Anyone here have Opeth or any other tatoos?

HaloPhenomenon said:
personally i think that if something looks good as a tattoo it does not matter what it means... i like tattoos even though i have none...

NFU: i disagree with you on the point that nobody will care about opeth in 50 years... i think that good music never dies among a certain group of people...like the 70´s music, and classic symphony music.
music is timeless

i agree with this as well. even if i dont like the band as much after like 50 years or so i would still like the tattoo coz it'll remind me about that time of my life.
 
south_of_heaven213 said:
i agree with this as well. even if i dont like the band as much after like 50 years or so i would still like the tattoo coz it'll remind me about that time of my life.


thats one of the reasons im getting it.
 
HaloPhenomenon said:
personally i think that if something looks good as a tattoo it does not matter what it means... i like tattoos even though i have none...

NFU: i disagree with you on the point that nobody will care about opeth in 50 years... i think that good music never dies among a certain group of people...like the 70´s music, and classic symphony music.
music is timeless

again...that would have to mean that Opeth is on the same level as the classic bands from those eras. which...theyre not. sorry...theyre really REALLY not. and wont ever be. period. sorry. try again. next plz. gbye.
 
lol... so you´re musically at the same level as those artists to be able to make that understatement? sorry, but you overrate yourself clearly. and i wont start this discussion with you, so dont try. :p
 
"LOL....comparing Opeth to the beatles or the stones...lmfao."
you idiot :p... saying that opeth could not be compared to them... opeth have musically reached higher levels than the beatles...and rolling stones suck... there are dousins of bands far better than the beatles... beatles were just the ones to start much of what we love about music, and they truly were genious...in their time... and believe me, i have studied all beatles records into the roots, to make a solid argument...OF MY OPINNIONS...


and now you are going to try to tell me that i´m wrong and so on....
hear this once and for all................music is s-u-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-e.
and you are not the one to decide what will be memorable and not...time is.
 
youre telling me music is subjective. right after youre arguing that Opeth have surpassed the beatles. and that the stones suck. and that theres "dousins" (whatever that word means) of bands better than the beatles.

very strong argument. pwned

edit: but out of curiosity, im curious what a caveman such as yourself thinks Opeth has done to surpass the beatles. go ahead...im waiting...
 
illidurit said:
opeth is better than the beatles because mike uses jazzy abstract chords fyi

i think its the camel licks. and the "jazz influences". and having long songs with not much direction. and the growling...definitely the growling. makes them far superior to the beatles. imo afaik :lol:
 
giant_rolleyes.gif
 
NineFeetUnderground said:
i think its the camel licks. and the "jazz influences". and having long songs with not much direction. and the growling...definitely the growling. makes them far superior to the beatles. imo afaik :lol:

What do you like about Opeth then?
 
"to make a solid argument...OF MY OPINNIONS...


and now you are going to try to tell me that i´m wrong and so on...."

NFU: notice the sarcasm in that part? what i´m trying to say is that nor you or i can tell anybody what music is good or not...
 
your musical taste is so obvious for your personality...
you have only copied someone elses opinnions.

but i will not try to convince you that your opinnion is wrong...because how the hell can an opinnion be wrong?