Do Opeth fans like bands such as the Stones, Beatles, etc?

[SoundMaster]

I think I already know the answer: NO, most Opeth fans are probably NOT into these two bands.

Is this true? Does anyone here recognize the greatness of either of these two, or of similar 60s/early 70s (non-prog) bands?

Do you like them?


Just wonderin'.....

 

[svenske kocken]

I sure do. I love most music from the sixties. Especially Beach Boys!

 

[Thanatopsis123]

Nope. Not enough complexity in most of that crap. Also I find little emotion showing through (except of course for Paint It Black of course). Beatles...hate 'em. Stones....don't exactly dislike them.

I like emotion, power, motivation, technicality, and testosterone in my music. I get that from Death metal. Nowhere else.

This reminds me. A great book to read is "Metal, Rock, and Jazz" by Harris M. Berger. It focuses mostly on the anthropological study of death metal in post-industrialized America. Great book.

 

[Satori]

I think the Beatles were the fathers of drug fueled prog rock.

 

[LordPaul]

I don't think what I like is really a factor defined by singular styles.

I like most styles of music & all kinds of bands, from old rock like Sabbath & Zeppelin, through the 60/60s prog like ELP, Floyd, Atomic Rooster, 'classic' rock like the Beatles, Stones, Who & most stuff in between right up to modern day stuff from Indie (Blur, Super Furry Animals) through trance & Nu metal (Disturbed, SOil,) into Metal (Metallica, Slayer, Zakk Wylde, Paradise Lost, etc) & the heavier stuff such as Carcass, Obituary, Six Feet Under & the more gothic metal such as Opeth, Katatonia, Lacuna Coil, The Gathering, Nightwish, etc.

& that's only a small example. I think everyone's entitled to their own taste, no matter how restricted or open. One thing I do believe is that the better bands are the ones who have managed to progress over time (Anathema, Opeth, Paradise Lost, Metallica) than those who have been stuck in a style (Megadeth, Slayer, Iron Maiden)

 

[Heliologue]

i hate people who equate an important cultural status with good music.

just because the beatles, the doors, the stones, u2, etc etc etc were famous, or even important, doesn't make them good.

 

[Lethal01]

I can appreciate what both bands where about, and respect them for it. Nothing I put in my cd-player though, but nothing I have anything against either..

 

[LordPaul]

Originally posted by saturnix
i hate people who equate an important cultural status with good music.

just because the beatles, the doors, the stones, u2, etc etc etc were famous, or even important, doesn't make them good.

Doesn't make them bad either, it's all a matter of opinion, and especially with the Beatles who have such a wildly divergent back catalogue of styles that there is pretty much something for most in there. Although I hate a lot of their earlier stuff, I love Sgt Peppers LHCB & the White Album

 

[Monsterxman]

I try to never limit myself to one genre... otherwise I'd be missing out on a lot of great music.

With that said: I love the Beatles... they were actually all decent musicians, but even better songwriters, and every member could actually sing quite well (Ringo is debatable... lol)... Not too many bands are this talented today...

In fact, I can't really think of any band today that had as much creative energy going on as the Beatles did in the 60's and 70's. I guess that's what happens when you have 4 guys dropping acid and each writing music. The good bands today seem to be for the most part the mastermind of an individual, not an entire group.

 

[Manbient]

Not aso big into most bands of the style... but the Beatles i have to say DID have some really really great stuff,i can see why there has been hype for 40 years haha, i do tihnk it was excellent. The Stones... i don't like them so much though.

 

[SoundMaster]

Originally posted by saturnix
i hate people who equate an important cultural status with good music.

just because the beatles, the doors, the stones, u2, etc etc etc were famous, or even important, doesn't make them good.

This is a cool statement. But the flipside, of course, is that they probably wouldn't garner such attention & adoration is they didn't possess something special.
Of course, the "pop" element (bandwagon fans, etc.) really leaves something to be desired.

 

[IcemanJ256]

I think beatles, stones, and beach boys are all extremely overrated..hyped up by the record companys so they can be rich. i havent heard like whole beatles or stones albums properly, but I'm defanately not interested in doing so. beach boys I have, and i think they are god awful, there music makes me puke.

 

[SoundMaster]

Originally posted by IcemanJ256
I think beatles, stones, and beach boys are all extremely overrated..hyped up by the record companys so they can be rich. i havent heard like whole beatles or stones albums properly, but I'm defanately not interested in doing so. beach boys I have, and i think they are god awful, there music makes me puke.

Again, record companies can hype up anything, but that, in & of itself, won't exactly translate into millions of sales.

If a major label had signed - Deicide, for example, a simply "hyped them up", do you think they'd be as big as the Stones, or even as big as Creed??! I highly doubt it.

Anyway, I despise the Beach Boys as well. I find their music to be simple "music by numbers" nonsense. Believe it or not, the Stones & later-era Beatles is anything BUT that. In fact, the Beatles last 2-3 records really were "progressive" at that time.

As for the Stones, the period of '68-'72 was, what I call, their "golden era". It's when they composed ALBUMS, as opposed to just 'singles'. This period consists of a great mix of folk/blues/rock/gospel, etc. There's some really dirty, doomy blues on these records. And some dark, sinister stuff as well.

I'm a proponent of the fact that each band's influences shape who & what they are today (obviously). In translation, without the Stones/Beatles, etc., there'd be NO Opeth.
Simply trace back Opeth's influences & find out what those bands' influences were!

Great Stones albums:
'68: "Beggar's Banquet"
'69: "Let it Bleed"
'71: "Sticky Fingers"
'72: "Exile on Main Street"

And, of course, IMO, Led Zeppelin (moreso than Sabbath) is the truest "father of metal".

 

[Blackhorse_Experience]

I love The Beatles. I have a John Lennon tattoo...

 

[O'blivion]

Originally posted by saturnix
i hate people who equate an important cultural status with good music.

just because the beatles, the doors, the stones, u2, etc etc etc were famous, or even important, doesn't make them good.

i agree 100%. i actually quite despise the beatles and stones. the beatles are simply the most successful corporate pop band to date. the fact that, as corporate puppets, they could churn out an endless stream of easily digestable tunes, does not in any way mean that they possessed a gram of talent. they have made billions for the industry and continue to do so to this day (with marketing ploys such as the "One album" that they released a couple years back). it also bothers me to see these puppets elevated to god status on top of a bottemless stack of money, while REAL artists, like for instance Opeth, still have to work day jobs to pay the bills.

 

[SoundMaster]

Originally posted by O'blivion
while REAL artists, like for instance Opeth, still have to work day jobs to pay the bills.

Yes, real artists have to work day jobs. And it's sad. But is it the Beatles fault that the average person simply can't or won't give bands like Opeth a listen?
Do you think that 37,986,290 people would actually appreciate death vox?
If there was MONEY to be made, you could bet your life that MYV & major labels would be jumping to sign & promote bands such as Opeth & Emperor, etc. But there isn't. There's a very small, isolated market for this great music, sad as that is.

Heck, the average person cant really appreciate classical music, which, although not "death", is very closely related to what Opeth does.

The Beatles may have been popular, but I feel that they came BEFORE what we now know as "pop". Listen to "Sgt Pepper"
& then see if you still feel that it's "pop".
And should talented musicians who have a knack for melody be crucified because millions adore their music?

 

[ProgMetalFan]

Originally posted by O'blivion
i agree 100%. i actually quite despise the beatles and stones. the beatles are simply the most successful corporate pop band to date. the fact that, as corporate puppets, they could churn out an endless stream of easily digestable tunes, does not in any way mean that they possessed a gram of talent. they have made billions for the industry and continue to do so to this day (with marketing ploys such as the "One album" that they released a couple years back). it also bothers me to see these puppets elevated to god status on top of a bottemless stack of money, while REAL artists, like for instance Opeth, still have to work day jobs to pay the bills.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[IcemanJ256]

Originally posted by SoundMaster
Again, record companies can hype up anything, but that, in & of itself, won't exactly translate into millions of sales.

If a major label had signed - Deicide, for example, a simply "hyped them up", do you think they'd be as big as the Stones, or even as big as Creed??! I highly doubt it.

Not that big, but they'd make deicide change their sound so it sounds like pop metal, like slipknot/mudvayne, and they'd be about that big.

 

[SoundMaster]

Originally posted by O'blivion
they have made billions for the industry and continue to do so to this day (with marketing ploys such as the "One album" that they released a couple years back).

For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain that the Beatles themselves don't even control the rights to their own songs (I believe Michael Jackson purchased the rights).
The "One" album may be a marketing ploy, but it was the record company's ploy - not McCartney, Harrison, or Starr's.

By the way, since we're speaking of marketing ploys, how 'bout the Opeth "remasters" (of their Candlelight albums) or the "Special Edition" of "BWP".

 

[ham]

and releasing damnation months later so it doesn't affect sales of deliverance?