Opeth: The New Beatles?

[The Shape]

The Beatles are VERY important to the metal genre.
You're gay.

Dumbass.

 

[Stormwatch]

Listen to Helter Skelter then say the Beatles aren't important to the metal genre.

 

[mehdi.i.e.e.e]

I think Mikael himself would agree that whoever called the beatles "simple pop" or "the n'sync/BSB of the 60's" is an idiot.

why not thinking by yourself? whos that mikael, some sort of messiah or? never heard of him before.

 

[mehdi.i.e.e.e]

this is the single stupidest post i have seen on the entire site for a long time. sorry mate, no offence, but dont talk about stuff you just dont understand. the beatles wrote some profound stuff. check out the lyrics to across the universe. it might go right over your head.
as for opeth, we have played with them and know the guys a bit. they are talented lads, but really nothing revolutionary. they would be the first to admit it.

spot on like.

 

[Stormwatch]

why not thinking by yourself? whos that mikael, some sort of messiah or? never heard of him before.

Is English your second language?This post doesn't make a lot of sense. :zombie:
Mikael is NOT the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

 

[opethwundi]

get away from me

 

[Malkatraz]

the beatles wrote some profound stuff. check out the lyrics to across the universe. it might go right over your head.

 

[segaszivos]

hmmm, three people singing different vocals at one and making a chord. and how is this revolutionary? are you saying chords were never sung vocally before the beatles? ockeghem might have something to say about that. if you want revolutionary vocal music, try palestrina. the beatles weren't revolutionary musically, even for the 60's. if you want something experimental and ground breaking, try penderecki.

Yes, I understand that sung chords have been around forever, but they were the first band to use those classic sounds into a much more upbeat song, like rock.

 

[segaszivos]

I'm not a Beates fan, but I don't dislike thier music. I do respect them and I realize everything they did for popular music at that point andt he influence they had on others and people in general.

Thank you.

 

[the alumnus]

this is the single stupidest post i have seen on the entire site for a long time. sorry mate, no offence, but dont talk about stuff you just dont understand. the beatles wrote some profound stuff. check out the lyrics to across the universe. it might go right over your head.
as for opeth, we have played with them and know the guys a bit. they are talented lads, but really nothing revolutionary. they would be the first to admit it.

ah, here we have the most ignorant statement on the entire site. i never said opeth were revolutionary, in fact i said quite the opposite when i compared them to schnittke.
as for the beatles lyrics, they are most banal. they began their career writing what would be considered bad middle school poetry, with such meaningless drivel as, "love love me do, you know i love you, so please love me do". later they wrote songs about how they sought shallow drug highs and instant physical gratification like "lucy in the sky with diamonds". of course it shouldn't be surprising, coming from a poets who wrote such pedestrian lines as "take a sad song and make it better", as if there is something wrong in expressing sorrow in music. face it, the beatles were a meaningless pop band that is only remembered today because of the insane levels of popularity it experienced in the 60's. if the beatles were only as popular as link wray or dick dale, they wouldn't be considered "revolutionary" by anyone's standards and we wouldn't be having this discussion. and no, offense was taken as offense was clearly intended. i know more than i care to about the beatles, and i understand them perfectly well, undoubtedly better than you do.

 

[segaszivos]

Listen to Helter Skelter then say the Beatles aren't important to the metal genre.

Agreed. Don't forget the Kink's Girl You Really Got Me. Another song that influenced metal in the 60s.

 

[Phrozenspite]

The beatles aren't a great comparison for Opeth IMO because they were part of a "wave" as we all know based on the NWOSDM many of the bands possess similar qualities so one cannot be attributed with a great creativity while Opeth are relatively unique currently... besides enough time hasn't passed to accurately measure the influence of Opeth

 

[Mariner]

if the beatles were only as popular as link wray or dick dale, they wouldn't be considered "revolutionary" by anyone's standards and we wouldn't be having this discussion. and no, offense was taken as offense was clearly intended. i know more than i care to about the beatles, and i understand them perfectly well, undoubtedly better than you do.

1. the were revolutionary eh... not?
2. you dont know. like about the lyrics.(somewhere else i yer post, ive deleted that section) i rather prefer easy to understand lyrics which are making a lot of sense instead of some poetic whining about weeping willows at the dark pool.
3. question. why knowing a lot of the beatles when youre not respecting them at all? and how you know you know more then pagan2002?

 

[no country for old wainds]

My thoughts: Fuck The Beatles.

 

[graveflower]

Just don't bother arguing with people who say things like "The Beatles were just a stupid boy band lol." If they haven't realized they're wrong by now they're not going to any time soon.

 

[no country for old wainds]

The Beatles did a few good songs, but I generally don't like them. I don't give a fucking crap if they influenced good bands, I don't like most of their music, I DEFINITELY don't like the band members, so sod them.

 

[the alumnus]

1. the were revolutionary eh... not?
2. you dont know. like about the lyrics.(somewhere else i yer post, ive deleted that section) i rather prefer easy to understand lyrics which are making a lot of sense instead of some poetic whining about weeping willows at the dark pool.
3. question. why knowing a lot of the beatles when youre not respecting them at all? and how you know you know more then pagan2002?

1.revolutionary in what sense? revolutionary in terms of popularity and merchandising yes.
2.making sense, perhaps. but they were more prosaic than poetic.
3.they are so popular that hearing their songs is unavoidable, much like knowing "hit me baby one more time". especially when you have parents who listen to the "oldies" station. i probably don't know more than pagan2002, but then i never claimed to either. i just know enough about the beatles that i don't like or respect them. they were insanely popular in their day, but i much prefer less known peers like link wray or dick dale.

 

[NFU]

as for the beatles lyrics, they are most banal. they began their career writing what would be considered bad middle school poetry, with such meaningless drivel as, "love love me do, you know i love you, so please love me do". later they wrote songs about how they sought shallow drug highs and instant physical gratification like "lucy in the sky with diamonds". of course it shouldn't be surprising, coming from a poets who wrote such pedestrian lines as "take a sad song and make it better", as if there is something wrong in expressing sorrow in music.

I sincerely hope you dont feel Opeths lyrics are incredibly profound either...

"The memories that now rest in this forest, forever shadowing the sunrise of my heart"

"In solitude i wander, through the vast enchanted forest"

"Riding the fires of the northern gold, ive searched the eye, i laugh under the weeping moon."

"You sleep in the light, yet the night and the silent water, still so dark"

"You are in a forest unknown, the secret orchard, and your voice is vast and achromatic..."

You see? terrible lyrics! so please people, before we start bashing the "BEATLES"!! of all bands on lyrical content (i think their credentials in the music industry speak for themselves), lets re-evaluate what forum we are in! thank you....and for you the alumnus, i dont think you have any place to talk about instant gratification considering youre a metal fan...bashing the beatles.:Smug:

*prepares for fanboy onslaught*

 

[Sengir*Buendia]

Comparing Opeth to Beatles is the most stupid thought I've had the disgust to hear in a long long time.

And coming from the forum's administrator, which so rarely speaks here!! SHAME ON YOU MARK!!!!!!

Who ever heard of this band Opeth? A SMALL guetto of metalheads who find themselves intelligent (perhaps they are, this is not the point, I love Opeth). But the Beatles? Who in the civilized world hadn't heard of them by the time they showed up (not to say about their influence then and today!!)??
Complicated music is not meant to the masses, nor it is meant to influence anyone (better, it can influence FEW people meant to produce more complicated music) simply because it's hard to reproduce!
Beatles were incredibly simple yet incredibly original in that context. Also, remember Opeth IS after all extreme metal. A metal band could influence other metal bands, not music in general (unfortunately)

Opeth vs Beatles. I go with THE BEATLES!!!!!

 

[no country for old wainds]

But if you're asking who's more talented - who makes better music - how can ANYONE say The Beatles? Ever? From what you're saying Sengir, Avril is better than Opeth