The Grand Conjuration

£xil on t}{£ Fa\\ said:
but did the band choose tgc? I don't think so*. We know this song because the dj on sirius played it. If it wasn't the case, maybe they would be playing another song from ghost reveries in concert.
I agree. Isn't the station that played this mainly a metalcore station?
Seems like this is they would pick if they wanted to prick the ears of their regular listeners.
Not to say TGC is metalcore :cool:
 
Sorry for breaking your post up into sections, but I just found it extremely difficult to read as it was. Responding to something structured and concise allows me to make a reply in kind.

deathbearer said:
Secondly, I will llisten to the new Opeth release Ghost Revelries when it comes out, but one would have to be a dimwit not to realize the radical change of sound on TGC compared to previous Opeth releases.


Do you mean 'sound' as in the sound of the production, or the sound that's achieved, musically?

In either case, I would reffer you back to Deliverance, which is Opeth's most sterile sounding album, being even more sparse than The Grand Conjuration.

Opeth, in the case of TGC, have opted to use the rhythm guitar as just that... a strictly rhythmic instrument. They have put a lot more focus on syncopation and having the rhythm guitars drive the song rhythmically, as opposed to melodically, which is what they did a lot of the time in the pre-Still Life era. I'm glad they're exploring new avenues of musical expression.

I'm sure as a higher quality version of the track becomes available, you'll be able to hear all those undertonal nuances, such as the octave lead over the 'nu-metal riff', the ebow leads and strings, more prominently.

I really think the low-quality rip is detrimental to the effect of the song. It never should have been broadcast over web radio.

The first few seconds of the song sounds like MINISTRY for crying out loud.
Yes, there is ONE decent guitar solo in TGC but it's low in the mix, as the rythm guitar riff of daan, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, daan, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun overrides it in the mix.

Whilst I'm not a big fan of ministry, I've heard some of their music, and I can't see how you can liken TGC to them. I'm all for Opeth becoming more industrial and exploring electronic synthesis, sampling etc. but that's NOT what they did on TGC. The main driving force in the track is still the guitars, with the synths added in to create texture.

Guitar solos don't always have to be prominent in the mix. That's what the 80's were all about... stop the dynamic of the song, pull back the rhythm tracks on the faders, crank the solo track then add in a few harmony tracks for good measure. It would totally have ruined the dynamic of the song if the solo just started and everything else got pulled back so that Mikael could wankfest away. As it is, it's one of Opeth's most fitting solos and half of that is just because it sounds so distant and overriden. It adds a new dimension to the lead, because you consistently have the rhythm guitars on either side, driving it, almost choking it.

I remember the days whn Mike and Peter traded nice melodic solos.

Yeah, but sadly all Peter's would do is affect the track detrimentally. Mike is a better soloist, and I'm glad they felt no obligation to put in the 'mandatory' metal, solo trade-off. They opted for something more tasteful for the track in question.

Speaking of which, if you're into that, check out the new Nevermore album. Great shred there.

I hope to the metal gods that this song was just a rough mix (?) and Opeth would and could expand on those riffs ( instead of that god damn cheesy nu metal riff in TGC) with thier more progressive qualities.
Opeth's fans are not JUST delusional fanboys/girls that think "Ohh EVERYTHING Opeth does it GREAT" nor do I come to this forum to relentllessly bash Opeth becuase I've been a geniune fan. Many Opeth fans compare each song, each release as a progression from other releases. Most Opeth fans offer at worst, constructive criticism to the band, not just delusional fanboyism based soley on thier back catalog.

You get to a point, after having been an Opeth fan for a while, where you just come to the realization that they bled their former styles dry. They never made an Orchid #2 or a Morningrise #2 because they were finished with those styles. The albums are still there, a document of their time, as Mike says. MAYH and Still Life are done. They are 2 of the greatest albums ever written, but that's it. Anything that Opeth would do in that vein again would just be a cheap imitation. You can't recapture that sort of atmosphere and bring it to life again, or even attempt to expand on it. Those were two very unique, marvellous albums that can never be remade.

I usually categorize Opeth's respective 'eras' of musical progression in pairs.

Orchid+Morningrise
MAYH+SL

Now, when we got to Blackwater Park, and subsequently, Deliverance. There was almost a hole. I couldn't relate Deliverance to BWP... I just couldn't appreciate the album musically at all. I think the arrival of Ghost Reveries will fit the role of Deliverance's partner, because from what I'm hearing of TGC, it's a solid progression of the Deliverance style. In my opinion, it's what Deliverance should have been.

So

Orchid+Morningrise
MAYH+SL
BWP
Deliverance+Ghost Reveries

with Damnation not included because it was a one-off.

The thing is that what you would describe as an 'industrious' and 'nu-metallic' sound is a perfect place for Opeth to venture. Just because there are so many bands in the mainstream that abuse the aesthetic of rhythmic riffs, doesn't inherently suggest that Opeth will fail if they choose to delve into those areas.

The fact that you can listen to SL and then to TGC, and hear such a HUGE style gap is amazing, and also a credit to the band, because it shows their adaptability and utter refusal to stagnate.

The song TGC is "streamlined" past the progressive tendencies Opeth has had, for nu metal riffage, and almost industrial nu metal production. It's just weird. I didn't mind Steven Wilson's production in the BWP/Deliverance/Damnation era as it fit Opeth perfectly.

I can tell you now, before the album is even out, that Ghost Reveries won't sound as sterile as Deliverance did. The 'production' in the Deliverance era was Andy Sneap, doing what he does best, which is mixing Nevermore, Testament or Arch Enemy records - NOT Opeth records. The sort of clinicality and notched mixing approach he adopts to his projects essentially makes all of those bands sound alike, and that's something that works for metal bands that aren't Opeth.

I'm quite sure the version of TGC we heard is the final deal. Maybe not mastered yet, but regardless, what you hear on the rip is probably what will be featured on the pressing of the CD itself.

I think a lot of the disdain for the newer Opeth records stems from the fact that they're produced to actually let you hear what's being played clearly, and using the production values to accentuate that. If MAYH was remixed by Andy Sneap and then remastered by 'mr goldenears mastering engineer' chances are that the fanbase would be in shock since the sort of production values in metal which are in demand today are so different of the ones of last millenium.
 
Opeth play a very mellow tune (To Rid The Disease) right before they do the
new one (TGC). Mike gets on the microphone and says that this song represents
what extreme death metal from Sweden sounds like. They just wanted to show that
they can play such varied music styles and still pull them off. No other band that I have heard can do this sort of thing live and not have people yelling "Hey, what the fuck is this shit". TGC live is so much better than the poor quality rip.
 
Moonlapse said:
Yeah, but sadly all Peter's would do is affect the track detrimentally. Mike is a better soloist, and I'm glad they felt no obligation to put in the 'mandatory' metal, solo trade-off. They opted for something more tasteful for the track in question.

First off, I would just like to say that I do happen to like TGC very much. It is quite different from anything that they have done previously and that is what makes me all the more intrigued to hear what the rest has in store for us.

But Moonlapse, if I may inquire about that comment you just made above ^

The only reason why I am about to say this is because I have noticed that there have been quite a few times that you have spoken negatively about Peter's playing and because of that I couldn't help from raising an eyebrow at this point....

I'm totally for constructive criticism, but when a person keeps repeating themselves on a particular subject even when the subject is not in question leaves me to believe that it is no longer constructive criticism at all and might be just flat out criticism.

I remember you saying in the past (and I shall not quote you exactly) saying something like... "Mikael is a better soloist but at least Peter can keep up with the music and I suppose that's adequate". Now, that might not be exactly how you worded it but I do remember you saying he is just adequate when it comes to his playing.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that is very fair. Do you really think Mikael would have his right hand man be just adequate?? And now with regards to Peter's solos you're saying... "all Peter's would do is affect the track detrimentally" ???

I don't mean to sound rude, but maybe you can push Peter aside and show him how it's done??

I think Peter is an excellent guitarist and soloist and I could understand if maybe some people have different opinions, that's cool, but it just seems to me that you have one time too many said negative things about his playing. I mean after all, the person who you were responding to was talking about the solo trade offs in general.... not whether you think Peter can hold his own as a soloist. And this is what I'm talking about. It just seems like you once again went out of your way to say something negative about him.

Don't get me wrong and don't take offense to what I am saying either. I just wanted to give my two cents on the situation.
 
A solo trade-off traditionally implies (and is also pertinent to Opeth in this sense) that the two guitarists do solos one after the other. Opeth did this on White Cluster, The Funeral Portrait etc.

In my opinion Mikael's solos were always better. That's why I preffered TGC being confined to the one solo, and not having a second right after, which would almost by default suggest that Peter would do it.

I'm not going out of my way to criticize him. It was relevant in context of the point I was establishing. I still think he's an adequate enough guitarist to be in Opeth, but he hasn't done anything to impress me yet, as a guitarist.
 
Moonlapse said:
A solo trade-off traditionally implies (and is also pertinent to Opeth in this sense) that the two guitarists do solos one after the other. Opeth did this on White Cluster, The Funeral Portrait etc.

Yes, I know this.

In my opinion Mikael's solos were always better.

And I respect your opinion.

That's why I preffered TGC being confined to the one solo, and not having a second right after, which would almost by default suggest that Peter would do it.

Let's see what the rest of the album holds for us because I personally would love to hear Peter trade of with Mikael. ;)

I'm not going out of my way to criticize him. It was relevant in context of the point I was establishing.

This ^ I don't agree with. I don't think your comment was relevant here just like your other comments concerning him in the past weren't either but I'm not here to argue with you. I just wanted to let you know how I feel. You could have just stated that you just want to hear Mikael because you love his solo work the best, not that you think Peter's solos affected the music "detrimentally". You could have gotten your point across without the insult and that's what I'm talking about.

I still think he's an adequate enough guitarist to be in Opeth, but he hasn't done anything to impress me yet, as a guitarist.

I'm sorry to hear that.



*Peace*
 
Moonie said peters solo's werent that good. Moonies post was a very good one.

I like Peters solos, even though they arent as good as Mike's. A fair judgement, white cluster, deliverance, they are quality.
 
I was thinking to create a new "were you really dissapointed when you heard TGC for the first time" thread. As searching for old threads I found this...

Many of you seem to say (in the "Least Favourite Opeth Track" thread) that TGC is easily the worst song from Opeth. It's quite interesting to see how most of you didn't want to bash TGC or weren't pessimistic for the upcoming Ghost Reveries release when you heard TGC for the first time. My point/question is did you have to make yourself believe that TGC is good? Were your attitude towards the song somewhat different because you hadn't heard the whole album?

Personally I hated TGC when I first heard it from Roadrunners listening lounge. It really really did affect to my exceptations towards the new album. I was thinking that even Opeth can't make 8 perfect albums in a row.

Gladly GR turned out to be a another perfect album and even TGC seems to be quite a decent song (the cd quality did a lot for this song imo).
 
when i first heard TGC i didn't know what to think. i was in a bit of disbelief that it was the new opeth sound, especially with its verse/chorus structure at the beginning. i didn't hate it, i thought it was ok, but it was not worthy of opeth imo. i did like the solo's and the climax at the end but as a whole i hoped the rest of the album would be different, and luckily i was right.
 
Well, this thread was sure gone for a long time...

Anyhow, I'll just give my two cents to the whole solo trade-off situation

Sure Mike is a better guitarist and I prefer his solo's over Peter's most of the time but I think Peter pulled off some great solo's too like the said Deliverance, When or Wreath and the trade-off's between the two, especially from the recent albums are great! I mean it's frankly the moment I await in A Funeral Portrait (listening to it now :) ) or A Fair JudOgement and it's the fact that they have two very different styles that makes it so special... I love Peter's more melodic approach, even if he's not up with Mike's articulation. Differences are for me what trade-off's are all about - I'm not fond of Slayer trade-off's for instance because if it wasn't for the panning, I often wouldn't tell King from Hanneman!