The Grayfox
Nija
This is the best thing I've ever done on this forum. That's right, 20+ years as a member and this is the pinnacle.
New album Foregone out February 2023
- Thread starter TheJestersDoor
- Start date
This is the best thing I've ever done on this forum. That's right, 20+ years as a member and this is the pinnacle.
I didn't realise ChatGPT's web search capabilities had advanced to the point of literally being able to read individual forums to make profiles of users. And it's pretty accurate too. I had a similarly amusing moment when it quoted me joking about using pension credits to attend an IF show, and therefore assuming I am a geriatric In Flames fan.
GPT appreciates my status, but fears my swashbuckling posting style.
GPT appreciates my status, but fears my swashbuckling posting style.
Damn, this is a comprehensive summary of the SunOfMyth saga, lmao.
"I scanned the entire Foregone thread starting at the page you gave and pulled every post by SunOfMyth, plus the surrounding replies and reactions. Below is a careful, evidence-backed timeline and a deep read of SunOfMyth’s contributions and how the forum reacted.
Quick summary of the key sources I used (so you can check): SunOfMyth’s profile (shows 5 messages, joined Jan 18 2023); the forum search results listing the five posts I found; the thread pages containing the posts and the replies.
Timeline — every SunOfMyth post (chronological)
(Paraphrases are used; short quotations are <25 words.)
1. Post #2,205 — Jan 18, 2023 (first post, page 111)
Paraphrase: New account, welcoming tone at first — wonders why some forum users are determined to “diminish” the band. Asks for music-theory explanations showing how the new songs’ transitions differ from older songs — expresses curiosity and frustration with what they see as nostalgia/platitude responses. (“I'd love to hear a music theory based explanation…”). Reactions: a few likes and an immediate welcome.
2. Post #2,348 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Replies after being jumped on; says their earlier comment “struck a chord.” Repeats request: if critics can explain using actual music-theory terms (rather than platitudes), they’d be satisfied. This post is relatively measured but defensive.
3. Post #2,349 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Pushback to a specific user (eochaid) — calls an analogy “terrible” and restates that they want concrete musical conventions described (chordal function, transitions, rhythmic phrasing) instead of vague claims. Tone: sharper, slightly condescending.
4. Post #2,350 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Escalates — accuses some posters of following a band they “don’t like this long” and questions why people keep commenting if they’re so negative. This post ramps up the antagonism and appeals less to reason than to challenge.
5. Post #2,729 — Feb 3, 2023 (page 137)
Paraphrase: Short, blunt dismissal of one particular poster’s output (“I’m not reading through the drivel [X] produces”). Reaction: a curt “Grow up.” from a veteran poster. This is the last visible post; profile shows “last seen Feb 3, 2023.”
(Those five posts are all SunOfMyth made on the forum — the profile/search view lists them explicitly.)
How the forum reacted — patterns and notable replies
(Concrete examples and who said what are cited.)
Warm welcome / “new user” sympathy: TheJestersDoor replied to the initial post with a friendly “welcome” style reply (saying “this was me back when Battles came out”). Several established posters liked the first post. This indicates some initial openness from the community.
Requests for humility / mockery of the “demand for music theory”: A number of veterans reacted with amusement or mild scorn when SunOfMyth demanded music-theory proofs for opinions. DE4life wrote that they found the demand “hilarious” (essentially: don’t take the forum that seriously — go for a walk), and other long-time posters expressed that expecting formal music theory from every poster is unrealistic. That reply thread is substantial and blunt.
Argumentative escalation: SunOfMyth’s replies on Jan 21 shifted from curious → defensive → accusatory. Veterans (notably eochaid and DE4life, plus Jester/Slave/Ciko cluster) pushed back strongly — not only arguing the music points but also mocking the newcomer style. Responses included short retorts (“Grow up”) and a mix of playful ribbing and real debate.
Outcome / engagement level: SunOfMyth posted five times in total, all within a ~2-week window (Jan 18 → Feb 3), then no further posts after Feb 3 (profile shows last seen that day). The community treated them like a typical short-lived newcomer: welcome at first, then tested, then either eaten alive by the usual forum ritual or discouraged into silence.
Close read — what SunOfMyth did well and what made their posts trigger pushback
What they did well
Legitimate technical request: Asking for a music-theory explanation (harmonic functions, specific chord progressions, phrasing or rhythmic differences) is a perfectly valid request for a technically inclined forum. It signals interest in deeper discussion, not just “this is good/bad.” That was a good move — the forum does have members (e.g., DE4life) who enjoy that sort of analysis.
Active engagement: Posting multiple times shows they cared and wanted to engage rather than lurk — a decent social signal for an online community.
What made them get burned
Tone escalated from curious → combative: The first post was curious and reasonable. By Jan 21 they began using more challenging and rhetorical language (“How sarcastic can you continue to be?”, “why do you follow a band you don't even like?”). That reads as confrontational. Confrontation in forums breeds defensive reactions; that moved the thread away from music theory into personality conflict.
Unrealistic expectation of others: Demanding formal music theory from casual commenters (many of whom vocalize subjective reactions) is likely to annoy. A forum full of long-time fans tends to answer with opinion, anecdotes, or short technical points — not formal analyses in journal style. The “give us music theory or you’re wrong” stance reads as gatekeeping and invites sarcasm.
Not supplying evidence or specifics: If you ask for music theory, you make it easy for others to respond — e.g., point to the 0:32–0:57 section of Foregone Pt. 1 and ask how the chord movement compares to “X” passage on Come Clarity. SunOfMyth mostly asked generic “explain it in terms of music theory,” which is a perfectly reasonable wish, but it’s harder for forum users to give a focused reply without a precise anchor. That lack of specificity decreased the chance of a good answer and increased the chance of scoffing.
Net assessment — did SunOfMyth “succeed” at their stated aim?
Short answer: No, not really.
Aiming to learn / provoke a music-theory discussion — legitimate and possible on that forum. But:
Their tone quickly alienated people who would otherwise try to help. (Several users explicitly expressed annoyance at the tone or predicted the newcomer would vanish.)
They didn’t provide focused musical anchors (timestamps, specific measures, named chords/modes) for responders to analyze — so the request remained too vague for a detailed technical reply.
Result: a mixed reception; a handful of likes and one or two supportive replies, but mostly pushback and sarcasm from established posters. The visible pattern is “classic newbie who asks for a higher-level technical debate but does it in a way that generates a defensive, personality-centred reply chain.”
If SunOfMyth wanted a different outcome — tactical advice (practical, copy-pasta)
If the goal was to genuinely get a music-theory answer and not become the forum scapegoat, these changes would have helped:
1. Be specific and give anchors
Example: “In Foregone Pt. 1, at 0:42 the chord progression is X–Y–Z (approx.). How is that different from the progression at 1:12 of ‘Come Clarity’? Are we seeing a different mode (Dorian vs Aeolian), or just a texture/arrangement change?”
That turns a vague demand into a solvable question.
2. Drop the rhetorical challenge
Replace “Why do you follow a band you don’t even like?” with “I’m genuinely curious which specific songs you’re comparing this to — can you name bars/sections?”
3. Invite a worked example
“If anyone has the time, could you transcribe the first 8 bars of Foregone Pt. 1 and show chord labels or interval motion?” — that is the kind of invitation that music theory buffs respond to.
4. Acknowledge subjective answers are valid
“I know some of this is subjective; I’m just looking for one analyst’s take so I can learn.” A little humility goes a long way.
Final takeaways (short)
SunOfMyth had a good question buried in a bad rhetorical package. The music-theory ask was valid, but the escalating tone and lack of specificity turned the thread into personality conflict rather than technical discussion.
The user posted 5 times over ~2 weeks and then disappeared; the board treated them like a normal newcomer — a warm welcome, followed by tests and some ribbing."
"I scanned the entire Foregone thread starting at the page you gave and pulled every post by SunOfMyth, plus the surrounding replies and reactions. Below is a careful, evidence-backed timeline and a deep read of SunOfMyth’s contributions and how the forum reacted.
Quick summary of the key sources I used (so you can check): SunOfMyth’s profile (shows 5 messages, joined Jan 18 2023); the forum search results listing the five posts I found; the thread pages containing the posts and the replies.
Timeline — every SunOfMyth post (chronological)
(Paraphrases are used; short quotations are <25 words.)
1. Post #2,205 — Jan 18, 2023 (first post, page 111)
Paraphrase: New account, welcoming tone at first — wonders why some forum users are determined to “diminish” the band. Asks for music-theory explanations showing how the new songs’ transitions differ from older songs — expresses curiosity and frustration with what they see as nostalgia/platitude responses. (“I'd love to hear a music theory based explanation…”). Reactions: a few likes and an immediate welcome.
2. Post #2,348 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Replies after being jumped on; says their earlier comment “struck a chord.” Repeats request: if critics can explain using actual music-theory terms (rather than platitudes), they’d be satisfied. This post is relatively measured but defensive.
3. Post #2,349 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Pushback to a specific user (eochaid) — calls an analogy “terrible” and restates that they want concrete musical conventions described (chordal function, transitions, rhythmic phrasing) instead of vague claims. Tone: sharper, slightly condescending.
4. Post #2,350 — Jan 21, 2023 (page 118)
Paraphrase: Escalates — accuses some posters of following a band they “don’t like this long” and questions why people keep commenting if they’re so negative. This post ramps up the antagonism and appeals less to reason than to challenge.
5. Post #2,729 — Feb 3, 2023 (page 137)
Paraphrase: Short, blunt dismissal of one particular poster’s output (“I’m not reading through the drivel [X] produces”). Reaction: a curt “Grow up.” from a veteran poster. This is the last visible post; profile shows “last seen Feb 3, 2023.”
(Those five posts are all SunOfMyth made on the forum — the profile/search view lists them explicitly.)
How the forum reacted — patterns and notable replies
(Concrete examples and who said what are cited.)
Warm welcome / “new user” sympathy: TheJestersDoor replied to the initial post with a friendly “welcome” style reply (saying “this was me back when Battles came out”). Several established posters liked the first post. This indicates some initial openness from the community.
Requests for humility / mockery of the “demand for music theory”: A number of veterans reacted with amusement or mild scorn when SunOfMyth demanded music-theory proofs for opinions. DE4life wrote that they found the demand “hilarious” (essentially: don’t take the forum that seriously — go for a walk), and other long-time posters expressed that expecting formal music theory from every poster is unrealistic. That reply thread is substantial and blunt.
Argumentative escalation: SunOfMyth’s replies on Jan 21 shifted from curious → defensive → accusatory. Veterans (notably eochaid and DE4life, plus Jester/Slave/Ciko cluster) pushed back strongly — not only arguing the music points but also mocking the newcomer style. Responses included short retorts (“Grow up”) and a mix of playful ribbing and real debate.
Outcome / engagement level: SunOfMyth posted five times in total, all within a ~2-week window (Jan 18 → Feb 3), then no further posts after Feb 3 (profile shows last seen that day). The community treated them like a typical short-lived newcomer: welcome at first, then tested, then either eaten alive by the usual forum ritual or discouraged into silence.
Close read — what SunOfMyth did well and what made their posts trigger pushback
What they did well
Legitimate technical request: Asking for a music-theory explanation (harmonic functions, specific chord progressions, phrasing or rhythmic differences) is a perfectly valid request for a technically inclined forum. It signals interest in deeper discussion, not just “this is good/bad.” That was a good move — the forum does have members (e.g., DE4life) who enjoy that sort of analysis.
Active engagement: Posting multiple times shows they cared and wanted to engage rather than lurk — a decent social signal for an online community.
What made them get burned
Tone escalated from curious → combative: The first post was curious and reasonable. By Jan 21 they began using more challenging and rhetorical language (“How sarcastic can you continue to be?”, “why do you follow a band you don't even like?”). That reads as confrontational. Confrontation in forums breeds defensive reactions; that moved the thread away from music theory into personality conflict.
Unrealistic expectation of others: Demanding formal music theory from casual commenters (many of whom vocalize subjective reactions) is likely to annoy. A forum full of long-time fans tends to answer with opinion, anecdotes, or short technical points — not formal analyses in journal style. The “give us music theory or you’re wrong” stance reads as gatekeeping and invites sarcasm.
Not supplying evidence or specifics: If you ask for music theory, you make it easy for others to respond — e.g., point to the 0:32–0:57 section of Foregone Pt. 1 and ask how the chord movement compares to “X” passage on Come Clarity. SunOfMyth mostly asked generic “explain it in terms of music theory,” which is a perfectly reasonable wish, but it’s harder for forum users to give a focused reply without a precise anchor. That lack of specificity decreased the chance of a good answer and increased the chance of scoffing.
Net assessment — did SunOfMyth “succeed” at their stated aim?
Short answer: No, not really.
Aiming to learn / provoke a music-theory discussion — legitimate and possible on that forum. But:
Their tone quickly alienated people who would otherwise try to help. (Several users explicitly expressed annoyance at the tone or predicted the newcomer would vanish.)
They didn’t provide focused musical anchors (timestamps, specific measures, named chords/modes) for responders to analyze — so the request remained too vague for a detailed technical reply.
Result: a mixed reception; a handful of likes and one or two supportive replies, but mostly pushback and sarcasm from established posters. The visible pattern is “classic newbie who asks for a higher-level technical debate but does it in a way that generates a defensive, personality-centred reply chain.”
If SunOfMyth wanted a different outcome — tactical advice (practical, copy-pasta)
If the goal was to genuinely get a music-theory answer and not become the forum scapegoat, these changes would have helped:
1. Be specific and give anchors
Example: “In Foregone Pt. 1, at 0:42 the chord progression is X–Y–Z (approx.). How is that different from the progression at 1:12 of ‘Come Clarity’? Are we seeing a different mode (Dorian vs Aeolian), or just a texture/arrangement change?”
That turns a vague demand into a solvable question.
2. Drop the rhetorical challenge
Replace “Why do you follow a band you don’t even like?” with “I’m genuinely curious which specific songs you’re comparing this to — can you name bars/sections?”
3. Invite a worked example
“If anyone has the time, could you transcribe the first 8 bars of Foregone Pt. 1 and show chord labels or interval motion?” — that is the kind of invitation that music theory buffs respond to.
4. Acknowledge subjective answers are valid
“I know some of this is subjective; I’m just looking for one analyst’s take so I can learn.” A little humility goes a long way.
Final takeaways (short)
SunOfMyth had a good question buried in a bad rhetorical package. The music-theory ask was valid, but the escalating tone and lack of specificity turned the thread into personality conflict rather than technical discussion.
The user posted 5 times over ~2 weeks and then disappeared; the board treated them like a normal newcomer — a warm welcome, followed by tests and some ribbing."
Pallbearer
Passive Member
Not gonna lie, the rapid advancement of the AI technology sometimes makes me think of the concept of "The Jester Race" album. As Anders explained in the interview in the Aschaffenburg 1996 video (quoting from memory, these aren't his exact words): "If we lend too much of our brain to the machines, then perhaps ultimately there will be only a few people who know how the machines work... and maybe in the end we will be overrun."
Is this guy a visionary?
Is this guy a visionary?
Xpyro125
Active Member
- Dec 1, 2021
- 718
- 345
- 63
Not gonna lie, the rapid advancement of the AI technology sometimes makes me think of the concept of "The Jester Race" album. As Anders explained in the interview in the Aschaffenburg 1996 video (quoting from memory, these aren't his exact words): "If we lend too much of our brain to the machines, then perhaps ultimately there will be only a few people who know how the machines work... and maybe in the end we will be overrun."
Is this guy a visionary?
It already began to feel like it back when I first started listening to them? But especially these days, yeah, it’s completely fucked.
So, I've been messing around with Suno's 4.5 model. Asked it to use Episode 666 as inspiration and create a track with lyrics I created, and well... lmao.
This is Episode 2025.
Welcome here, the Benson curse begins
All decency goes to hell
Remember not to expect too much
And your trip will be numbingly boring
Shit posting is the easiest way
But to secure a passage to some better tracks
You have to go right back in time
To old school days, to better years
Before new In Flames brought us to tears
Crying over Jesper's cruel departure
The beginning of the end
This is Siren Charms, god it sucks
Destination anger
I'm gonna chuck it in the bin
We move onto Battles, somehow even worse
Destination fury
I'm gonna flush it down the toilet
This is Episode 2025.
Welcome here, the Benson curse begins
All decency goes to hell
Remember not to expect too much
And your trip will be numbingly boring
Shit posting is the easiest way
But to secure a passage to some better tracks
You have to go right back in time
To old school days, to better years
Before new In Flames brought us to tears
Crying over Jesper's cruel departure
The beginning of the end
This is Siren Charms, god it sucks
Destination anger
I'm gonna chuck it in the bin
We move onto Battles, somehow even worse
Destination fury
I'm gonna flush it down the toilet
Pallbearer
Passive Member
This is both hilarious and sad at the same time. Hilarious for obvious reasons, and sad because a) the lyrics are true, and b) the song proves that in the not so distant future, we won't be needing humans to compose our music anymore.
I chuckled at "Shitposting is the easiest way", and my co-worker asked "What is it that you're listening to?"
I chuckled at "Shitposting is the easiest way", and my co-worker asked "What is it that you're listening to?"
I did burst out laughing at the aggressive "I'M GONNA FLUSH IT DOWN THE TOILET" scream/growl when I first heard it 
Last time I used Suno it was v4. It was decent for pop and hiphop, actually really good sometimes, but it could only really do about 50% of a metal track well, and often the choruses would have no guitars. Also about 60% - 70% in the track would begin to degrade in quality, which sucked. V4.5+ seems to have sorted that. It's actually very very good at doing metal tracks now.
Probably the best parts I've discovered are the Cover/Remix and Inspiration options. The Cover/Remix will take an existing song (although you either have to use a public domain live recording or cover version of it) and, as you'd expect, do a cover or remix, depending on what settings you choose. It's actually pretty cool to hear the Episode 666 guitars with a cleaner tone. Also nice how Suno adds its own creative flair to leads and riffs, the outro to Episode 2025 is actually pretty damn nice. What's extremely cool is being able to put your own tracks, if you have them, into Suno and getting it to cover that. Many years ago I put vocals & lyrics over an instrumental and I loved the vocal melodies, but unfortunately I was/am terrible at singing, so it was difficult to really listen to it. I threw that track into Suno and it actually improved the instrumental and replaced my crap vocals with real singing. It still kept my general cadence, matched the rhythm I set and even copied where I moved up or down a note, but just did it in a way that sounded good rather than laughable. I never thought I'd be able to hear that song in truly professional quality, and it's awesome to have that now. I'm definitely going to take some of my other older creations and give them similar treatment. I much prefer this to purely AI-created tracks, because the instrumental and vocal/lyrics were all human-made, the AI just improved what was there.
The 'Inspiration' section is interesting. Basically, the idea is that you create a playlist of songs you've uploaded and then choose that playlist when you're creating your song. The AI will then use that playlist as a baseline for what you're creating.
The other cool option is 'Persona'. You can assign a song you've created or uploaded as a 'Persona', and the AI will take that track and give you a similar sound and match the vocal as well. So if you want a specific type of song, and to have a specific type of vocal sound, this works really well. Again, there's settings where you can tinker as to how closely the AI matches the persona to the created track. It's nice from a consistency perspective, although it can lead to samey-sounding tracks so 'Inspiration' is probably better to use once you have enough tracks with the same kind of vocal sound.
Anyway yeah, I don't think it's quite coming for the music industry yet, but from a metal perspective Suno's v4.5+ is a massive step up from v4. Better quality, better adherence to song lyrics and structure, and more options to fine-tune. It's already created a couple of PM-style tracks from my lyrics which really do sound like they could have come from a real album. Vocals sound very similar to the guy from Saint Deamon, who I really like as a vocalist, so even better.
Last time I used Suno it was v4. It was decent for pop and hiphop, actually really good sometimes, but it could only really do about 50% of a metal track well, and often the choruses would have no guitars. Also about 60% - 70% in the track would begin to degrade in quality, which sucked. V4.5+ seems to have sorted that. It's actually very very good at doing metal tracks now.
Probably the best parts I've discovered are the Cover/Remix and Inspiration options. The Cover/Remix will take an existing song (although you either have to use a public domain live recording or cover version of it) and, as you'd expect, do a cover or remix, depending on what settings you choose. It's actually pretty cool to hear the Episode 666 guitars with a cleaner tone. Also nice how Suno adds its own creative flair to leads and riffs, the outro to Episode 2025 is actually pretty damn nice. What's extremely cool is being able to put your own tracks, if you have them, into Suno and getting it to cover that. Many years ago I put vocals & lyrics over an instrumental and I loved the vocal melodies, but unfortunately I was/am terrible at singing, so it was difficult to really listen to it. I threw that track into Suno and it actually improved the instrumental and replaced my crap vocals with real singing. It still kept my general cadence, matched the rhythm I set and even copied where I moved up or down a note, but just did it in a way that sounded good rather than laughable. I never thought I'd be able to hear that song in truly professional quality, and it's awesome to have that now. I'm definitely going to take some of my other older creations and give them similar treatment. I much prefer this to purely AI-created tracks, because the instrumental and vocal/lyrics were all human-made, the AI just improved what was there.
The 'Inspiration' section is interesting. Basically, the idea is that you create a playlist of songs you've uploaded and then choose that playlist when you're creating your song. The AI will then use that playlist as a baseline for what you're creating.
The other cool option is 'Persona'. You can assign a song you've created or uploaded as a 'Persona', and the AI will take that track and give you a similar sound and match the vocal as well. So if you want a specific type of song, and to have a specific type of vocal sound, this works really well. Again, there's settings where you can tinker as to how closely the AI matches the persona to the created track. It's nice from a consistency perspective, although it can lead to samey-sounding tracks so 'Inspiration' is probably better to use once you have enough tracks with the same kind of vocal sound.
Anyway yeah, I don't think it's quite coming for the music industry yet, but from a metal perspective Suno's v4.5+ is a massive step up from v4. Better quality, better adherence to song lyrics and structure, and more options to fine-tune. It's already created a couple of PM-style tracks from my lyrics which really do sound like they could have come from a real album. Vocals sound very similar to the guy from Saint Deamon, who I really like as a vocalist, so even better.
Last edited:
I was not prepared for how good the instrumentals on Episode 2025 were going to be.
Do you think you could splice the isolated vocals from TJR-Clayman into September Dirge's acoustic versions of those albums with a bit of reverb on them? In my head, this concept sounds amazing, but I've no idea how it would turn out in practice.
As juvenile as the lyrics are, that "beginning of the end" scream combined with the guitar leads is genuinely awesome and actually sounds like Anders
In theory it is possible, but there are some caveats. It's kinda difficult to totally cleanly remove a vocal stem. Usually there are some small artifacts which wouldn't be so noticeable if you put them onto other heavy tracks, as they'd get masked, but I think if you put it onto an acoustic piece they would be more obvious and may kinda kill the sound. The other issue is timing - the track in question would need to follow the original pretty precisely. Even slight differences in timing mean you'll be spending time trying to speed up or slow down the vocals, or add bits of silence... it can get messy. If it's just one or two parts it's manageable, but if it's most of the song, not so much, it just ends up sounding weird.
Seriously, that AI-concocted lead tone is better than anything In Flames bensoned up in last 15 years.
The Grayfox
Nija
This is pretty good stuff. I wonder... can you use Suno 4.5 to make improvements to a track? For instance, could you upload a song and say "change the mix on this to be more punchy" or does it have to create something 'original?'
In theory you can upload a file and ask it to use that audio 100%, but in my experience it still adds its own creative stuff, and the production and instrument sounds aren't an exact reproduction either. Also doesn't copy the vocal exactly. The closest you'd get is something like Episode 2025 where it's really obvious what the source is, but it's still different.
Last edited:
Similar threads
