Does Opeth represent for the new generations what Metallica did to the old-school's?

maybe this discussion should take place a few years later, cause I think the impact that opeth has caused to the music can not easily be distingushed, in opposition with metallica's influence; many of the bands mentioned here; such as LOG and trivium, can be easily associated with Metallica, only cause they've been more exposed throughout the years to their music; In other words, Metallica's legacy has been more "analysed" by many of the new-school bands.

I'm sure Opeth's impact to metal music will only be able to be evaluated in the future.
 
^ One god thing about today's Metallica is that at least they've tried to find something new. The only problem is that they've failed every time when doing so. Then there's Iron Maiden who don't change their approach that much on every album and they've never failed that badly (well, the late-90s, but...) for a long period of time.
 
Trivium? First of all, Metallica did real quality music for their time. No need to bash them that much, Trivium is just a copycat of In Flames, and I hope I dont need to add that of lower quality too..

you must be deaf then cos trivium sounds an awful lot like an unoriginal modern metallica, especially the recent two albums (which seems like the style that they're going to stay with).
 
^ One god thing about today's Metallica is that at least they've tried to find something new. The only problem is that they've failed every time when doing so. Then there's Iron Maiden who don't change their approach that much on every album and they've never failed that badly (well, the late-90s, but...) for a long period of time.

There is always going to be a backlash - particularly the more popular a band gets - whether they change or not. Metallica suffered it - even though a lot of people would have you believe they 'knew the black album was shit when they first heard it', truth is most people thought it was great as it was the kind of album most metal fans could rally behind. Opeth is starting to see a similiar thing - although nowhere near the degree that Metallica did, I guess because Opeth haven't climbed as far up the ladder, so-to-speak. It is just bound to happen. Even Maiden were widely frowned upon during the grunge years unless you were listening to them in an ironic, 'wink-wink' sense.
 
No, Opeth just changed their style. Metallica got worse. There's a difference.

changing musical style doesnt mean they got worse. imo black album, load/reload is still great music. i prefer bands changing their style and progressing rather than be like iron maiden (or RHCP :p). this decade metallica again tried to change their sound, but they tried to emulate there prev fast aggressive sound and failed miserably to recreate it, but if the bands sees it as an avenue to make more music no one can stop them. in the end its all about making music fir which the bands dont regret temselves more than the fans imo.
 
I think Opeth really did bring something new into the world of metal around 1994. I would definitely say they did something new and fresh that no one really had done before as good as Opeth did. They have gotten bigger every years since and never really put out a bad album. It's really hard to compare todays era with the era of Metallica. I don't think Opeth really fills the shoes of what Metallica did (and I think it will be hard to do for anyone) but they did open up for a new kind of genre, which I don't see that Trivium, Mastodon and other bands have done.
 
/\/\/\ I'm not exactly sure whether Opeth were as 'original' when they first came out with Orchid as many people would like to remember. Remember that there were bands like In The Woods..., Ulver, and others that were doing a similiar thing. I don't think it makes Opeth's music any less great, but I don't think they are as truly unique as many people would like to make them out to be - because, lets face it, the really great innovators usually are dismissed upon their initial reception for being too different, and it usually isn't until after years of revision that they are truly excepted as being innovative.
 
^ Yes. I think what they've done since Still Life has been has been indeed more influential and original than the first three albums. With Still Life I think Opeth found a style of their own whilst Orchid, Morningrise and MAYH were all more about continuing the folkish metal tradition in Scandinavia back in those days.
 
.... With Still Life I think Opeth found a style of their own whilst Orchid, Morningrise and MAYH were all more about continuing the folkish metal tradition in Scandinavia back in those days....

Maybe that's true, but you have to admit first that in the Orchid and Morningrise era, many of the folkisk Nordic bands' works were pretty sucky. Opeth created great music from the beginning.


Furthermore, I'd like to say that maybe we have to discuss about what "creativity" really means. For me, One band is creative when they use something that was already made in a new context and they do it WELL. The other concept is "Originality" which involves creating something fresh and new without precedents, and that doesn't mean it's gonna turn out great.
 
That's your opinion but those bands are the most popular right now like Metallica, Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax were the most pupular of the genre 25 years ago. I'm not saying they are the best...that's not my point. I just say those bands are the ones that represent the best this generation of metal.

and BTW hetfield voice suck now and Blythe has some of the most powerfull scream right now.

Blythe is what turned me off of LOG. Their music is mediocre at best, but Blythe is fucking boring. They have lots of energy live, but that's the only positive thing I can say about them.

Every Opeth album > Every Metallica album


FOREST OF OCTOBER!!!! :headbang:
 
Maybe that's true, but you have to admit first that in the Orchid and Morningrise era, many of the folkisk Nordic bands' works were pretty sucky.

You're kidding, right? :loco:

Just joking. I think the best folk-tinged metal was around happening then. None of this gimmicky metal bands with accordians and pan pipes.
 
well, maybe you're right...Maybe "sucky" was not the word...I must have been drunk when I wrote that.
 
oh, how I hate typos..

In Flames didnt use those happy synths back then, and just some dashing solos is not enough to discard the similarity. Look at vocal styles, riffing, song structures etc.. If you still insist that it also looks like Metallica musically then I am out of words.. Perception is not universal after all. New American bands are also heavily influenced by Scandinavian bands, so what?

Onto spellchecking, not I though but I thought (its getting childish)

The solos are relevent when the Original arguement was focused on how Trivium's sound was influenced by metallica.

Ill leave you with this from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium_(band)#The_Crusade_.282006.E2.80.932008.29
"This new singing style, along with the band's thrash metal music were criticised of sounding too much like Metallica, who was a major influence on the band"

E.O.S.
 
Rhythm-wise the main riff from masters apprentice reminded me of sad but true when I first heard it.