Originally posted by TyrantOfFlames
Allow me. I will use Benighted as an example. One of the things I most dearly love about Opeth is the layering of multiple tracks. This is represented in many forms throughout their career. In Morningrise and Orchid, there were always two guitars and usually a base playing different parts at the same time, in MAYH it was usually two guitars playing different chords, focussing more on the texture rather than the story of the music, (not to be confused with te story of the lyrics), in Still Life and BWP it was a mix of these. The point is that their longer, (more serious?), songs tend to be markedly layered; they are also progressive as you all know. Both of these things, the mellow songs are not. Benighted uses a single guitar throughout most of the song, no dums, no bass. Mike's voice is only harmonized in three short instances, and the song progresses very little. The guitar part is definitely "pretty" but certainly not spectacular, and it is easily forgettable. The only really memorable thing about the song is Mike's vocals, particularly "What came and distorted your sight, saw you benighted by your pride." Now this sounds very reminiscent of songs that are played on soft and alternative rock stations, no? It is not just the structure that makes this song commercial sounding to me. It is the content of the song. To me this song only has one purpose, to be "pretty," not to be memorable, to be innovative, or to be spectacular. I think that if Opeth are going to make a chorus/verse song, they need to make it complex at least in layering. The fact is that the simple songs are usually the ones that die first; why do you think people get sick of songs on the radio?
Now this is kinda saying the difference between the short acoustic songs and the larger songs, but i dont think those differences are necessarily a bad thing because they go against what the song is trying to achieve. Benighted is supposed to be simplistic, its supposed to fairly 'empty' and such. Layering would change what the song was about. The problem i have with the songs is that they havent replaced their songwriting techniques with ones appropriate to smaller acoustic songs, they simply cut out the ones that werent appropriate.
So i shall elaborate myself.
Benighted....
Song Structure = (Intro - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Interlude - Solo - Chorus - Verse - Outro)
This is VERY standard and cliched.. i dont believe its appropriate for the song. Such a song should be structured differently for sure, and verse/chorus can be used wisely in this music, but i think the structure they chose is too repetative (when i play the song i can never get through the 3rd verse... ), though this is emphasised by the below points.
Now break each of those parts down, and you'll find a very standard 2 or 4 times for each riff (except interlude is 3 times. and that riff happens to be my favourite from the whole song). Very standard.
Now look at how these riffs are repeated. Take the verse for example, the first and second time are exactly the same. Take the intro, all 4 times are played note for note the same. And so on for almost every riff i believe (except very very small changes that achieve very little).
Now look at the verse riff, which in itself has a repeated fingerpicked part on E-minor..
The fingerpicking patterns are pretty much the same they always use, and doesnt have much variety.
etc
etc
Ok im gonna stop here. But i think ive shown enough to make my claim. There is very little art expressed in these songs. These acoustic songs act purely as a blank canvas. By simply looking at how riffs are repeated, and song structure, at different production, at varied vocal lines, etc etc etc they could have controlled the emotion in subtle ways, with songs such as these its subtlety thats important. Why repeat a riff without change four times in a row? You see opeth get away with this stuff in their main songs because their art is mainly expressed through the changes between riffs, or within a single time through a riff.... then they repeat that riff 4 times and nobody notices because soon enough the feel has changed again. But it doesnt work for acoustic songs, there will be people who still like the song, but many will lose interest, and many will be bored from the start.
Their acoustic songs are so plain and undeveloped, there are far far better writers of acoustic songs. Take a look at Chris Brown (Analog Kid from these forums), have a listen to his demos, they're different of course, but they display the skills that can be used in unlayered stuff. Sure opeth's songs are nice, but id guess about 50% of the guitarists on this forum could write something just as good, its not hard to write an emotional blank canvas song that has no hidden detail, the only thing that some people mightnt manage is of course the vocals and the chord use which is quite well developed.
nice enough? sure, if a friend played me that tune id say it was nice.. but i mean really, they arent anything special. Like there are some great emotional moments in the song, but ill gaurantee you the ones i get emotion from are the ones that only occur once, and arent completely standard. (like the solos, the solos are great... )
If you enjoy the songs then all good and well, im not saying you shouldnt, i can enjoy a lot of simple music, sometimes it is the best thing. But im hardly going to give it much praise, or defend it. I just expect more from Opeth i guess.
. I meant that songs like Benighted & Harvest etc. have three verses/choruses with the same riffs, whereas Credence is less of a verse-chorus format - there are no repeated lyrics like the choruses of Benighted and Harvest. Sorry 
.
