Raoul J.
Member
What?
Nile better than Opeth? I can read no more.
btw, I think they're close but not the best. I like Death and Slayer better.
Is Opeth the best metal band at this moment?
- Thread starter Despot
- Start date
What?
Nile better than Opeth? I can read no more.
btw, I think they're close but not the best. I like Death and Slayer better.
D Mullholand
[project closed]
DISCLAIMER: 100% SUBJECTIVITY GUARANTEED.
Opeth are the highest metal band on my favourites list, so I voted YES.
Opeth just ARE. I could point out lots of "flaws" in their ways of music composition, and sometimes I wish that they finally transcend the limitations of riff-based/metal music. But they chose to develop within the repetitive riff paradigm, and at this moment they have developed the unyielding metalloid frame to the level of true art. There were failures in the past (Morningrise), where they were just making some "nice music" that for me failed to be something more than that without the internal logic that connects the seemingly unrelated riffs/images on the later albums. Yet now I think Opeth are finally self-aware and firmly in control of their formula (yes, there is a definite formula) and can bend it to their will. So now they can include simple riffs/melodies, and more repetitive sections, and it does work within the context of the songs.
Opeth have always been much more to me than just a genre band. They are sort-of minimalistic (as in based on repetition) in their way of constructing music to form these vivid pictures, and the dynamics work on a much higher level than the usual metal "heavy/ballad" switch. And when you take this approach as a given and unchangeable one, the best way out is to condense as much emotional and visual content within a single riff as possible. They have succeeded.
AC's statement that Opeth portray only sorrow is short-sighted and seems (to my eyes) to be an indication of his lack of ability to listen to music creatively. I could be wrong though, because I don't know him personally. But one listen to "Serenity Painted Death", for instance, will make you feel a thousand contradicting emotions, all within the logic of the musical/lyrical story. That is, unless you're afraid of being involved in the music. Sorrow is only one of the many components. To reduce Opeth to this sort of one-dimensionality is just plain off-mark.
There are lots of "objectively" better bands/artists/composers in other genres, but Opeth are still the best metal band.
D Mullholand
Opeth are the highest metal band on my favourites list, so I voted YES.
Opeth just ARE. I could point out lots of "flaws" in their ways of music composition, and sometimes I wish that they finally transcend the limitations of riff-based/metal music. But they chose to develop within the repetitive riff paradigm, and at this moment they have developed the unyielding metalloid frame to the level of true art. There were failures in the past (Morningrise), where they were just making some "nice music" that for me failed to be something more than that without the internal logic that connects the seemingly unrelated riffs/images on the later albums. Yet now I think Opeth are finally self-aware and firmly in control of their formula (yes, there is a definite formula) and can bend it to their will. So now they can include simple riffs/melodies, and more repetitive sections, and it does work within the context of the songs.
Opeth have always been much more to me than just a genre band. They are sort-of minimalistic (as in based on repetition) in their way of constructing music to form these vivid pictures, and the dynamics work on a much higher level than the usual metal "heavy/ballad" switch. And when you take this approach as a given and unchangeable one, the best way out is to condense as much emotional and visual content within a single riff as possible. They have succeeded.
AC's statement that Opeth portray only sorrow is short-sighted and seems (to my eyes) to be an indication of his lack of ability to listen to music creatively. I could be wrong though, because I don't know him personally. But one listen to "Serenity Painted Death", for instance, will make you feel a thousand contradicting emotions, all within the logic of the musical/lyrical story. That is, unless you're afraid of being involved in the music. Sorrow is only one of the many components. To reduce Opeth to this sort of one-dimensionality is just plain off-mark.
There are lots of "objectively" better bands/artists/composers in other genres, but Opeth are still the best metal band.
D Mullholand
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
I always understood that, you'll notice I haven't attacked anyone based on their musical preferences...
Demonspell
cheating the polygraph
Excellent post, Mulholland...especially the parts concerning's Opeth's emotional range and the brilliance of their song structures.
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
Even classical music is "riff based" in the sense that it is constructed around repeated musical phrases. With the exception of some varieties of experimental jazz and relatively primative forms (such as chant), virtually ALL music is riff based. Where Opeth perhaps limits themselves is in their tendency to make heavy use of circular patterns of arrangement rather than more open ended linear patterns. This is by no means a requirement of metal (there have been several metal bands who utilize the evolving linear arragement styles typical of of classical, fusion and free jazz), and I think this is what you're really getting at. It's not a question of riff based music versus non-riff based music, it's a question of circular vs. linear compositional techniques.
I strongly disagree here, Opeth is NOT minimalistic, their music is fairly embellished. They rely on a relatively complex approach rather than on conveying their message purely through repetition.
I strongly disagree here as well. Opeth leans heavily on overt contrast, rather than on long, drawn out crescendo/decrescendo passages. Though overall their sound derives much from Romantic music, in this one facet at lleast they pull from the Baroque tradition of starkly "terraced" dynamics.
Whereas I see this as one of their biggest failings, as they neither present interesting and powerful riffs, nor do they generally increase the impact of the individual riffs with dynamic variation over the duration of those riffs.
I said that this seems to be the dominant emotion of much of their music, and is certainly the one they portray most effectively. When they stray beyond it's bounds, their music tends to take on a degree of artificiality. This seems to be largely due to their fairly monochromatic riffing style. Because they don't vary construction of the individual riffs much, they are forced to rely quite heavily on accoustic passages, variation in vocal style, etc. to create varied moods. All very effective techniques when used in moderation, but when used almost constantly as Opeth does, the result is gimmicky and contrived rather than genuine.
Funny, I find this a classic offender in the "gimmicky and contrived" department. Opeth is at their most effective when maintaining a relatively simple approach (see "Benighted") or when using variations within the riffing style to vary the emotional approach of the song, rather than relying solely on other techniques (see "Demon of the Fall").
I can sympathize with what you've written about Opeth, but what you write is their weakness, I find is their strength. There's plenty of "factual" elements in Opeth's music across their albums and within the songs themselves that clue me in to the idea that what's being listened to is not unintelligent. That somewhere within each song, there is a real and visible coherence driving it. It's not obvious (you say it's tenuously coherent), but this isn't a deficiency. It's a part of their strength and strucuture of aesthetic, and the reason why Opeth takes more than a few listens, ruminations, reflections, before this sense and coherence solidifies into something undeniable.
Everytime I pop in MAYH, listen to its tranquil prologue, how this seems to swoon into a musical drama, prefaced by a chant, I get chills. (Then of course, there's the raucous ending of Karma and how this seeps seamleslly into the mourning of Epilogue.) The sense there is in their songs- and across songs in an album- is not conspicuous, but then again, there is a definite, solid, and concrete sense there. Being "conspicously coherent" is not a neccesary condition for an album to be considered good or great. You have misconstrued the music in accordance to unneccesary personal intuitions- which I sympathize with. But in effect you preclude enjoying Opeth on its own grounds.
To any undiscriminating listener, relative to the immediate "experience" of other bands and other albums, Opeth's music might seem crude or "unfinished" or "tenuously coherent" in some way, granting your perception of the music. But I think we're dealing with a different form of art, and you have, it seems, misplaced Opeth's music under a criteria that misidentifies its "logical identity", ie., that which unites and makes the music emotionally meaningful at all WHEN it is emotionally meaningful. To give an analogy, Ferrari's are pretty damn great cars, but they make for horrible boats. If you misplace a thing outside its obligate environment, you will misunderstand it. This is a somewhat obtuse way of identifying the fact that all too often when people evaluate works of art they often do so by unnecessary and unbinding principles and criteria. They in essence stricture it. One person might say "Opeth is too soft or romantic" Another might say "they're not hooky enough", or "not death metalish enough" or "not folksy enough" or epic enough, or meandering enough, and denounce the music along those lines. Very simply, people a priori seek out things in music, and will perceive music in accordance to those intuitions, the inherent modus operandi being, verbalized, "is the music doing what I want it to do?"
It's clear you have a pre-conceived notion for what counts as "intelligent" music writing and album-crafting. You seem to think that if an album, or a song, is not "coherent" in the sense that it is *clearly* united and driven by some kind of seamless narrativity- of emotion, lyrics, rhythm, or whatever else- then it is not intelligent. This might be a fallacy. You may have construed- strictured- your perception of Opeth's music by a completely provincial calculus. Opeth is misunderstood and, in effect, you're only revealing what is a personal taste. All music, whatever its genre, whatever the band, has to be understood relative only to itself, completely, stubbornly, on its own grounds (in dialogue with universal aesthetic intuitions), and not in relation to stubborn expectations, often only personal in nature.
My suspicion arises. Initially I thought I'd delve into a purely aesthetic conversation using your post on Opeth's music as a mere platform. But I find something too imminent to ignore; namely, more and more it seems that you are among the class of *in*discriminating folk who haven't really appreciated Opeth. Dismissals of Opeth's albums as "unfinished" is fine by me, so long as they come from a person whose apperception of Opeth's music is a visibly comprehensive one. But I begin to doubt you've ever truly bothered to explore and appreciate (sympathize, empathize, enjoy, see the absolute worth of) what you criticize. (this is made even more evident in your recent post to D Mullholland)
Following this, a few questions: How do you regard Opeth's albums, each of them, seperately? In what ways, would MAYH or Still Life be unfinished? relative to what principles? what sensibilities? What about individual songs-- the night and silent water, bleak, demon of the fall, moonlapse vertigo, nectar, in mist she was standing, drapery falls? Are these crudely composed songs, tenuously coherent, devoid of memomorable riffs? Is the experience of Orchid a fragmentary one? one that fails to embody, to consume? If your answer is "yes," again, relative to what principles, what sensibilities? And how are these meaningful or more than just a form of subjective denotationalizing on your half? Have you really appreciated Opeth's music?
MAYH and Still Life as albums, start to finish, have always given me a sense of cohesion, a consumate experience. Whether I like the music or not I wouldn't be able to deny the fact that they are concept albums. It's in the lyrics, in the story and the music as an accoustic narrative pushing the story. As for individual songs, I still can't "get into" songs like advent. Sometimes I feel it hovers too long. Yet my reasons for disliking a song may be another's reasons for liking. Serenity Painted Death has some of the most intelligent drumming there is any Opeth song, with riffs that are very eventful, and which evince a very wide range and diversity of emotions. Is SPD an exemplar of an Opeth song composed of forgettable "artificial" riffs placed in a tenuously coherent scheme? And how can this be, given the fact that SPD is "transpiring" in accordance to a story, human actions, human drama that have progressions and a coherence of their own? To call these "incoherent" would be factually invalid. Granted, MAYH and Still Life are concept albums, the latter more directly being a linear narrative and exposition of a story than the former. But all Opeth albums, I find, deliver this "cohesion." There is common bond that unites all opeths songs within each album. Something about an orchid song, for instance, that makes it an orchid song etc.
For my tastes, the more "particularized" a song (or album gets) in its color, its emotions, the more quickly I tire of the music; the more obviously a music pretends to be something, the more it cancels out being anything else. The result is a monotony that lasts only for so long. Opeth's strength is that it defies (and I've written this already) being objectified into any one thing. The ways the music can be taken, contextualized, and given meaning is almost innumerable. It's in the music, and at the same time it's outside of it. The staying power in Opeth's music lies in this: it starts off vague, but we're given sense of there being an undeniable intelligence in the songs and their albums. They have to be discovered, and even then they remain open symbols. Opeth doesn't force feed you a meaning. There is something free about the emotion in the music. The music is subtle. To illustrate, only recently have I come to appreciate the beauty there is Moonlapse. (btw, I'm harping on Still Life, because it is the album I've listened to most this week.) I never recognized the pain in the narrators voice and situation, the longing and desperation; how the song, musically, revolves around it, how it ends with a soliloquy "I turned away my eyes.." The riffs that accompanies this moment is not, for me at least, "unmemorable". The song is not tenuously incoherent in the sense that it is not really coherent at all. The sense and coherence is there in the music and outside the music, but it has to be discovered and even, as it were, created. The strength of Opeth's music is that while it conveys, as D writes, a wide range of emotions in music with a very tasteful use of distortion and other tone colors, it does this without being a particular thing. This is the kind of art Opeth delivers. This is why Opeth much more than redefining musical categories, becomes a form of aesthetic in itself- let's call it Opethism. (There are other points I'm missing that I had in mind yesterday. I'll revise and re-edit when i remember.)
Your turn.
Claire's Horror
sperm monster
they're getting a bit too repetitive... actually I can't really stay awake through their last album.
though this matter is pretty subjective, artistically I wouldn't consider Opeth to be not even one of the best bands around. the same formulas can be seen throughout all of their albums, and thus their evolution has never been big deal. they're damming up, that's for sure.
besides, for what I have observed, most of their fan base don't really know the entire spectrum and prefer to remain listening to the same damn sort of things forever. no offense, but that's the deal I've seen with most metalheads anyway.
though this matter is pretty subjective, artistically I wouldn't consider Opeth to be not even one of the best bands around. the same formulas can be seen throughout all of their albums, and thus their evolution has never been big deal. they're damming up, that's for sure.
besides, for what I have observed, most of their fan base don't really know the entire spectrum and prefer to remain listening to the same damn sort of things forever. no offense, but that's the deal I've seen with most metalheads anyway.
More of the same self-oblivion. If you'll remember, you seem to equate any musical conviction favoring Opeth as "naive" and worse. The key word being "fanboy". Not to mention you admitted penchant for being peevish. Peevishness is innately an antagonism-towards-others. And when you combine this with the fact that you're dismissive and abruptly rude about it (i.e. in the fact that you lash out at others), I'd say you have attacked people based on their musical preference. Yes, you are wrong.
**other errors by AC:
1) infantine-- adj; infantile, childish--- NOT ARCHAIC!
2) curmudgeon (in case you actually don't know)-- an ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn notions.
*2* cancels out your above post and claim to innocence.
Raoul J.
Member
My turn? Thanks Evil.
In one sentence Opeth are high-speed Iron Maiden worship with modern black and death metal touches...
Venturing into the dubious realms of emotional rock/metal, Opeth blend the epic romanticism of Iron Maiden with the energetic lust for adventure of hard rock and the racing synchronous tremelo speeds of death metal like At The Gates. Sometimes confusing is this mix of styles which breeds palm-muting strumming riding a stadium rock extravaganza of sentimental riffing in a ballad construction, as if later Sentenced got on stage with Def Leppard and Dismember for a jam.
Musically Opeth falls into whatever category its producer falls; Opeth and Morningrise were very Swano-ish melodic heavy metal at high speed using death metal technique but not compositional ideas, while Blackwater Park sounds like Porcupine Tree on speed, running for their life chased by demonic monsters from Germany.
Roughly from the Göthenberg school of metal, Opeth sustain high speeds and generates myriad simple riffs working over simple melodies in the primitive voices generated. Where At the Gates worked on single riffs and divisions of those, however, Opeth work more within the riff salad paradigm, piling fundamentally different entities within the same rhythmic paradigm.
This produces often disconnective music with room to expand within the bounds of otherwise stable mainstream songwriting. Percussion functions in a jazz-fusion method of keeping a rolling frame of rhythmic reference hanging around whatever figures might appear, abandoning more linear metal styles for more inclusive rock ones. Bass follows guitar instead of drums, and shadows what are at heart musical NWOBHM riffs with the heavy strumming or fast runs that characterize their prog/death/black metal transition.
Your turn now.
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
You don't read emoticons do you? I posted the emoticon
after the the statement you refer to, clearly indicating that it is not to be taken seriously.The ONLY time I've EVER called people fanboys AT ANY BOARD is when they've behaved in a fanboyish manner. To be honest, I don't think I've used the phrase "fanboy" more than once or possibly twice here. Actually, I know I haven't. You'll find the only two times I've referenced the phrase are here: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11586&perpage=30&pagenumber=2 and here: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11449&perpage=30&pagenumber=2 . In both cases, you'll see I'm referring to a very specific sort of behavior, namely the tendency of the fanboy type to claim that detractors of their favorite band aren't intelligent enough to 'get' the music, a standard line among the intellectually insecure. In the future, I suggest your little allegations have some relevance to the facts, hmmmm?
Funny that I don't fit that description then. The only people I've been antagonistic towards are yourself, Lina and Wolff, all people who launched personal attacks upon me. You keep referring to my "self-oblivion,", but YOU'RE the oblivious one, constantly trying to pretend that the antagonism you've received is due to my supposed "peevishness" (which it isn't) rather than to your blatant and unwarranted ad hominem attacks (which it is).
Show me a single instance where I've lashed out at or dismissed ANYONE for something other than a personal attack, friend. Link me to the thread and provide the quote. You can't do it, because I haven't attacked anyone.
As noted above, prove it. All the unsubstantiated allegations you toss out are beginning to grate upon my nerves.
American College Dictionary: infantine adj (archaic)- infantile
Dictionaries are not uniform in what they declare to be archaic. For instance, a quick review of the clearly archaic form "burthen" will show that the American Standard dictionary doesn't refer to it as archaic, while Webster's does. The word had fallen into disuse by the 19th century, however, and is clearly now an archaism. I think it's interesting to note that "infantine" was illustrated with a quote from a Edmund Burke, a man who has been dead since 1797...
Also- curmudgeon n : a crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas
This version fits me better. Crusty, irascible, cantankerous and stubborn certainly describe me fairly well.
I never said I was innocent, just innocent of the things you claim me to be. My more curmudgeonly tendencies in no way transfer the blame for your personal attacks to my shoulders. Sorry dude, but that's not how it works.
AC.. this is paltry, it also doesn't matter. Let's move on.
But about infantine: it's not archaic. I have the same dictionary. And I have webster's. Neither indicate anything. I also see its use in various academic journals, books, news papers (NY Times) and web zines and articles. It's not likely you're right.
On curmudgeon: the second definition indicates nothing about "informed"- which I understood is key to your use.
---
but again, this is paltry. I don't mean to attack you beyond the fact that you've been negative and almost insisted on being so when you first began posting here. If you've reformed your ways, Good.
But about infantine: it's not archaic. I have the same dictionary. And I have webster's. Neither indicate anything. I also see its use in various academic journals, books, news papers (NY Times) and web zines and articles. It's not likely you're right.
On curmudgeon: the second definition indicates nothing about "informed"- which I understood is key to your use.
---
but again, this is paltry. I don't mean to attack you beyond the fact that you've been negative and almost insisted on being so when you first began posting here. If you've reformed your ways, Good.
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
Now you're just trying to prove some sort of vague superiority through taste. Spare us, ok? I seriously doubt I listen to music any less "creatively" than you do. I just have different tastes and preferences (though probably not as different as you think).
In other words, we have different notions of what music should be and accomplish. Now quit hiding behind the fantasy that your notions are better or more creative, they aren't, they're just different. Where you find the greatest beauty in Opeth's meanderings, I often find their music to be something akin to a brilliant but badly edited novel weighed down with dead end tangents and occasional excessive verbosity.
What I believe it comes down to is a difference in how we think and listen. I am an analyst by inclination; I've also been trained to hone that analytical approach to as fine an edge as possible. When I listen attentively to music, I listen in part as an analyst. I come to know the music most intimately through deconstruction and reassembly. Opeth's music doesn't hold up all that well under such circumstances, partly because I don't believe Mikeal ever fully conceptualizes the music before moving on, and partly because I don't think he intends for it to be so refined. Their music has always been most pleasurable to me when less rigorously dissected, functioning best when studied least. In that context, the ephemeral and meandering nature of their music works quite well. They seem to be a band of shadows, and they lose much of their charm when too much light dispels said shadows...
Armageddon's Child
New Metal Member
Mine is an older copy (1950s vintage), so perhaps it has returned to a more common usage. That said, I haven't seen it in any of the journals I take or in any recent monographs. Considering the anachronistic and eccentric bent of most historians, I find it surprising that a choice older word like infantine would go unused, unless it was thoroughly archaic. In any event, it is, as you noted, a rather paltry squabble in the first place.
The key to curmudgeon is "old." People become curmudgeons in part because they have been informed by experience and accumulated knowledge. It's the precondition to that sort of irrascible obstinacy...
never in my life have i heard such a band like opeth, to me they are one of the very best out there.
D Mullholand
[project closed]
You're substituting "riff" for either "motif" or "phrase", or "theme", no ? I'm talking specifically about a clearly defined musical snippet which is meant to be repeated verbatim. The bands which transcended the metal riffology paradigm, are no longer metal, even if they might sound like metal. I don't think of Cynic as a metal band. But to cut the useless terminology argument, I agree with the circular/linear point.
Re: minimalism. Okay, I'll rephrase it - I didn't express my thoughts on this in detail in my original post. I see a definite minimalistic attitude in the way that they choose just the right phrase/riff to loop, so that it sounds good while being repeated verbatim. Yes, they are not completely minimalistic in character, but this particuler moment just reeks of minimalism. Best Opeth example - the end of "Dirge for November".
Terraced dynamics - the way Opeth transfer their music from distorted to acoustic is far beyond the usual metal/hard rock results, and the contrasts are much more powerful and striking.
Definite and eternal disagreement here. In the department of individual riffs I consider Opeth to be, unarguably, the best. The riffs are strong enough that the effect is not weakened even after note-for-note repetition.
Re: sorrow.
Again a disagreement. E V I L has expressed some of my thoughts in an exquisite way, but I'll still add : Opeth have chosen to sculpt their art in this particular way, hence the "formula" complaints from those who don't involve themselves in the music. Your last statement is based on the influence of a certain equation carved in your mind, that "you can't make music like this". I insist that you can, but you can do it with quality (Blackwater Park, Still Life, MAYH, most of Orchid) or you can fail (most of Morningrise). Again, subjectivity. Opeth have chosen their own way, and they have developed it almost to perfection. You may see this as a gimmick - you simply cannot accept that the possibilities and laws of this way. And I'm not the one to claim that it's the perfect way, I'm also not the one to use the token "progressive" as a synonym to music composed the Opeth way ("Yah, Morningrise is their most proggy album cause no riff ever repeats"). I'm also, ahem, bold enough to predict that by the time of the forthcoming double release, Opeth will be already on the way to something entirely different.
Re: Serenity Painted Death
The same about this one. The logic of the story suggests the incoherency of emotions/moods in this song. Since Opeth are using their own methods to portray this, we have this riff-sequence as a result. I think it's one of the most "to the point" moments in the whold Opeth career. Of course, not every single riff on every album is "to the point" or "in its right place". There's still space for perfection, and there are still failures. But there are many more successes than failures.
D Mullholand
Originally posted by Armageddon's Child
I'll tell you what we're missing: gullibility and naivete.
Seriously though, has it ever occurred to you that people have actually heard better music than Opeth?
ive heard better music than opeth, so your point being? (look at the name of the thread please, it said metal not music)
