This kind of reasoning stems from the thread starter's need to feel that his claims to superior musical taste are legitimate and does, to be honest, make me quite sad.
Pretty much the only sensible post in this thread.
This kind of reasoning stems from the thread starter's need to feel that his claims to superior musical taste are legitimate and does, to be honest, make me quite sad.
well said Corleone. Having some musical background is definitely helpful. I have studied musical theory and for me(speaking for myself only) it helps me to understand what these musicians are doing. But, then most people I know want that "instant fix". You know, music that "hits" you right away. 3 minute junkie. Bands similiar to Opeth require attention. Your not going to put Opeth on while you wash the dishes. I'm going to sit with headphones on for the duration of the cd and concentrate. You come to my house, there ain't no fuckin' Toby-I'm-a-Ford-truck-man Keith playing.the more you understand the technical side of music, the more you appreciate opeth.
but while still being as technical as hell, they can be dramatically melodic to the uneducated ear...that's the reason why they are such a huge attack. most nu-prog bands miss out on that aspect.
there you go
This kind of reasoning stems from the thread starter's need to feel that his claims to superior musical taste are legitimate and does, to be honest, make me quite sad.
well said Corleone. Having some musical background is definitely helpful. I have studied musical theory and for me(speaking for myself only) it helps me to understand what these musicians are doing. But, then most people I know want that "instant fix". You know, music that "hits" you right away. 3 minute junkie. Bands similiar to Opeth require attention. Your not going to put Opeth on while you wash the dishes. I'm going to sit with headphones on for the duration of the cd and concentrate. You come to my house, there ain't no fuckin' Toby-I'm-a-Ford-truck-man Keith playing.
Nope. Creativity lies in application of theory rules, not in their circumvention. I think we're a bit off topic anyway - we're heading towards the ancient question whether the means or the end more important. Opeth doesn't use theory but their music can be as enjoyable as Mozart - does that mean their music deserves less appreciation? A scientist in a lab discovers a novel synthesis to a new molecule after years of research and toil, while a mechanic on the other side of the world discovers the exact same molecule by accidentally mixing some oils while fixing his car. Does the scientist deserve more merit?
First, I think there's a difference between composing by ear and by application of theory. I can "propose something like that" because Mike barely knows the notes on the fretboard (see guitar world video), he hasn't had formal training and writes based on imitation, experience and influence. Of course, this doesn't mean the music sucks. I already said that above.
Secondly, you're assuming the rules strictly define the content of the music. They don't. If you think they do, then i'm not surprised you think same-sounding music stems from the overly strict application of theoryr Within the bounds of the rules there are a limitless amount of ideas and combinations. Just because someone follows rules doesn't mean they aren't creative. Mozart didn't break any rules yet he was creative. The rules began as descriptive rules (how could they have been anything else?) but now they are prescriptive. Again, creativity counts more than rules.
I've seen no evidence that anyone on this forum studies music
I study music!
I'm sure Opeth appeals to non-musicians, but probably does more so to musicians.
i'm a classical guitar major but i believe studying music makes a very little difference if any. mike is a real artist that doesn't ever have to know what a cadence is to write music that is in his head. i remember watching a video of him where he didn't know the name of his favorite chord (a min add 9 i believe), which goes to prove he doesn't have to think of theory and technical song structure (by the way, bach peices can be broken down to 3 chord progressions), which to me means we don't have to look for it to appreciate it more. I've appreciated opeth (and tool's lateralus! which is godly!) far more than any other music since the moment it sent chills down my spine and touched my soul!
But, then most people I know want that "instant fix". You know, music that "hits" you right away. 3 minute junkie. Bands similiar to Opeth require attention.
I also think that this is the main point. Those long, winding songs are just too much for the average listener. I think that musicians (being an amateur myself) tend to be more able and willing to cope with this complexity.
However, I would be very cautious with this. While I can imagine that the hypothesis "The percentage of musicians among Opeth fans is higher than average" is actually true, it is probably hard to prove. I know people that don't know anything about music theory and still enjoy eg. classical music which is often not the easiest to digest.
Maybe we could start a vote here either asking to agree or disagree to the above hypothesis or asking who is a musician (studied/amateur/not at all).
I'm not sure if a poll would prove anything. ... the small number of users here cannot possibly accurately represent the majority of Opeth fans.