Iconoclast: News/Info Thread
- Thread starter proulxski
- Start date
SymphonyXV
Member
new site on the way
In any case, there's just too much going on with it. Look at the covers of Dark Side of the Moon, Deloused in Comatarium, even Nevermind...there is just one object that gets your attention, whether it be a pyramid, a head or a baby. The Iconoclast cover really doesn't get your attention, it looks like poorly made fan art made by a mediocre graphic artist with only a year's experience.
Detective Clarence Beauregard
Dehumanized
While I don't dislike it as much as you seem to, I do agree. It just doesn't "feel" like Symphony X to me; it's more like a video game. I dig the new "computerized" logo, though, and the SE cover.
If you really want to complain about album prices, what about the inevitable Japanese SE version with the obligatory additional bonus track? Any guesses on what that puppy would land at your front door for?
On the topic of Prog vs Metal:
One of the reasons I like SymX is because of their sound and the individual playing styles. So I like both their proggy stuff and the more straight metally stuff - PL for instance gets regular spinning in my player because I like how they do it, rather than "Urrggghhh it's not prog I hate where they're going." If it happens that someone just doesn't like the music then fair enough; I'd love for them to produce another V just as much as the next SX fan but I'm also happy that I've got PL to listen to.
I liken it it Gary Moore's "Dark Days In Paradise" or Megadeth's "Risk" - both departures from what the artists normally do and got panned as a result. But the simple test is: is it good music? (ok, there are a couple of duds on 'Risk' but in general it's still a good album on its own merits IMO)
OT:
On the topic of Prog vs Metal:
One of the reasons I like SymX is because of their sound and the individual playing styles. So I like both their proggy stuff and the more straight metally stuff - PL for instance gets regular spinning in my player because I like how they do it, rather than "Urrggghhh it's not prog I hate where they're going." If it happens that someone just doesn't like the music then fair enough; I'd love for them to produce another V just as much as the next SX fan but I'm also happy that I've got PL to listen to.
I liken it it Gary Moore's "Dark Days In Paradise" or Megadeth's "Risk" - both departures from what the artists normally do and got panned as a result. But the simple test is: is it good music? (ok, there are a couple of duds on 'Risk' but in general it's still a good album on its own merits IMO)
OT:
The first time I listened to a couple of tracks I was a bit "hmmmm....", but when I first heard the full album on my stereo I changed my mind, it really benefits from quality playback.
Indeed, I think at times people forget all about the fact that Symphony X are a progressive METAL band. It seems like when they show more of their metal side (PL) it pisses people off.
Paradise Lost doesnt stray away from the incepted concept of Symphony X as much as fans make it out to be. The albom cover on the other hand looks very non Symphony Xish but i dont care. I dont ask much for album covers. Its just a picture. All it has to do is look cool and it does.
Prog is King
Member
Indeed, I think at times people forget all about the fact that Symphony X are a progressive METAL band. It seems like when they show more of their metal side (PL) it pisses people off.
Well said. My thoughts exactly. Many people REALLY dislike Paradise Lost. It's like it offends them.
Symphony X play metal as good or better than anyone. The way Michael Romeo writes is so unique.
It's actually very beautiful.
Indeed, I think at times people forget all about the fact that Symphony X are a progressive METAL band. It seems like when they show more of their metal side (PL) it pisses people off.
I don't think most people that say they hate PL really truly hate it. Like me, I believe they do like to hear a more "metal" side of the band; however, it seems as if SyX is just altogether trying to ditch their more progressive side a bit too much. Over the last two albums, which is like almost a ten year time period, they have only shown that they seem to want to try and make their music more appealing to a wider audience. I even remember them mentioning somewhere back before PL came out about how surprised they were at how metal music in the US had been becoming somewhat big again. The Odyssey was where they started to move into a more straight up power metal sound, aside from songs like Accolade II, Awakenings, and the title track of course (Frontiers would have been one too but for some reason they decided to not put it on the album?). PL was just all out power metal really, and I think the most annoying part of it was that Jens Bogren overdid the mix and went too loud or something?
I still think PL is pretty damn good; however, its been like 10 years since V came out, thats 10 years since any real progressive sound has come from the band. I am so happy that the "real" version of Iconoclast is a double album; however, I am scared it will be wasted potential to have a double album that doesn't stray from the typical verse/chorus/verse/chorus/solo/chorus/chorus power metal song strucure at all. It doesn't help my wariness any that Jens Bogren is handling the mixing again either. I also agree that this hollywood guy that did the last two album covers doesn't impress me that much. Neither are horrible but just not that great (Iconoclast SE is a bit better though). Although I have never been too big of a fan of digital art album covers. Aside from some Matias Noren stuff, most just comes off to me as uninspired and systematically made.
Long story short. I don't think most people truly hate a more metal sided sound to SyX; however, most of us love the prog side of the band too and were most appealed at their ability to be versatile throughout songs and albums with these two styles. We haven't heard much of any of this versatility over the last decade and we have been waiting so patiently for it to return we are starting to freak out because we are starting to realize that SyX seems to have no intention to go back to it.
Postulate
Have a nice day! :)
- Jul 17, 2008
- 1,474
- 0
- 36
There's nothing bad about metal in itself - metal doesn't have to have stricter, riff-based song structures to be metal. It's just that it usually does, which is sort of annoying because it's starting to seep uncomfortably into the more 'pristine' prog territory and take it over, undoing the innovations that make prog good. It feels sort of like being a civil rights activist watching the progress turn back into decay and not being able to do anything but watch horrified. Except prog is not as SRS BUSNISSES as civil rights (or is it). In other words, I don't think that the influence of metal and a return to a verse-chorus obsession that the 70's had to work so hard to get out of is helping matters - there are a million rock genres that do that, and that's great, but at least let us have our one that doesn't, because it's all we have and it's disappearing.
I think it's actually a good thing that on Paradise Lost Symphony X strayed away a bit from the prog metal sound they have become known for. After a while a band's well-known own style can grow tiresome to listen to. Take Ayreon for example, or Dream Theater. Or even Porcupine Tree. Each of these bands have released quite a few albums and the albums of their respective oeuvres are more or less in the same vein. Ayreon and Dream Theater, and to a lesser extent Porcupine Tree, have reached their best-before date. We've heard it all before, it gets boring. With every album Dream Theater released the last six or so years, people started yawning the first time they heard it. DT has become dull, Ayreon even more so. It's become too much of a 'trick'.
Now take the music of Rush. Whether you like them or not, you can't deny the fact that they reinvented themselves quite a few times during their decades-spanning career. This way they kept their sound fresh. With every new album it'll be a surprise what they've come up with. Even after forty years. So I think it's good Symphony X explores the realm of metal and beyond, just for freshness sake. This way the band keeps themselves and their sound inspired.
Now take the music of Rush. Whether you like them or not, you can't deny the fact that they reinvented themselves quite a few times during their decades-spanning career. This way they kept their sound fresh. With every new album it'll be a surprise what they've come up with. Even after forty years. So I think it's good Symphony X explores the realm of metal and beyond, just for freshness sake. This way the band keeps themselves and their sound inspired.
I think another important point to make is that the first 4 Symphony X albums were all basically released only one year apart, they didn't even tour until after Twilight in Olympus. I usually look at those albums as really all being the same sort of sound, there wasn't a lot of time to progress with the sound between releases. Not until V do you really see a significant progression in sound, and then The Odyssey, again, sound completely different, and then Paradise Lost. Once they had a more normal release, tour, write schedule did they actually start progressing in sound. It's probably too bad that the first four albums are all basically the same sound, it may be misleading to a lot of their fans. Just think, you could take all the best songs from the first 4 albums and make just one album, and that would be incredible.
Hope I made sense again.
Hope I made sense again.
man this thread is so full of unfounded condemning of an album no one here has even heard yet. the least some of you can do is just listen to it with an open mind and give it a chance.
What you mean like that one person who said he wasnt impressed with the 3 new live recordings on youtube?
Detective Clarence Beauregard
Dehumanized
SymphonyXV
Member
I like metal just as much as I like progressive, I just don't really like to see them mix too much. I hate when the guitar riff is heavy as hell and the keyboardist gets bored and attempts to try to make a soft melody behind it and it just sounds like fail. There is a great deal of "meh" moments in some SX albums, but it's pretty consistent for the most part. I am not gonna start a rebellion in the streets over PL, but I will probably never spin it ever again in my CD player. Now V on the other hand...
And I am appalled by what the person up top said about Ayreon. 01 sounds like the rest of the albums because they are all interconnected by one story line. They are all pretty much just one huge album. Imagine in Scenes from a Memory if act 1 sounded like Metallica and act 2 sounded like ELP.
Speaking of which, we all know DT hasn't been too interesting lately, but when were they ever without bad songs? The first album isn't popular, the second album is probably their most critically acclaimed, but besides that, people have been complaining ever since except for maybe Scenes from a Memory. I honestly see no shame in finding a formula that works and just using it over and over. That's the problem with coca cola, they can't find the right formula and just use that, they always feel they need to fuck around with it so that it never tastes good.
Way off topic. Anyway, my question to you all is why is the verse/chorus/bridge format expected in every single song on the planet? I bought a few albums from obscure prog metal bands a few months ago and EVERY.SINGLE.SONG. is in the EXACT same tempo, time signature, and everything is intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/solos/bridge/chorus. I know this is the mandatory format for radio, but WHY? How the hell do so many people not get bored from the same exact format and time signature? When will we ever hear a top hit with a strange time signature and absolutely no song structure? When I hear a song with the verse/chorus format, I just want to go insane! :hotjump:
And I am appalled by what the person up top said about Ayreon. 01 sounds like the rest of the albums because they are all interconnected by one story line. They are all pretty much just one huge album. Imagine in Scenes from a Memory if act 1 sounded like Metallica and act 2 sounded like ELP.
Speaking of which, we all know DT hasn't been too interesting lately, but when were they ever without bad songs? The first album isn't popular, the second album is probably their most critically acclaimed, but besides that, people have been complaining ever since except for maybe Scenes from a Memory. I honestly see no shame in finding a formula that works and just using it over and over. That's the problem with coca cola, they can't find the right formula and just use that, they always feel they need to fuck around with it so that it never tastes good.
Way off topic. Anyway, my question to you all is why is the verse/chorus/bridge format expected in every single song on the planet? I bought a few albums from obscure prog metal bands a few months ago and EVERY.SINGLE.SONG. is in the EXACT same tempo, time signature, and everything is intro/verse/chorus/verse/chorus/solos/bridge/chorus. I know this is the mandatory format for radio, but WHY? How the hell do so many people not get bored from the same exact format and time signature? When will we ever hear a top hit with a strange time signature and absolutely no song structure? When I hear a song with the verse/chorus format, I just want to go insane! :hotjump:
Similar threads
