No, essentially what I am saying is that whilst I respect Satriani as an artist, I still find his music largely predictable and boring with focus on lead above all else, as is the case with most of these virtuoso artists. My love of music lies primarily in an entire composition, hence why I love layered music, such as symphonies and alot of Opeth's work on Still Life.
Don't get me wrong however, I can still appreciate formulaic music such as that from the classic era and certain melodic death bands, but I find that it generally only satiates the urge I have to hear 'technical' music. There is a level of precision and technical fluidity that seems to only come with that area of music. If not that, then at least the symphonic pieces which have enough layering in them to really make one 'ooooh' and 'ahhh'. And whilst all this old music is generally based on those strict musical principles it still gives me more of a lively feeling than the average wankerish virtuoso artist who shreds for the sake of it. The ability to mix atmosphere and technicality seamlessly is a true gem of a gift for a musician, in my opinion. This is something I don't feel any virtuoso artist of modern days I have heard has mastered.
Also, I'm not sure whether you're intentionally misinterpreting my previous post or simply misreading it, but no, what you see is not the case.
In your first paragraph, I think that to make a comparison, Opeth's rhythm work and background music almost paint a picture and set a mood. You feel that Satriani's lead work is doing all of that, and that it isn't as effective as Opeth's. Am I correct?
Hmm, this is an interesting one. I don't necessarily see Opeth as music that evokes imagery as many people tend to. It could be the fact that I'm a guitarist and all of their music fits within familiar phrases to me, and also the fact that I have the background to understand how Opeth would have come about such riffs or song parts. It's a rare song indeed that makes me forget music is simply a string of notes and completely immerses me in blissful ambience (nevertheless I continue the hunt...).
In any sense, if any Opeth riff were to have any significant impact on me, as far as evoking imagery goes, then I would have to say that no, Satriani's lead work doesn't play that role. A backing song part is a backing song part, if we were to draw comparisons, we'd need to draw Satriani's entire catalogue against Opeth's solo parts to be fair to both artists. A simple looped backing guitar part making way to impressive lead work is different to one that has been crafted to work seamlessly in whatever composition its part of.
The fact that is most pertinent here I think is that Opeth's music is crafted with this intention of telling a musical 'story' and this craftsmanship of music is what Opeth are so recknowned for. Satriani seems to create parts that are more focused on individual enjoyment, the enjoyment of those who are not overly familiar with musical theory, those who are familiar with theory and orient themselves strictly around it and see no further merit in the overall compositional value of a piece and simply those who appreciate simple, catchy and at times quite technical guitar work. This is the distinction that needs to be drawn and comprehended before a comparison between Opeth's riffs and a Joe Satriani lead part can even be made.
Now we're getting somewhere. By your explanation, for music to be good, it can't follow scales, logical key changes, or modulations. Or did I read that wrong?
To put it simply: I tend to appreciate unpredictable music more than its contrasting counterpart. Whilst I do enjoy a fair share of old 'predictable' music, there is only so much I can take before I want to hear a greater degree of humanity and emotional and artistic expression in it.