Opeth = accessible music ?

[D Mullholand]

Here's a question for everybody: do you consider Opeth to be accessible music?

- Yes/No/Dunno and based on what reasons?
- Accessible/inaccessible in comparison to what? Musical examples if you like - but preferably from real music, let's keep the commercially manufactured sounds out of this discussion.
- Accessible/inaccessible in a good/bad/neutral sense?
- What about the factor of musical experience? Or listening experience?
- Opeth - easy listening or hard/confusing listening? Counter-examples?
- Your personal attitude towards accessible music, accessibility in general and its relativity?

These sub-questions are not meant to be answered exactly in the specified order; they are more like guidelines and elaborations on the primary question. Please bring up any other/unrelated thoughts you have on this topic, if you have the wish to do so.

I'll refrain from posting my own theories for now, I'm hoping to see some different perspectives not clouded by the weight of the initiator's post.

D Mullholand

 

[terrymx]

just what do you mean by accessible?
- yes, i found BWP cd at circuit city the other day, but all they have is still life and bwp, online it is available
- didn't you already just axe?
- Accessible in a bad sense, they put it in rock/pop section and on some mainstream website
- well axe the other people
- orchid and morningrise is extremely hard to listen to in the first 10 time
- rarer music is sometime good music, with different genra and element. the easiest to get music is usualy is music of a popular genre

 

[RogueSpirit]

No, not very accessible. Firstly, the constant dynamic changes and progressive structures already turns off anyone who is used to radio-friendly pap. Secondly, the growls make it horribly inaccessible, since growling has such a stigma on them, whenever someone listens to a growl they think it's silly or "satanic".

Compared to other progressive/heavy metal it is much more accessible since fans of these genres are much more accustomed to these "turnoffs". People who like Dream Theater and Cynic for their prog structures will find Opeth somewhat accessible and people who like death metal or swedish metal will find it accessible as well. Most musicians will probably respect them much more since their composing ability is really good and doesn't rely on cliches, and if a musician doesn't like them, they can at least respect the musicality rather than your average mainstream fan screaming "those growls are stupid" or "where's the chorus?"

Accessibility is fine and required in music. But to take that one step further to make music that is less accessible but special and unique (something is usually accessible IMO when it reminds them of another tune) makes the music much more special.

 

[Demonspell]

I think the first two albums are the least accessible, and on the last two they have managed to become more accessible without compromise and while still expanding on their sound...

 

[Jim LotFP]

Originally posted by RogueSpirit
Accessibility is fine and required in music.

Oh no it isn't. New things get done by doing things that 'should not' be done because it's not 'right' to listen to...

 

[Jayde]

EDIT: FUCKING HELL!!!!!! I just wrote all these answers and it all got lost because of this fucking board fucking screwing up all the damn time. No way am I rewriting all that! It was GOOD to! FUCK!!!!!!!

Basically: Opeth isn't as accesible as it should be here hickville.

 

[YaYo]

k. Many thoughts + little brain power = the following post which may get confusing....

Its getting there, Each album is becoming more accessible as they go.

The vocals on recent albums even follow a pattern in places:
Beating
Heart still beating for the cause
Feeding
Soul still feeding from the loss
Aching
Limbs are aching from the rush
Fading
You are fading from my sight
And the lyrics have a lot more rhyming to them, and songs from Still Life and BWP are starting to introduce choruses and verses and repeating vocal sections. All these things help the music become easier to digest on first listen and hence the music is more accessible. And better production also helps.
Plus they get the support of many bands these days, and you see them round in magazines (and always with the words 'genius' or 'god' in the first sentence!). Still Life and BWP ive seen pretty regularly in a range of CD stores, but none of the earlier albums, and i think thats a good indication that the later albums are becoming a lot more accesible.

Obviously the growls still have a huge negative impact on a lot of people (and not just your Britney Spears lovers, ive met many intelligent/musically talented people who just cant get into the growls). I think most people have to grow to like death vocals, at first its always a bit weird, and you cant quite see their purpose (how many times has someone said to you "Hey that guy can actually sing, why does he growl?" after hearing Credence/Harvest/etc?). And this makes Opeth less accessible, but their inclusion of good clean vocals and acoustic passages and such has been enough (on many many occasions) to get people listening to Opeth even if they dont like the growls, and with time ive seen many people converted to loving growls!

But are they more accesible than bands such as In Flames? Well no, in flames' music has those catchy riffs, and beats that you can headbang to, or bounce around to, songs that get you pumped. Such music is far more easier to take on first listen, and far more likely to swallowed by followers of the more commercial metal bands. But opeth is starting to have riffs that have a similar effect, especially on BWP, and these riffs could be enough to draw the attention of a listener (although the riffs are usually short lived).

Having said all that, if Opeth are what you are looking for, then theres a fair chance that in these times you will find them. The 'swedish metal' genre is huge, everyone knows about it, and Opeth are always amongst the 'top bands' mentioned, so if you like any 1 of those bands the path to Opeth is easy.

well there you go, a bunch of misguided thoughts.

FUCKING HELL!!!!!! I just wrote all these answers and it all got lost because of this fucking board fucking screwing up all the damn time.

Same, but a quick hit of the 'back' button, and a copy and paste into a text file of my answer and all was ok.

 

[Obyeybyeogone]

Let's see, accesibility as far as listening once and liking it, (From a traditional music background) not at all. I had never listened to anything like Opeth, it took me several listens to even begin to like it, and this was with Still Life, which is more accessible than MAYH, Orchid, and Morningrise. As far as accessibility compared to, say, deathmetal, it's much more accessible, the accoustics and soft vocals help bring in a broader audience. I've actually tried to get some of my friends (Who aren't exactly music people) to listen to some Opeth. I warned my friend "you'll probably like it, until the vocals start, then you'll probably mentally tell yourself "No way i'll like this" and you'll make the decision there, and it's over, but it's worth a shot" So as soon as the growling started he said "You're right". He listened to some more, said "It's okay, I guess" And he never listens to it, I got him to like Dream Theater sort of though. Another friend who likes basically... anything, I got him to listen to some, and he said he listens to it some and likes it. I was excited that he actually liked it and was thinking maybe I could get him into it more and i'd have someone to go to shows with or something. So I kept talking to him about music, and he said like "I like Opeth, but it would be better without the singer, I can't understand a word he's saying, and he kind of ruins it" This kind of killed my hopes, and then he went into how he likes Linkin' Park more because he can understand the vocals, bla bla bla. He also listens to commercialised rap etc. ) He can act like an ass a lot, and I guess he just likes any music decently, no matter what it is. I don't think he really listens to Opeth anymore either. It's seeming to me, that Opeth may be more accesible than most "extreme music" (call it what you will) But to the general listeners who are just looking for a catchy tune to keep them entertained, or a "cool" image to make them look scary, Opeth isn't going to do that for them. I still try to get people I meet to like Opeth, I always hope someone will come up to me when i've got my Opeth shirt on and say "Hey, I love Opeth!", hasn't happened yet though I guess I would like Opeth to become more popular, as long as too many of the idiots don't get into it, I'd like Opeth to be a bridge to good music for those who could come to like music for what it is, not for the image or what not, that's what Opeth did for me, and if it were less accessible it may not have done so. (I really need to start making my posts into paragraphs, this looks sloppy and cluttered )

 

[RogueSpirit]

Originally posted by Jim LotFP


Oh no it isn't. New things get done by doing things that 'should not' be done because it's not 'right' to listen to...

Some degree it is:

I relate to Opeth (for example) because the quiet guitar passages remind me of certain things. For example, parts of Black Rose Immortal almost sound folky and give it a medieval feel, which I relate to accessibility since it sounds familiar. Even famous composers use certain scales and harmony patterns so the music has some accessibility. To not put any form of accessibility in a song is impossible, because there will always be something to remind one of a certain theme or song. I'm not saying the whole song should sound like another song (in fact I usually like the opposite) but most songs that I like share at least SOME common ground with something I've heard before.

 

[Downfall]

I think Opeth is very accessible music because of the vocals are so soft and there are lots of melodies and soft acoustic parts. I only have still life and blackwater park so I can only speak of them. I think they are pretty poppy with their hooks. Songs are long and rythm and pace change pretty often, but I think these are all the "uneasy" parts of opeth.

 

[Malaclypse]

Originally posted by Jayde
EDIT: FUCKING HELL!!!!!! I just wrote all these answers and it all got lost because of this fucking board fucking screwing up all the damn time. No way am I rewriting all that! It was GOOD to! FUCK!!!!!!!

Basically: Opeth isn't as accesible as it should be here hickville.

i have to say this. you are getting on my nerves. 1st you think all the world turns around you, at least according to what you write in your posts. but that's just my opinion. 2nd who are you to complain about the board anyway? hey, it's for free, and mark rips his ass open FOR YOU to keep it running as good as possible, so you should better be grateful he invests his money and time. if you are annoyed, support him. you don't know how much work it actually is to maintain such a server, do you?

VC

edit: now i forgot the initial question. opeth is accesible in two different "levels", i think. you can listen to it for the first time and like what you hear. you actually don't see the long songs as one complex if you don't look at the playing time or the booklet, but instead think of the mellow parts in between as different tunes. but if you get into the music more deeply, you will always find more interesting parts and nuances.
so the answer to "is opeth accesible" would be yes, no, dunno

 

[YaYo]

i have to say this. you are getting on my nerves. 1st you think all the world turns around you, at least according to what you write in your posts. but that's just my opinion. 2nd who are you to complain about the board anyway? hey, it's for free, and mark rips his ass open FOR YOU to keep it running as good as possible, so you should better be grateful he invests his money and time. if you are annoyed, support him. you don't know how much work it actually is to maintain such a server, do you?

That was kinda harsh and unnescasary.

My mother used to always think that this guy at work was a rude bastard, who never said hello and ignored everyone and whatever. Then she was told that he was actually just really shy and suddenly she didnt dislike him anymore. The point? You cant judge people by how they act or how they say things because you can never know where they are really coming from. Some of the nicest people in the world seem like bitches, some of the apparently nice people go around slagging everyone behind their back, or are just being nice to get what they want. So when you see a person with qualities you dont like its far nicer to assume the best of the person... give them advice on how they are appearing negatively (to help them), dont simply say "you think all the world turns around you". I guess the key is to make sure that the main purpose of saying something is to help them, not to help you.

Some people say things they dont mean, some people struggle to get their point across, some people get constantly misunderstood. And it does such people no good to go and attack them, actually i imagine it could really wreck someones day.

Just think before you write stuff like that. Because there are so many reasons why someone could write posts like jayde's. I, for one, have never found anything wrong with her. I can see a thousand possible reasons for her posts that i fully connect with. (For the most part it seems to be a place to vent for her, as it is for others, so let her have that.. she probably needs it, but i dont know). Just dont take things on such a surface level.

 

[Malaclypse]

i konw it was harsh. but i thought about it, and what can i say, that's how i feel about it. as i stated, the 1st thingy is my sole opinion (ok, i admit this i a rather poor introduction to my post and i could have left it away). by what else measures could i define the people here apart from their posts? this is a board-i can't know everything about these people here. so my interpretation might be wrong, but it derives from the posts i read from her.
and as for the second thing i mention... i find it utter ignorance to complain about ONE POST you have to retype becase the server couldn't take it, while the admin puts all his effort in creating a better solution. that lacks the minimum of politeness and sensibility i expect from people in here.

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by terrymx
just what do you mean by accessible?
- yes, i found BWP cd at circuit city the other day, but all they have is still life and bwp, online it is available
- didn't you already just axe?
- Accessible in a bad sense, they put it in rock/pop section and on some mainstream website
- well axe the other people
- orchid and morningrise is extremely hard to listen to in the first 10 time
- rarer music is sometime good music, with different genra and element. the easiest to get music is usualy is music of a popular genre

 

[D Mullholand]

Originally posted by Wolff

Well, axe you too!

OK, back to the topic. Nice answers so far - my primary reason for asking these questions was to find out more about your (the board residents, that is) attitudes towards accessibility in music in general. Let's ignore the commercial music-simulations for a while and focus on real music.

I have this thought, that Opeth, while inaccessible at first, becomes the ultimate form of easy-listening later (in a positive sense) - for a person interested in music, of course. It takes some amount of time to figure out their ways of expression, embodied in their compositional structures; but when you've already learnt to think on their wave, Opeth's music is rather relaxing to the intellect, while being still emotionally intense. The reason is hidden in their formula - each new element (riff/interlude/dynamic change) introduces a new emotion or a new image, but as opposed to developing the theme, Opeth settle on repeating it a few times - this music always leaves enough space for the listener to catch up on the feeling in case she missed it for the first time around. As opposed to constantly developing music (like classical, for instance), where the listener must find her own (hard) way and is not given time to relax and take a breath. This, again, is a statement from a general musical viewpoint, not related to local "Opeth/In Flames" or "metal/pop" comparisons. Okay, now that I've set this thesis up , I want it to be challenged and ripped to pieces!

D Mullholand

 

[Wolff]

Originally posted by D Mullholand
Okay, now that I've open my legs up, I want it to be fucked and ripped to pieces!

D Mullholand

Honey,
My dick's big but unfortunately it doesn't reach all the way to Ukraine. Could you come a little bit closer

 

[Vortex]

I feel myself better restrained by your guidelines right now, so if you mind...

- Yes/No/Dunno and based on what reasons?

Very accessible! Have you read that interview where Mikael talked about Camel and said that they are "probably the easiest band to get into" or something to that extent. As their music from what I know, Opeth has a lot or quality parts to get your attention. They are not even typical metal in the sense that the parts would require heavy distortion to sound good. They write almost everything on acoustic anyway. It's just that often the parts are intertwined in an odd way, which puts people off. I could bring in a few examples about me playing Opeth on acoustic - it draws people in quite easily.

Then again if you are not used to their way of structuring songs, forget it as a whole.

- Accessible/inaccessible in comparison to what?
Musical examples if you like - but preferably from real music, let's keep the commercially manufactured sounds out of this discussion.

Really accessible in comparison to e.g. Dream Theater - Opeth never proves their ability to play, everything is put in there to express emotions and transitions in mood. To which everyone can relate.

- Accessible/inaccessible in a good/bad/neutral sense?

Good, as I stated above...

- What about the factor of musical experience? Or listening experience?

Of course some of the more unorthodox parts demand your willingness to digest them, but dare I say it...every Opeth song has something I'd call "a hit melody", though often covered in screaming, excessive distortion or in the opposite case, they play it so quietly you can barely hear it.

- Opeth - easy listening or hard/confusing listening? Counter-examples?

Pretty easy save for a few songs...and you can always tell there's a story running through the music even if there are a thousand things going on...it just HOW you choose to listen to it.

- Your personal attitude towards accessible music, accessibility in general and its relativity?

Accessibility based on one repeating part tends to wear off after a while, otherwise nothing against it...that's why I like Opeth

 

[tenebrose]

I'm just going to break the rules and answer everything as it says...

do you consider Opeth to be accessible music?

Yes/No/Dunno and based on what reasons?

Yes, I'd consider it quite accessible. I can find their most recent CDs at the expensive mainstream chains (which carry some metal, but not particularly much and not particularly special such... they have mostly classic stuff.) And if they're out, I could always pop into the little Metal/Hardrock shop on the way home. They carry 'em all.


- Accessible/inaccessible in comparison to what? Musical examples if you like - but preferably from real music, let's keep the commercially manufactured sounds out of this discussion.

I think I actually answered this. They're not as easy to find as... lets say... Iron Maiden, but almost.


- Accessible/inaccessible in a good/bad/neutral sense?

Good sense, I'd say. I'm not against new fans coming along. It's not as if I feel it's "our" music and we need to protect it.

 

[D Mullholand]

Wolff, feel free to include your dick, or your complete illusionary world for that matter, in any discussion! Quote-forgery, though, is far from the most creative thing you could do to show-off your "identity". This won't be remembered as one of your shining moments.

 

[Mayh]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
k. Many thoughts + little brain power = the following post which may get confusing....

Its getting there, Each album is becoming more accessible as they go.

The vocals on recent albums even follow a pattern in places:
Beating
Heart still beating for the cause
Feeding
Soul still feeding from the loss
Aching
Limbs are aching from the rush
Fading
You are fading from my sight
And the lyrics have a lot more rhyming to them, and songs from Still Life and BWP are starting to introduce choruses and verses and repeating vocal sections. All these things help the music become easier to digest on first listen and hence the music is more accessible.

Well I really have to disagree, just because some of riffs reapear in the songs it doesn´t really make it more accessible, if we would compare "To bid you farewell" which is a quiet ballad which doesn´t repeat any riff and "Serenity Painted Death", a song thats filled with intense growling and riffs that reapear later in the song, " To bid you farewell" would rather fall in the accessible category. Cannibal Corpse repeat riffs and so do Morbid Angel but that doesn´t make them accessible. The length on the Opeth songs draw out the impact of the chorus feel, also the fact that the songs contain such amount of riffs, not just two riffs that dance around each other!

The examples are maybe a bit extream but I just have to defend the latter Opeth albums cause they´re in no way worse than the earlier ones, Serenity Painted Death stands as a monument for a great composition not better or worse than Night and the silent water, just diffrent (in my oppinion ofsourse ) And Opeth getting accessible is bad, It would be like haveing someone steal my treasure, my precious... naive attitude but what the fuck..