhythmically reactive - thus annexing it to the confounds of mediocrity before the shell even had the chance to crack.

A deadly hit to modern metal

This is how all music reviews should be done