Critical future of Opeth...

[truhlo]

I often wonder if there's a chance that a band with such radical (from mainstream/midstream perspective) sound as Opeth will ever get well deserved recognition and be anthologized as one of the best bands ever. So far it is not the case, obviously. Bands like Opeth do get recognized in critic circles (just read the closing sentence of Ghost reveries AMG review, awesome), they're not utterly misunderstood, BUT these praises go to strictly limited borders. Pretty much nobody dares to explicitly call any of O's albums a "master-piece", or "one of the best albums ever". And while this critical cautiousness might be professional and generally recommended, it may also prove to be conformist and restricting; in any case, i think it is not sufficient, and there has to be more to being a great critic - there has to be some courage to challenge the established system of values. I just think narrowing it all down to some "classic" 60's-70s bands, and relegating the rest of the rock to footnote status or describing it as "decadence" would be incorrect and terribly unjust.

Of course, i'm not talking about some weekly "top 100" top list, one of those lists that flood the industry magazines and can serve as a sort of promotion at best, but about an important critical selection which will have decisive impact on musical taste and aesthetic evaluations of the future. In a long run this thing with institutions and "judges of taste" proves to be crucially important when it comes to forming a canon of any period. Being "underground" and "alternative" is very cool and recommended right now, but being on the list is what makes the band "eternal". I am sure all of us here agree that any future rock (wtf, not just "metal") anthology without Opeth would be very lacking, and even misleading, so long as you wish to hear a selection of highest and finest art-music achievements in rock history.

So, could it be, will injustice happen, and a band like Opeth get lost, forgotten, in favor of ... well, whichever band. Or will the internet era perhaps put it all to halt and open multiple possibilities where nothing can be lost or overlooked nor set in stone and thus the whole "canon" concept needs to be revised or even completely abandoned?

 

[Slunk]

I think there's one big reason why Opeth will never be fully accepted into the mainstream. The mainstream audience (raido listeners, mtv watchers, media whores) only really listen to music at surface value. This is, in my opinion, why the majority of popular music is so simple and boring. This majority of listeners don't care enough about the music to analyze it, and rather have it on the background while they drive to work, socialize, and whatever else. If someone does start to critically look at the music from a standpoint of it being something beautiful and artful, they would not be able to stand the popular stuff much longer. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the people on this forum have gone through this enlightenment because I know that I have.

That being said, do I think it's right? No, not at all. I argue with my friends about their horrid music taste all the time. But it's a losing battle. Opeth is a music lovers band, because those are the type of people that will actually take the time to appreciate how good it is. The great thing is, once you have, it is probably one of the most satisfying music experiences.

I also think that's why Opeth gets a small amount of love from critics. They obviously have a passion for music, and like I said, although their ear is trained to review things for the peon masses, they doesn't mean the part of them that loves music for being artful isn't there. They just don't make a big deal out of it in fear of losing creditability.

 

[Wander]

You know, I think you have a point there although I'm still not sure if it's just to call Opeth one of the best bands ever.

By your "canon" concept, I suppose you mean those bands that reached near-legendary status in history (ie. The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and whatever).

Do I think Opeth will ever belong that league? Ehm... No. They simply don't sell enough. In the end, all the bands that have reached that kind of status, have been commercially successful, Opeth is not in that level.

And when it comes to internet, all it does is making it easy for people to find music they WANT TO find. Opeth will always be overlooked by people who don't care about the kind of music they are making (and these people come in big numbers).

So yes, I predict that Opeth will be forgotten by most people and you will propably never find Opeth mentioned in the school books. Tough luck.

 

[Chinese Whispers]

Firstly, an interesting and articulate post. They seem to be getting rare on message boards (admittedly because most of them have already been discussed and all we have left to write about is...well, Mendez's hair cut).

I do think your summation of Opeth is a bit 'gushy' thought (the whole 'one of the best bands ever'). Obviously your opinion, no problems. For the most part I agree with Wander's comments. Certainly Opeth are great at what they do, but they certainly haven't had the impact and imfluence (as well as the comemrcial success, and that certainly plays a part) of the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix (and others). Even looking at heavy metal, the bands that will be most looked at will probably be Metallica and maybe Iron Maiden (not counting Black Sabbath, because they are just as much a part of rock as metal).

I must admit I don't spend to much time being pre-occupied about whether people like or appreciate the same music as I do, or 'recognise its geniousness' like so many younger metal fans seem to get all worked up about. Yeah, I'm generalizing here but there is some truth in it, especially judging by some recent threads here - the 'introducing your friends/family/music teachers etc. to Opeth and getting them to appreciate - and the isn't anything wrong with that but it is just not something I worry about.

 

[Reelo]

If someone does start to critically look at the (radio) music from a standpoint of it being something beautiful and artful, they would not be able to stand the popular stuff much longer.

I couldn't agree more with you here, but the funny thing is, a lot of people who dig "Top 50" music and buy compilation CDs of said music actually think that kind of stuff is all great, and artistic. "Oh look how good Rhianna can sing!" or "Wow those beats are really intricate!" Yeah, right, Rhianna can't sing shit without Auto-tune pitch correction, and those drum-beats are programmed.
To all of those sheep, their music is art, and "our" music, so to speak, is incomprehensible, mindless noise, or the songs are too long, or not catchy enough or whatever.

I just hate these people.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

Popular music is not being produced as rapidly thanks to people stealing on the internet, those so called artists motives is money and only money. Only bands with true artists who strive for art will live. Bands who can play well live, sell merchandise, make good records, and be cool with fans will be the survivors in an age of Internet Entertainment theft Terrorism.

People don't realize they are ending bands careers with all the theft going on, like said before ...

MANKIND WILL DESTROY HIMSELF!

 

[Tom_Vou]

so you are suggesting that the critical failure of opeth is that they aren't mainstream enough to be recognized 100 years from now? (im not saying this in a condescending tone, but more of a thoughtful one, like in a socratic kind of way)

 

[Crackfare]

I often wonder if there's a chance that a band with such radical (from mainstream/midstream perspective) sound as Opeth will ever get well deserved recognition and be anthologized as one of the best bands ever. So far it is not the case, obviously. Bands like Opeth do get recognized in critic circles (just read the closing sentence of Ghost reveries AMG review, awesome), they're not utterly misunderstood, BUT these praises go to strictly limited borders. Pretty much nobody dares to explicitly call any of O's albums a "master-piece", or "one of the best albums ever". And while this critical cautiousness might be professional and generally recommended, it may also prove to be conformist and restricting; in any case, i think it is not sufficient, and there has to be more to being a great critic - there has to be some courage to challenge the established system of values. I just think narrowing it all down to some "classic" 60's-70s bands, and relegating the rest of the rock to footnote status or describing it as "decadence" would be incorrect and terribly unjust.

Of course, i'm not talking about some weekly "top 100" top list, one of those lists that flood the industry magazines and can serve as a sort of promotion at best, but about an important critical selection which will have decisive impact on musical taste and aesthetic evaluations of the future. In a long run this thing with institutions and "judges of taste" proves to be crucially important when it comes to forming a canon of any period. Being "underground" and "alternative" is very cool and recommended right now, but being on the list is what makes the band "eternal". I am sure all of us here agree that any future rock (wtf, not just "metal") anthology without Opeth would be very lacking, and even misleading, so long as you wish to hear a selection of highest and finest art-music achievements in rock history.

So, could it be, will injustice happen, and a band like Opeth get lost, forgotten, in favor of ... well, whichever band. Or will the internet era perhaps put it all to halt and open multiple possibilities where nothing can be lost or overlooked nor set in stone and thus the whole "canon" concept needs to be revised or even completely abandoned?

No.

 

[NobodyImportant]

The mainstream audience (raido listeners, mtv watchers, media whores) only really listen to music at surface value. This is, in my opinion, why the majority of popular music is so simple and boring. This majority of listeners don't care enough about the music to analyze it, and rather have it on the background while they drive to work, socialize, and whatever else. If someone does start to critically look at the music from a standpoint of it being something beautiful and artful, they would not be able to stand the popular stuff much longer.

Generally speaking, there is some truth there, but it's not an iron-clad argument at all. There are people who are more analytical with music and like more artistic music, but they don't all just automatically throw out all of the popular music too.

There's popular music that annoys me to no end, but there's some that I really like. And I can say the same about the more "artsy" music too. Everyone has his/her own taste, and I like what I like because I like it, not because it is or isn't popular or is or isn't prog or whatever. So, if I want to listen to Opeth and then Seether, what's the big deal?

 

[Chinese Whispers]

so you are suggesting that the critical failure of opeth is that they aren't mainstream enough to be recognized 100 years from now? (im not saying this in a condescending tone, but more of a thoughtful one, like in a socratic kind of way)

It's a flow on effect. So basically the people getting recognition now will be the ones who get remembered because they will always be prominent - for example, in a hundred years people like Michael Jackson, the Beatles, Nirvana, etc. will stand out because they had a large influence, commercial success and relative critical success in as much as they redefined the style of music they played, and were recognized for it not simply after the fact, but also during the time they were active artistically. It is a sad reality, yes that more of the critically lauded though less commercially successful artists get overlook but that is how it works. Why are composers such as Mozart and Beethoven remembered? Not necessarily because they were musical deity but because their compositions were popular and hugely influential.

Truth is though, if you are worried about 'being remembered' then you aren't really focusing on being artistically forward thing as such, because it is the kind of success and longevity that you simply can't manufacture - even though a lot of the pop-baiting kvltists would like to think that.

 

[Tom_Vou]

I agree with you chinese whispers.

i wouldn't call it a critical failure, opeth is opeth, its not something that they are lacking musically as a band, its just that most people automatically discount it because of the stigma attached to the growling that is in most opeth songs. too bad for them.

sure they wont be as big as the beetles, but then again, who cares? I'll like them for as long as i'm alive, ill probably let my children have a listen to see what they think, and so on. even the beetles and mozart wont last forever.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

so you are suggesting that the critical failure of opeth is that they aren't mainstream enough to be recognized 100 years from now? (im not saying this in a condescending tone, but more of a thoughtful one, like in a socratic kind of way)

they have a cult following that is rapidly growing, surely they will be millionaires someday because thats usually what happens to brilliant song writers. Jerry GARCIA could tell you about that.

 

[Yaow!]

I think there's one big reason why Opeth will never be fully accepted into the mainstream. The mainstream audience (raido listeners, mtv watchers, media whores) only really listen to music at surface value. This is, in my opinion, why the majority of popular music is so simple and boring. This majority of listeners don't care enough about the music to analyze it, and rather have it on the background while they drive to work, socialize, and whatever else. If someone does start to critically look at the music from a standpoint of it being something beautiful and artful, they would not be able to stand the popular stuff much longer. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the people on this forum have gone through this enlightenment because I know that I have.

That being said, do I think it's right? No, not at all. I argue with my friends about their horrid music taste all the time. But it's a losing battle. Opeth is a music lovers band, because those are the type of people that will actually take the time to appreciate how good it is. The great thing is, once you have, it is probably one of the most satisfying music experiences.

I also think that's why Opeth gets a small amount of love from critics. They obviously have a passion for music, and like I said, although their ear is trained to review things for the peon masses, they doesn't mean the part of them that loves music for being artful isn't there. They just don't make a big deal out of it in fear of losing creditability.

I completely agree with this post.
But I must add that I honestly have no problem with Opeth never gaining mainstream popularity, I like the idea of having a small group of "musical intellectuals" following the band, rather than big mindless masses.

 

[To rid you disease]

I completely agree with this post.
But I must add that I honestly have no problem with Opeth never gaining mainstream popularity, I like the idea of having a small group of "musical intellectuals" following the band, rather than big mindless masses.

:zombie:

 

[Wander]

Yeah, isn't it cool to be recognized as a "musical intellectual" by listening Opeth?

 

[Chinese Whispers]

Yeah, isn't it cool to be recognized as a "musical intellectual" by listening Opeth?

But only when we stroke our chins or stand at the back with our arms crossed. :Smug:

 

[hexwind]

especially judging by some recent threads here - the 'introducing your friends/family/music teachers etc. to Opeth and getting them to appreciate - and the isn't anything wrong with that but it is just not something I worry about.

What if you can't stand stupid comments about your music in a society that doesn't know about Metal/Rock yet it still insulting both you and your music for no reason !! ?
That's what happened to me, oh well, been ages i haven't get such shits coz i don't go to university (where i get such comments ) anymore

 

[Chinese Whispers]

What if you can't stand stupid comments about your music in a society that doesn't know about Metal/Rock yet it still insulting both you and your music for no reason !! ?
That's what happened to me, oh well, been ages i haven't get such shits coz i don't go to university (where i get such comments ) anymore

That's just life. Doesn't matter what you like, someone hates it for inexplicable reason. It has never really bothered me that people haven't liked it, quite the opposite, usually that is the desired effect, hehe. But jokes aside, why would it bother me if people say the music I listen to (or anything else I do for that matter) is stupid? It makes me happy and that's all I really care about (even though it sounds self-centred, at least I can admit it to myself).

I don't need some kind of validation from other people, or some sense of belonging to something important or bigger than myself. My main point on this subject being why bother worrying about how something will be remembered? And as for perceived 'stupid comments', why does it matter if they 'stupid' and you know better.

 

[Rude Boy Stig]

Chinese Whispers, you are a wise man (or woman).

 

[SerenityNow!]

they have a cult following that is rapidly growing, surely they will be millionaires someday because thats usually what happens to brilliant song writers. Jerry GARCIA could tell you about that.

You get a gold star!!
Although the lyrical credit should go to Robert Hunter, who wrote 90% of Jerry's songs. Yes, I'm a Dead fan!!


Back on topic, however, these are all fine posts in a good thread. I would just like to point out that bands like Black Sabbath were not "one of the best bands of all time" back in the '60s and '70s (or '80s for that matter). But they are regarded as such now-a-days. My point is this status, if ever reached, takes a long time to achieve for those who deserve it.