Eve of Seduction, what a horrible song - Analysis

[Ryan M.]

IMO you guys who say it's too much like power metal need to get a cat-scan. SERIOUSLY! It's not ANYTHING AT ALL like power metal. The vocals are far from power. It's prog/Symphonic/EXTRA heavy metal. That's all.

 

[Phanto]

Simply put 99.9% of the people on these forums need to get their heads out of their asses, and stop acting like fucking private school bitches. Go get laid, or workout at the gym instead of tearing some internet noob a new one!

For 99.9% to be a statistic that would exclude you, we'd need a lot more than the ~10 active users on this forum.

 

[Ryan M.]

That means me and you are also. lol. Oh wait that's not a win at all *Covers face in shame*

 

[proulxski]

Or it includes me...No body is perfect! I never claimed to be better than the rest of you. Unlike some of the people on these forums!

 

[Lyre's Harmony]

When you say KoT is better than Serpent's Kiss, I feel like you are taken a stab at KoT... KoT is a Symphony X staple song, and very well done.

agreed. cant believe somone would use king of terrors to compare with songs they find sub par. its a great song!

 

[Ryan M.]

Or it includes me...No body is perfect! I never claimed to be better than the rest of you. Unlike some of the people on these forums!

*Cough* Prismatic Sphere *Cough*

 

[Detective Clarence Beauregard]

King of Terrors is an awesome song. It's so full of CRUSH!

 

[DeanWarBird]

Opinion Opinion Opinion.
I think it's a great song much like the rest of the album, love the solo!

 

[Ryan M.]

Opinion Opinion Opinion.
I think it's a great song much like the rest of the album, love the solo!

YUP!

 

[SymphonyXV]

This makes me want to cry. Eve of Seduction is by far my favorite song on the album. It would definately be in my top 5 SX songs. I understand you don't like it but c'mon, this isn't your blog, this is a fan forum.

EDIT: No matter what SX have released or what they are soon to release, in my opinion you are not a true fan unless you love it all.

 

[Ryan M.]

Right on! Well... unless they do pop. lol. haha!

 

[SymphonyXV]

Right on! Well... unless they do pop. lol. haha!

That'll never happen. The record company knows these guys have been around a long time and that they have a wicked cult following. SX wouldn't be a profitable pop group.

 

[Argentina X]

EoS has a kick-ass riff and a great solo. Besides, the lyrics are fantastic... he's just trying to get laid! C'mon, I bet none of you have ever written a song about it!

 

[SyXified]

By "dissecting" music, I would call it listen and think about every little section, how it sounds, where does it lead to, what can be created next to it, do I have to repeat it or not, how many times do I have to repeat it, etc., the musician creates its ART. I tell you because I have done so when I create my own music, but it's not just me, in fact that's the way a composer works, even the greatest composers like Beethoven, Bach, and why not, Michael Romeo, that's why I found this song non-polished for the high level of passion and "detail attention" from Symphony X that we are used to.
I know it may sound a bit "technical" or "cold" but I can tell you, it's not like that.

I was planning to defend the OP with this exact sentiment, but he beat me to it, so I'll have to settle for giving him the +1.

When writing music, you are making decisions that are extremely technical, or at the very least represent a very conscious and deliberate attempt to inspire a specific emotional reaction; and your efficacy towards this end is quite quantifiable based on how people react. People who try to vaguely define "art" as some intangible floating concept where standards of quality do not apply, where the process of creation is tantamount to a dream-like vomiting of some incomprehensible part of the mind, are not themselves artists. Musical composition can almost entirely be described as a combination of math and purposeful emotional manipulation (which really, when you get right down to it, is just another way of saying: math). Writing effective music involves making intelligent and calculated decisions that are manipulative (e.g. "I want to change the mood here from carefree to more serious, so I'll pivot into a minor key") and mathematical (e.g. "to properly set up this key change within this time signature, I should do X, Y and Z"). As much as some people want to lazy out of a process which requires study and discipline in favor of a horribly ill-supported philosophy that conveniently allows musical composition to devolve into a bunch of people hanging out, smoking pot, and hammering out whatever comes to mind with no attention paid to direction or purpose, the reality is that, like Alf Clausen said, true composition has always been a matter of discipline and craft. In that regard, "dissecting" music to determine its quality--so often treated as such an egregious offense to art--is exactly how music ought to be perceived. A true appreciation of music implies a desire to dissect a song and examine its nature to understand what works, what it accomplishes, and why. People who react on a "gut" level and look no deeper will never understand and appreciate music at the level on which it can, and should, be appreciated.

Also, I should mention that half the board argues that there can be no technical assessment of music because it is art, and the other half that the original assessment is not nearly technical enough. Let that sink in for a moment.