Getting really sick of discovering rip-offs in Opeth music
- Thread starter sangreal
- Start date
Excellent post, trulho. I agree with almost everything you said, except for the part where you made the distinction between "minor" artists and legnedary bands like Led Zeppelin, and seem to imply that it's more acceptable for a major band to rip off musical ideas than for an unknown one? Or are you just pointing out that people tend to more harshly criticize this kind of "borrowing" when an obscure band is doing the borrowing, and not so much when a major artist does it?
I would just like to add that Mozart, Haydn, Rachmaninov, etc etc have created works that freely borrowed and in some cases ripped of wholesale ideas from other composers, but this doesn't diminish our regard for them. As you said, the creativity can come from breathing new life into old ideas.
Another question: does the attitude of the composer matter? Does it matter whether they intended to pay homage to another work, or deliberately ripped it off because they couldn't come up with any good ideas on their own and hoped that no one would notice? If the musical results are the same, should we care what the intention was?
I would just like to add that Mozart, Haydn, Rachmaninov, etc etc have created works that freely borrowed and in some cases ripped of wholesale ideas from other composers, but this doesn't diminish our regard for them. As you said, the creativity can come from breathing new life into old ideas.
Another question: does the attitude of the composer matter? Does it matter whether they intended to pay homage to another work, or deliberately ripped it off because they couldn't come up with any good ideas on their own and hoped that no one would notice? If the musical results are the same, should we care what the intention was?
Vivören
New Metal Member
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
You laughed out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out out loud?
well not conciously atleast, that's just an excuse that people have learned to live with... and i don't believe in the recycle theory that everything in music has been done.
do you know in how many ways you can combine rythms, tempo, 12 notes and all chord possibilities, beat durations, pitch notes, vibrato, bend, instruments, tunings, effects/sounds.....+ a thousand more things.... i don't, but i can assure that everything has not been done and if you're creative enough, you will come up with something fresh and new...it happens all the time.
RoadKing
The Central Scrutinizer
- Mar 28, 2008
- 454
- 0
- 16
Anyway, what Opeth does is (unless you wanna stubbornly stick to that idea of 100% originality, which is a beginner's attitude, an admirable one, but eventually inadequate) pure magic. Id like to know it all some day, which riffs are original, which are rip offs, and so goes for every detail in every song on every album. Id like to know it all, not for the purpose of spying or hairsplitting, but just for better understanding and putting the pieces together (give me some examples, ill be thankful, im a metal newbie, which Morbid angel's songs i should check to understand Opeth's influences better?).
So, to wrap this up, i think musical talent and quality of music cannot be exclusively measured by «originality» of compositions, nor can this originality be narrowly understood as mere usage of previously unused or unknown combinations of notes and chords. Originality and creativity is also in the art of combining the borrowed elements, having an ear for good ideas in otherwise average songs, putting them together in new unity, using them to your own advantage...
So, when artists dont talk openly about «stealing» from other musicians, i kinda lose respect for them as «humans», but i still judge their music purely by emotional energy it conveys. As for Opeth, they really wear their influences up their sleeve, so their integrity cant be questioned. It might be a little disappointing though to discover that Mikael didnt come up with all the ideas and so, in a way that makes him a human rather than omni-potent god, but at the end of the day, my opinion is that «true» originality is in how you combine all the elements, original and borrowed, and make them co-exist.
Your post, sir, is chock-full of WIN! Very nicely done.
I wish more people would realize this and that it simply human nature to be influenced by your life experiences, that it is impossible to divorce yourself from them entirely and that when we endeavor to "create", that which has come before is such an integral part of who we are that we can't help on a subconscious level (some on an admittedly more conscious, deliberate level) to include that in the creative process. Given enough time and research, you could claim "ripoff" to one degree or another on pretty much any work of art!
As truhlo so eloquently pointed out, it is how we combine the elements of our own personal experiences and influences that constitutes our individual creative expression. So-called "originality" when defined in a punctilious manner as the creation of something that has in no way, shape or form come before is a myth; just because you might not immediately recognize the very real Varese, Stravinsky & 50's do-wop influences of an artist as... "original" as Frank Zappa, for instance, doesn't mean that they're not there. When you think about it, you can pick anything apart if you really want to, but doesn't that seem like a whole lot of wasted energy at the end of the day? Just something to think about.
Ah, no, i think it shouldnt be different, everyone can have a shot
And in fact, its often really funny how fans of highly regarded bands will belittle second rate bands and their fans, but will use exactly the same kind of arguments and resort to the very same rhetoric when their band is caught with hands sticky. I think it depends. I for one dont really believe in "homages". When you do a cover, its an homage, and everyone knows it and perceives it as such, but when youre making a new song that will be credited to you, you can either acknowledge the influence beforehand (and thus pay an homage) or quietly rip another artist off. I think that is the point when "intention" really matters. Artists with integrity will generally tell such things in advance (just remember how long before even writing Watershed Mikael made us aware of Scott Walker), or at least wont deny it later, and will in fact do these things intentionally, but without hiding it. Artists who are less concerned with transparency will more likely remain quiet, and even neglectful of the issue until theyre really caught and big fuss arises (say Timbaland). Then they'll hypocritically go for "influence" and "homage" excuses and phrases like "everything has been written before", "theres nothing new", "it must have been subconscious", etc.
On the other hand, it shouldnt be forgotten that in record industry these things are not being discussed in search for truth or some ethical ideal, but rather for financial gain. As soon as you admit you ripped someone off there comes a lawyer knocking on your door asking for "royalties"
Being honest doesnt pay off, literally (if anyone is interested ill be glad to tell the story of The Verve's Bitter sweet symphony, i think its very symbolic - what happens to a guy who tried to be decent)! Maybe thats why theres this tacit consent of not talking until you get caught...And again, if results are great, i think it doesnt matter that much; things do get relative, but good music cant be denied... And if the music's poor, who cares, its just another sad imitator := Maybe that is the key difference between minor and major artists - former will only come up with inferior replicas and latter will manage to transform their influences, or at least enhance the original ideas...
Anyway, i know it sounds morbid, but could you give me some Morbid angel recommends (in relation to Opeth riffs)?
i dont think this is a really simple issue, and it largely depends on your individual perspective
i think in defence of these 'rip off bands' or 'ripped off' riffs, you have to remember that musicians of every caliber, from amateur to professional, enjoy good music. a band might hear a lick from a band and really enjoy it, and may find some way to incorporate it into their own music. most of the time i think they copy the idea behind the lick, rather than just repeating the exact notes and articulations used in the original.
its all about phrasing. whenever i hear a particular lick that i really like, i break it down into its parts, notes, intervals etc, and try playing around with it - improvising with the notes, changing the articulation, adding a change of scale or a chord at a point to make it sound more original and creative. and its no different with professionals, they have certain tastes and try to incorporate their influences and likes into their own style
its hard to draw the line for ripping off another band, as concepts have been used by many bands for years and years. as said before, the power chord, double bass drumming, octaves, growling - you name it, its been done by someone before. maybe a little more specific example: im sure many of you love martin lopez's drumming style, and i do too, but how many of you would say that he is a rip off? he uses a clave rhythm in a fair few of his songs, maybe he ripped it off from bossa nova? no, maybe simply that is just his background and he uses it in his playing now
finally, a band like opeth (i believe) are much more original than alot of music that is floating around in metal nowadays, and if you really do consider them ripping people off, you certainly have the right too, but just bear in mind that if u do, there are far more blatant bands out there with even less musical integrity than opeth that are 'ripping off' licks
i think in defence of these 'rip off bands' or 'ripped off' riffs, you have to remember that musicians of every caliber, from amateur to professional, enjoy good music. a band might hear a lick from a band and really enjoy it, and may find some way to incorporate it into their own music. most of the time i think they copy the idea behind the lick, rather than just repeating the exact notes and articulations used in the original.
its all about phrasing. whenever i hear a particular lick that i really like, i break it down into its parts, notes, intervals etc, and try playing around with it - improvising with the notes, changing the articulation, adding a change of scale or a chord at a point to make it sound more original and creative. and its no different with professionals, they have certain tastes and try to incorporate their influences and likes into their own style
its hard to draw the line for ripping off another band, as concepts have been used by many bands for years and years. as said before, the power chord, double bass drumming, octaves, growling - you name it, its been done by someone before. maybe a little more specific example: im sure many of you love martin lopez's drumming style, and i do too, but how many of you would say that he is a rip off? he uses a clave rhythm in a fair few of his songs, maybe he ripped it off from bossa nova? no, maybe simply that is just his background and he uses it in his playing now
finally, a band like opeth (i believe) are much more original than alot of music that is floating around in metal nowadays, and if you really do consider them ripping people off, you certainly have the right too, but just bear in mind that if u do, there are far more blatant bands out there with even less musical integrity than opeth that are 'ripping off' licks
This riff sounds quite similar to one Opeth riff. Can you figure out which
Funny though, that both this and "Opeth riff" has been released on autumn 2005.
Funny though, that both this and "Opeth riff" has been released on autumn 2005.
Last edited by a moderator:
who the fuck cares it still sounds good not a big deal unless he ripped the whole song but instead he made it his own
Similar threads
