Opeth's lyrics, on a whole, suck. Badly.

[Schraiber]

Wow, I didn't mean for this to become this big... Heh. Well... about the lyrics not being poetry, I'd definitely say lyrics are a form of poetry. As far as I know, there is factual writing, poetry, and prose. I don't think the lyrics are factual, and they aren't layed out in a way to call them prose, so they are poetry. Of course, I could be wrong. To address something else, sure, I can't write lyrics for crap, but I don't have to be able to write lyrics to say that, for example, most mainstream rappers don't have the deepest or most profound lyrics in the world. There was an other point I wanted to address, but I forgot it. Oh, lastly, don't get me wrong, I think Opeth do have some really excellent lyrics... Black Rose Immortal, The Night And The Silent Water, and, actually, a good portion of MAYH have lyrics that really make me think and conjure excellent images... I love the "Sunbirds leave their dark recess, shadows glid the archways" lyric. It just always make me think of this beautiful place...

 

[demon talented]

Lyrics are not poetry.

Lyrics go to music.

Poetry is .. complicated. In a loose term, it's economy of words set to no marginal boundaries. When it comes to aesthetics, there is a heavy need for use of the actual economy of words, good rhythm solely from words, and so on.

If you know poetry well, you won't confuse the two. Trust me.

 

[terrymx]

Originally posted by flaminfetus
Orchid is my favorite album, i dont care for lyrics, to me they hinder songs..i like alot of instramentals better than songs with vocals, and considering i think there better with out singing period.

damn straight

 

[SculptedCold]

Originally posted by TheLedTool
Lyrics are not poetry.

Lyrics go to music.

Poetry is .. complicated. In a loose term, it's economy of words set to no marginal boundaries. When it comes to aesthetics, there is a heavy need for use of the actual economy of words, good rhythm solely from words, and so on.

If you know poetry well, you won't confuse the two. Trust me.

This is exactly true. It is unbelievable how technical the writing of poetry is.

 

[demon talented]

Originally posted by SculptedCold
This is exactly true. It is unbelievable how technical the writing of poetry is.

I'm glad to see one more person seemingly knowledgable about poetry here at the boards...

It took me a long time to realize these differences so clearly, but through much writing and reading it is clearly evident. The technical aspects of poetry are very eluding to the beginner, but can gradually make their way into focus. In the end, poetry and lyrics can be very similar in content, although poetry can generally be more varied stylistically, but the forms are just so different. The technical aspects of writing poetry are far more constricting because of their purpose, while lyrics have to kind of "go" with the music as one of its main aspects.

Anyway, if you want to discuss poetry and such, my AIM name is TheLedTool as well.

 

[Strangelight]

Hehe, I enjoyed this thread. People scrambling to the defence of lyrics that they may not even understand and the boy Schraiber gets the piss ripped out of him for his honest opinion. Would it be the same if Schraiber played in a band with a few albums out and that? I doubt it. Theyre musicians, not magicians!

 

[SculptedCold]

@ TheLedTool.

One of the reasons I said it was unbelievable is because i'm only a term into my english literature degree course, and we've barely scratched the surface of poetic technique! I look back on the 180 poems or so I wrote, developed, liked and saved in my earlier teens and realise how utterly shite they are in comparison to proper poetry! It's really quite funny actually.

 

[demon talented]

Originally posted by SculptedCold
@ TheLedTool.

One of the reasons I said it was unbelievable is because i'm only a term into my english literature degree course, and we've barely scratched the surface of poetic technique! I look back on the 180 poems or so I wrote, developed, liked and saved in my earlier teens and realise how utterly shite they are in comparison to proper poetry! It's really quite funny actually.

I see. I can completely understand. Much of it is so subtle to the untrained. I've been writing for nearly 2 years now (about a month less), and it has only been about 4 months (out of 23) where I've really had a discerning eye towards the art I have been making (and earlier, trying to make).

I am sure it can be a humbling experience, and many beginning writers are afraid of criticism. Hehe, I can't say it's without reason.

 

[Darth Kur]

[qoute]I'm just basically saying Opeth's lyrics really are no better than Linkin Park[/qoute]

What utter BLASPHEMY!!!! Holy hell. That's like saying a Cadillac is no better than a friggin Yugo.
I find Opeth's lyrics very intelligent and insightful. Miles above most of the bullshit that is the norm which amounts to a plethora of mindless drivel.
I know everyone's entitled to an opinion, after all opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. But goddam it is so blatantly obvious that a much deeper thought process is involved with both the music and the lyrics of Opeth. I don't give a damn if Mike comes up with it all on one sunny afternoon or if it takes him a month his ability of complex thought far surpasses the combined efforts of the afore mentioned poseur band.
And that , my friends, is my opinion.

 

[Revelation #9]

I'll tell you guys what's funny are the lyrics on that new Theater of Tragedy album. I had never heard them too much before and got their last album, "Assembly" and boy did I get a little surprise! Going from this 'godly' doom metal band ala My Dying Bride to Garbage-esque techno with cheesy Madonna sounding Vogue lyrics is quite a shock. It's what I'd like to call mall rat poetry, if you get my drift. Metallica, eat your hearts out.

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

Originally posted by SculptedCold
Umm, for someone who sounds so clued-up on the english language, it's strange that you say this, because it's irrelevant and essentially wrong.

For someone who sounds so clued-up on the english language, it's strange that you say this, because it's essentially wrong. I don't know if you realize this, but the definition of art is widely accepted as a subjective matter. I gave my definition of art. Personally, I believe that what I said is truth. I believe that art should be created with an intended meaning, and the depth and content of that meaning is what resolves the quality of that art, etc. Whether art is actually created with this intent is a question I can't answer.

Originally posted by SculptedCold
In this light, Mikael's lyrics really are just lyrics. Technically, almost none of it could be called poetry (in a literary sense; it could be considered modern freeform poetry, but that's generally regarded with no artistic merit, it's 'pop' culture if you will) but as it stands, they're fucking great I think. I agree with previous statements that they are engineered to fit with the music; the imagery they provoke could not be more fitting, but I think as far as 'meaning' goes, the best you'll get is a vague moral idea. Mikael's writing is for aesthetic and aesthetic only. (the emotions are an aesthetic also, but in Opeth's case, the aesthetic of catharsis isn't used in any search of meaning)

I know. I never claimed Mike's lyrics were poetry. However, I think lyrics in general should be poetry. I attempt to do so when I put lyrics to a song (which is not very often, but I will try to change that). When I talk about meaning, I am not speaking of some specific intellectual idea. I am only speaking of the purpose of the art. In my opinion, art without a purpose is not really art, it's just something original. The meaning can be anything, even something as vague as a moral idea. I also realize that there can be many interpretations to a work of art, but could this not be intended? I think that if such a result were intended, it makes the artist all the more skillful. If it is accidental, then I guess it's just blind luck. I don't like to think that art can be created by blind luck.

 

[demon talented]

Originally posted by TyrantOfFlames

However, I think lyrics in general should be poetry.

Poetry is made to be self-sufficient. Lyrics go to music. Lyrics fitting the music are more important than the words being self-sufficient. I wouldn't see more artists who are influenced by poetry - I know of a few, such as Garm and Haughm - but in general, it's more important that the lyrics simply go with the music. It doesn't entirely matter how well they are otherwise, although I'm still a bit uptight about lyrics anyway.

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

Originally posted by TheLedTool
Poetry is made to be self-sufficient. Lyrics go to music.

This is exactly what I don't like about most lyrics. I would love self-sufficient lyrics. I love when an already good poem is made even better by good music. I find this to be the pinnacle of the music-word mix. A good example of this is Agalloch - A Poem by Yeats (the name of the poem is Sorrow of Love). Granted this isn't the most complex of poems, but its message and deliverance are quite good.

 

[moody]

Originally posted by Strangelight
Hehe, I enjoyed this thread. People scrambling to the defence of lyrics that they may not even understand and the boy Schraiber gets the piss ripped out of him for his honest opinion. Would it be the same if Schraiber played in a band with a few albums out and that? I doubt it. Theyre musicians, not magicians!

exactly, sorry but i think that opeth are pretty over-rated. i reckon britney spears is better at what she does, and i'm not being ironic or anything, i do believe it. opeth might be good and that, but i've seen an interview with the singer saying he wrote the lyrics in studio to fit the music, then he said it was a concept album . i think people lose their objectivity when it comes to famous bands. opeth does nothing to me, in fact it irritates me and i'd rather put kylie minogue on, no shit. and it goes like this with loads of the trendy emotional intellectual metal bands that psycho-mongs worship these days. people take it way too seriously and enjoy being talked down by guitar wankers.

sorry i got carried away

 

[moody]

Originally posted by Deadlift
Mike once told in a radioshow that he doesn`t care about the lyrics. He just pick some nice words together. That`s what HE said. The lyrics are just some beautiful words.

why did you ignore that post heh?

 

[changso]

Originally posted by moody
exactly, sorry but i think that opeth are pretty over-rated. i reckon britney spears is better at what she does, and i'm not being ironic or anything, i do believe it. opeth might be good and that, but i've seen an interview with the singer saying he wrote the lyrics in studio to fit the music, then he said it was a concept album . i think people lose their objectivity when it comes to famous bands. opeth does nothing to me, in fact it irritates me and i'd rather put kylie minogue on, no shit. and it goes like this with loads of the trendy emotional intellectual metal bands that psycho-mongs worship these days. people take it way too seriously and enjoy being talked down by guitar wankers.

sorry i got carried away

If you believe that Britney Spears lyrics (or Britney's song writter's lyrics if you prefer) is better than Opeth's lyrics, sorry but your opinion is plain stupid. Shit I mean have you even paid attention to her lyrics to say such thing?

First, having the ability to write lyrics fast does't makes them bad. Personnaly, I don't see Opeth lyrics to be self sufficient, it's more about a medium to add another dimention to the overall music. But if you take lyrics on their own, Opeth's lyrics are WAY BETTER than Britney's ones which fall into the very first brain activity level. Put it simply, her lyrics are totally, absolutly designed to give of model to the teens "especially girls" of "how a girl should be"...then the teenagers fall into an identification process [to that girl who sells her body alot more than her music]. In other words, if the girl would be fat and ugly, her music wouldn't sell and that's a fact. In that way of thinking, Britney Spears music [and lyrics] are nothing more than publicity designed to give the mass an image of what they would like to look like.

Oh and don't worry about her song-writer, he knows more than anyone else that his lyrics sucks, but as long as he makes money, he's laughing out loud.

sorry i got carried away

 

[jester00]

Originally posted by moody
. opeth does nothing to me, in fact it irritates me and i'd rather put kylie minogue on, no shit.
:

i find it hard to believe considering your spending your time on the opeth forum

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

Originally posted by Moody
i reckon britney spears is better at what she does, and i'm not being ironic or anything, i do believe it.

Of course she is better at what she does. She is amazing at what she does; however, what Britney Spears does is a very simple and completely commercial formula. It has absolutely nothing to do with Opeth and what they do. Britney Spears and her management crew have mastered the ability to guide young teens into the the pursuit of an unattainable, though very costly, ideal. There is no way to objectively be the best at what Opeth does, which is to produce art, rather than make money. So while your statement is true, it means absolutely nothing.

opeth might be good and that, but i've seen an interview with the singer saying he wrote the lyrics in studio to fit the music, then he said it was a concept album

Do you know what a concept album is? There are two ways to write one: you can write the lyrics to fit the music, or write the music to fit the lyrics. Ideally, you would have an idea already in mind, then create both the lyrics and the music, but invariably, one is influenced by the other. Is it not possible that Mikael has a story in mind when he writes the music? I find that the best concept album story is told by music rather than by words. You have yet to make a meaningful point in your post.

i think people lose their objectivity when it comes to famous bands.

By what definition would you consider Opeth to be famous? I'd say your statement applies more to favorite bands rather than famous bands. No one is perfectly objective anyway.

and it goes like this with loads of the trendy emotional intellectual metal bands that psycho-mongs worship these days.

I don't see how Opeth is a trendy band. They continue to gain popularity, yes, but their popularity hasn't been a trend, they are simply a good band. It's not as if they suddenly became popular and then will die away. Trends, by definition, to not remain very long.

What exactly is a "psycho-mong"? I don't know if it occurs to you or not, but emotion and intelligence are two traits that are well liked in music by many people, not just trendy ones, mainly because they make the music more than just sound.

people take it way too seriously and enjoy being talked down by guitar wankers.

Do you know what a guitar wanker is? Mikael is by no means a guitar wanker; in fact he is admittedly not the best guitar player out there. He will tell his fans himself that he should practice more often and learn better technique.



If you're looking to make a point about Opeth, I still can't see what it is. All you have said is that you don't like them and you accuse them and their fans of a string of non-sensical terms which seem to be your attempt at sounding intellectual. I'm sure that if you respond you will call me just another fanboy. However, your statements about Opeth show your ignorance concerning the band, so my desire to defend them is not out of loyalty, but out of reason.


Edit: code errors