The "if Opeth's newest doesn't sound like.. then it sucks" thread

[fainéant]

Originally posted by Infinite Reach
I don't dislike Orchid, but I agree with most of this. On Orchid, the songs are just different little sections thrown back to back. The music stops, then starts again on something else (they didn't even know where to put the song break between the last 2 songs!).

A shame. that's the very thing listeners say about Orchid. They're wrong. And they're missing a lot. And also, you are casting music into a certain die, expecting it to conform to your limited definition of music. I don't blame orchid for not conforming so obviously to your tastes.

 

[Static]

I completely disagree with you there Infinite Reach. If anything, Morningrise is thrice as mumbo-jumbo as Orchid. I mean, BRI stops and starts like 3 times! In that song it seems they just slapped a bunch of riffs together. The thing that redeems it is the fact that once you learn to anticipate each section, it becomes a joy to listen to. If anything, Orchid flows a lot better than Morningrise. It does not sound random in anyway. The only songs guilty of randomness on Orchid are Forest of October and Under the Weeping Moon. On Morningrise the songs guilty of randomness, to my ears, are Night and the Silent Water, Nectar and BRI. I think Advent flows the best out of all of them.

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by fainéant
No person is the consummate physicist either. But judgements one guy makes can be judged against another's.



you raise fine points, metalmancpa. but I agree with none of them.

some guy takes a delight in watching the juggler juggle three balls. what if there were another juggler juggling 7 balls, of different colors, and furthermore making patterns with the colors of the balls and the sequence with which he were juggling them?

two jugglers, one guy. this guy isn't aware of the intelligence of the other juggler. isn't that a shame? there's nothing subjective about saying, "look, you like that juggler and think he's better than juggler two? but look, he's handling more than three balls- but you dont' see it, he's making patterns you don't see." How would a conversation look then? Isn't it possible to judge an album in the same way? The answer is yes. We can even get somewhat metrical about it. It's the difference between criticism and lay opinion. Discussing what one likes is different from dealing with the artistic merits of a work of art and attempting - because it's possible!- to objectify art as human action and judge it for its intelligence as directed action.

The bottom line is the worst thing one can say is "it's just opinion".


miscellanea:

MAYH had been a perrenial favorite of mine. BWP, i've defended this album more than I can count. I think the first thing that has be met for the critic is that he has to appreciate what the jugglers are doing; for what if juggler # one is doing more than meets the eye, and I haven't recognized it? it's my fault as a critic. and perhaps in argument you can convince of this. In anycase, I can say outright that if you haven't appreciated an album, I don't think you're qualified to judge. I'm directing this towards anyone, but it's as simple as that.

I think Orchid evinces a very wide and "brave" and I would say innovative use of tonality about it, the way it goes all over the scale of music and introduces new musicla ideas and never stagnates, the way it seems to be expressing much more than mere tones, the way it's communicating feelings and putting together a human meaning outside of the music. This is a feature of music that is wanting in Opeth albums such as Morningrise (an album which I appreciate on totally different grounds), or other albums some of whose riffs are "simply there" not doing anything except mechanicallically repeating itself in an extended loop. Think of the song Blackwater Park, the last song. Contrast it to In mist, their very first. One song's music is 'simply there' given mechanical loops, the other is full of a musical life- the "brave" musical modualations, the polyphonic harmonics, and the esthetic nuances of these. Am I missing something about BP? I don't htink so. I can appreciate it, and enjoy it, but then I also see, objectively, how the riffs iterate mechanically; I can see the music in terms of intelligence per sec of music. This is the difference between critical discussion and lay opinion making.

I'm open to intelligent debate - even where something is formless as art is concerned. But this kind of debate must exclude 1) bald assertions and one liners pretending to be omniscient; and 2) and recourse to the phrase "it's all subjective".

You make it sound like the best music is the most technical. Juggling is interesting because its technical, music is about emotions and whatever else, technicallity isnt important.

Technical things are only important in terms of the effect they create on the listener. But each listener is affected by different things (due to knowledge, past exposure to music, attitude, what they've heard in the media etc etc). Therefore each technical thing may have an effect on one listener while having no effect on another listener.

[edit]I forgot to point out the different aims of the listener, do they want something which they can headbang to? do they want something they can put on in the background while they clean the fishtank? do they want something to listen to each day on their 5 minute drive to work?... but the wants of listeners are different on such small levels. Most of us here may be opeth fans, but i gaurantee we are pretty much all getting slightly different things from them, there'll be a lot of similarities, but some people say Novembre are like Opeth.... to me they are both extremely different.. obviously we're listening to the music in different ways. This is important. THe subjective 'wants' of a listener must be taken into acount to decide whether music is good or bad for that listener. [/edit]

For example, you like the continual progression of orchid, whereas i see it as a weakness (rebelling too far against normal song structure... structure has a lot of use in music, but in Orchid i feel the structure is not really chosen artistically for any reason, per song).

Saying how good music is IS a subjective thing. You can argue and talk objectively about music, but you cant come out in the end and say "Orchid is better".... you can only say "Orchid is technically better". Doesnt make it a better album, i could change time sig/key every single bar.... would be technically pretty amazing, but wouldnt make a better album would it?

And judging and comparing music is impossible because there is SOOOOOOOO many different things that can be changed, and different ways where the art is expressed. All music will excel in some areas and be shit in MOST areas. Comparing music is like comparing cars, in the end you're always refering back to some aim, something you WANT from the car, to decide how good it is. You cant remove this subjective side from it. You can argue objectively how well a band fulfils your wants and needs from music, you know what you look for in music, you know what affects you, but you cant say what is better music for someone else.

 

[fainéant]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
You make it sound like the best music is the most technical. Juggling is interesting because its technical, music is about emotions and whatever else, technicallity isnt important.

I wasn't referring to "technicality" at all.

Technical things are only important in terms of the effect they create on the listener. But each listener is affected by different things (due to knowledge, past exposure to music, attitude, what they've heard in the media etc etc). Therefore each technical thing may have an effect on one listener while having no effect on another listener.

We're not- at least I"m not - talking about "effects". I'm talking about merit. -- again not a technical issue, so much as a intelligence issue - directing, purposively, your music and making the most of it in an interval of time.

For example, you like the continual progression of orchid, whereas i see it as a weakness (rebelling too far against normal song structure... structure has a lot of use in music, but in Orchid i feel the structure is not really chosen artistically for any reason, per song).

I can say you're not really appreciating Orchid then. Besides, the fact that In Mist is unorthodox in structure compared to Drapery is not what I'm trying to call attention to. I think they'r both great songs, in fact. I'm talking about intelligence and sensing, if we can, the intelligence in an work of art-- how much of it is there? with what will and magnitude is the artist endeavoring to create hiw work of art?

Saying how good music is IS a subjective thing. You can argue and talk objectively about music, but you cant come out in the end and say "Orchid is better".... you can only say "Orchid is technically better". Doesnt make it a better album, i could change time sig/key every single bar.... would be technically pretty amazing, but wouldnt make a better album would it?

And judging and comparing music is impossible because there is SOOOOOOOO many different things that can be changed, and different ways where the art is expressed. All music will excel in some areas and be shit in MOST areas. Comparing music is like comparing cars, in the end you're always refering back to some aim, something you WANT from the car, to decide how good it is. You cant remove this subjective side from it. You can argue objectively how well a band fulfils your wants and needs from music, you know what you look for in music, you know what affects you, but you cant say what is better music for someone else.

I might be a guy who enjoys a simple jumping jack fire cracker vs. some 2000$ one that goes off and produces a phi effect of images in the sky. I might like simpler songs, I might like Britney spears, but it doesn't change the fact that what I'm liking is just a 2 penny firecracker.

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by fainéant
I'm talking about intelligence and sensing, if we can, the intelligence in an work of art-- how much of it is there? with what will and magnitude is the artist endeavoring to create hiw work of art?

And you dont think Orchid is largely a fluke? Amateurish?

Scales harmonies, time sigs, song structures, etc etc.. none of it seems very well thought out to me. All pretty standard, i believe their production, use of scales, song structures controlled THEM in Orchid. I doubt they intended the album to give the overall feel it did (which was created by the production i guess). I like listening to the album, dont get me wrong. But everything is either standard, or the logical reaction of rebelling against the standard.

Whether Still Life or BWP or whatever are better, the way i see it is that there is far more choice involved, far more knowledge going into the songs and the results are far more intentional.

I might be a guy who enjoys a simple jumping jack fire cracker vs. some 2000$ one that goes off and produces a phi effect of images in the sky. I might like simpler songs, I might like Britney spears, but it doesn't change the fact that what I'm liking is just a 2 penny firecracker.

Music isnt good on a linear scale. THis is why it gets confusing and impossible to judge. Lets say two songs are exactly the same.... except one uses more interesting chords while the other throws some weird time sigs in. Nothing else is different. Which song is better?

Its impossible to judge even that, because you have to ask well which techique is better? And in art the technique is only important if its achieving something, so what is it trying to achieve? If they are trying to achieve different things, then how do you compare? Is a lounge better than a chair?

And then in the real world songs are completely different. They all excel in different areas and suck at other areas. While one is good at a b and c, another is good at d e and f. How do you compare?

You can say some music is better than others i guess, you can objectively see that one is doing far more things than another. But in the case of Opeth i dont think its the case. The way they write songs may have similarites but a LOT of the fundamental ways in which they create these songs has changed. THe focus has gone from twin guitars to chord work. From flowing music to haevy music. etc. I dont think its possible to say which is better.

And any one person will always have a heirachy in their head of what is more important. That is completely subjective and eliminates any chance anyone ever had of judging some music objectively. If you listen only to verse/chorus songs for your whole life and then hear an opeth-structured song what will you think? If you listen to only opeth-structured songs your whole life and then hear a verse/chorus song what will you think? Your opinions of these different song structures will be different. And this is how it is for everything, scales, harmonies, chords, song length, structure, repetition, vocals, etc etc etc... literally thousands of things that each individual has a different idea of whats more important. How can anyone judge objectively what is better music?

 

[IanDork107]

Originally posted by fainéant
I'm not bashing any Opeth album. I hope that's clear. Im' just saying Orchid is Opeth's most underrated album when it's indeed their most passionate and creatively wonderful

Of course, that's entirely opinion. I think every time Opeth put's something new out its better than the previous. That's what I enjoy about them, that their musical direction and my taste seem to head in the same direction at the same time. Right now, I'm into heavier and softer music than ever before, and Deliverance is extremely heavy, and Damnation will be very soft. That's perfect for me and that let's Opeth live up to my standards of greatness.

 

[fainéant]

Originally posted by YaYoGakk
And you dont think Orchid is largely a fluke? Amateurish?

not much. It's their first effort, the production can be improved. you need to give them the benefit of the doubt. And what you're saying becomes more and more unlikely when you appreciate an album. It's easy to fake albums that are full of loops of repeating riffs. But this can't be said of an album that employs harmonies, bass lines synced with drum beats, and other things, I'd bet you haven't noticed.

Is it fluke? The more and more one appreciates and sees the musical details the more the idea is unlikely.

Scales harmonies, time sigs, song structures, etc etc.. none of it seems very well thought out to me. All pretty standard, i believe their production, use of scales, song structures controlled THEM in Orchid. I doubt they intended the album to give the overall feel it did (which was created by the production i guess). I like listening to the album, dont get me wrong. But everything is either standard, or the logical reaction of rebelling against the standard.

The direction of your replies are getting confused. I'm wasn't talking about technicality then. And here I'm not talking about the distinction between "whats' standard and what's not".

Whether Still Life or BWP or whatever are better, the way i see it is that there is far more choice involved, far more knowledge going into the songs and the results are far more intentional.

there's plenty of choice involved in riffs that could hav been played out by a looping machine, I'm sure. (remember MAYH, as for you now, used to be a fav.

Music isnt good on a linear scale. THis is why it gets confusing and impossible to judge. Lets say two songs are exactly the same.... except one uses more interesting chords while the other throws some weird time sigs in. Nothing else is different. Which song is better?

good point. I say they are equal. And I'm not judging music on a linear scale.

[/quote]Its impossible to judge even that, because you have to ask well which techique is better? And in art the technique is only important if its achieving something, so what is it trying to achieve? If they are trying to achieve different things, then how do you compare? Is a lounge better than a chair?[/quote]

you're infusing an artist's delusion. There's not such thing as particular purpose in art making. There's only 1) a hope for a general effect and 2) the magnitude with which one has efforted for that effect (evident in the work).

And then in the real world songs are completely different. They all excel in different areas and suck at other areas. While one is good at a b and c, another is good at d e and f. How do you compare?

I don't argue with this. Your point?

You can say some music is better than others i guess, you can objectively see that one is doing far more things than another. But in the case of Opeth i dont think its the case. The way they write songs may have similarites but a LOT of the fundamental ways in which they create these songs has changed. THe focus has gone from twin guitars to chord work. From flowing music to haevy music. etc. I dont think its possible to say which is better.

I have nothing against chordal music and I don'r favor twin guitar music. You'll have to clear that up about me. And you're wrong about the first sentence, since then it would then be impossible to class any music as good or bad.

And any one person will always have a heirachy in their head of what is more important. That is completely subjective and eliminates any chance anyone ever had of judging some music objectively. If you listen only to verse/chorus songs for your whole life and then hear an opeth-structured song what will you think? If you listen to only opeth-structured songs your whole life and then hear a verse/chorus song what will you think? Your opinions of these different song structures will be different. And this is how it is for everything, scales, harmonies, chords, song length, structure, repetition, vocals, etc etc etc... literally thousands of things that each individual has a different idea of whats more important. How can anyone judge objectively what is better music? [/B]

Good point, but it doesn't apply. Remember, and let's permit some personal information -- I used to think the world of BP and MAYH etc. and thought dirt of Orchid!

hope this post makes sense, and if it doesn't seem congenial -- that's because it's not!! hehe just joking. -- i'm in a rush, man.

 

[MetalManCPA]

After reading through this thread, including my own comments, let me make this as simple as I can (and I'll take nothing away from all of the brilliant musical discussion that has gone on here):

You like Orchid - I like Blackwater Park.

So there - na na na boo boo

 

[Manbient]

I used to like Morningrise best, then Orchid, then the other 3 just kinda fell in after.

...the more i listen to BWP especially the more i see in it that is new... the song structures i think ARE more adventurous, much more thought into them. I listen to the Leper Affinity... i could NEVER come up with a song like that, the changes are awesome, the chords are chaotic right from the begining, ends beautifully...

Now i listen to In Mist She Was Standing... not a lot going on tere... 2 guitars playing single notes a lot of the time... chords fairly consistently stuck in minor and some diminished shapes, and the general feel of most of the songs on Orchid doesn't change much through the song. You don't hear something as night and day as the opening chords in TLA compared to 4:48, and again compared to 9:00 to the end... there are changes, but not near as drastic and they seem not as organically put together as on BWP. And i will mention AGAIN the chord work. NOT 2 notes, one from each guitar. MANY, very full and deliberate there, not stuck in only minor and diminished.

Now given the older stuff does sound more haunting (i still think Morningrise is my favorite) BUT i've discovered it all on those first 2 albums... the later ones every time i STILL figure out more and more from them, and slowly i think BWP might eventually be my favorite. SO i am comming form the opposite spectrum... the newer albums are slowly passing the old ones in my mind.

What does that mean, fainéant? am i becomming less appreciative of music and more simple minded? I sure hope not.

 

[ham]

@yayogakk
i like your music, very nice indeed, keep it up

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by fainéant
not much. It's their first effort, the production can be improved. you need to give them the benefit of the doubt. And what you're saying becomes more and more unlikely when you appreciate an album. It's easy to fake albums that are full of loops of repeating riffs. But this can't be said of an album that employs harmonies, bass lines synced with drum beats, and other things, I'd bet you haven't noticed.

You'd bet? Im saying many elements of the sound werent intentional. I do of course realise there is a lot of good stuff happening there. Remember, i love Orchid as well.

The direction of your replies are getting confused. I'm wasn't talking about technicality then. And here I'm not talking about the distinction between "whats' standard and what's not".

So you'd give a band credit for doing the standard thing? So Britney Spears deserves credit for doing standard pop songs? My point was relevant, maybe i didnt tie it in well with the topic. If a band is just doing the standard thing, without thought, then they dont deserve too much credit. There is good stuff in Orchid, im simply pointing out that there is bad stuff as well, you most likely dont find it important because its not something you listen for in music.

there's plenty of choice involved in riffs that could hav been played out by a looping machine, I'm sure. (remember MAYH, as for you now, used to be a fav.

That is one area where the later albums dont do well on, and where earlier albums do better. But this is what ive been saying, the same can be said in reverse about other songwriting techniques. This doesnt prove one is better than the other, it only proves that one is better than the other in this small issue of riff repetition.

I don't argue with this. Your point?

You're comparing Orchid and BWP for example, two quite different albums. They have similarities, and they are by the same band, but other than that there are a lot of very different things about the albums. And here you are saying one is undeniably better than the other, and its sounding like your claiming it as something objective. Im trying to point out how much your view is clouded by what you want from music.




You can say subjectively that a band is better or worse for you (and be pretty accurate for people with similar tastes to yours). You can say objectively which band/song/album does which technique (either songwriting, or playing, or whatever) better. But when it comes to saying which one is better overall, objectively, thats where you can only do it on a very general scale, because we humans simply arent smart enough to take everything about a band into consideration. And even then its got little relevance, Opeth may be better than Britney Spears.... but if a 14 yr old girl wants something to dance to, would you give them opeth?

One more point, you know that its hard to judge music that you dont get into, i believe you said something about that. To really understand whats good about certain music you've got to really get into it, to see why things are good. But its not just a level of getting into it or not, theres lots of levels in between. I can love an album, but if its not exactly what i want from music then i may still be missing certain elements, i may not be noticing things, even if i do notice lots and lots of other good stuff. You understand this im sure. Yet you seem to be claiming that because you used to like MAYH that that means you figured out everything about it. I doubt thats true, i doubt any person has seen every good/bad point about music, even if it is their favourite.

 

[YaYo]

Originally posted by ham
@yayogakk
i like your music, very nice indeed, keep it up

thankyou