The following three quotations are segments of a BlueSky post:
Just because they throw in a small fairly unexpected part doesn't mean much, but it was an honest attempt that I would have like to have been pushed further, and what I was trying to say is I understand if people don't accept it so fast.
The less one understands about different types of music, the less one will understand what's truly different (legitimately unexpected) about Opeth's music from album to album.
There are bands that constantly put out out cd after cd of entire collection of songs that you'd never see coming, and not just some small part in 9 albums.
Care to name-drop? You're speaking of said bands in the present tense ("constantly put out"), whose converse I referred to before; when you're invested in a band from release to release, that music is going to seem more different than if you became a fan years later and listened to, say
Deliverance through
Watershed in a few hours, weeks, whatever, as opposed to digesting them years at a time like you did. That's likely why you perceive the period of D2 onward as "that which has seen the the biggest amount of change in the context of their catalogue"; you were listening to it album at a time, waiting for the next. That assures understanding better than listening to
Orchid through BWP in a much shorter period of time. I infer this to have been the case, as you seem not to appreciate the incredible aesthetic deviance among the first five albums.
As for Damnation it wasn't an attempt towards change as Mike said he wanted it to be a one time thing, and that's that. You seem to like to hear yourself talk trying to gain some cred on the forum instead of trying to have a level headed conversation. Lastly you're not going to steamroll me with anything since the music speaks for itself. Although It's not like I haven't been listening since before Deliverance onward, which has seen the biggest amount of change in the context of their catalogue, but thanks for assuming.
Again, you present a multi-layered contradiction. You're now saying
Damnation was no attempt at change because Mike said it was "a one-time-thing"-- as opposed to something they'd stick with?! An instance of change is change whether or not it's followed by a different change or a repeat, and the fact that they didn't repeat Damnation reinforces the album as change followed by change in a new direction-- progression. (Not to mention you yourself said you don't grasp "why people act like Opeth have had some drastic change ever besides Damnation.")
Haha, I think I -already- steamrolled you with -my- levelheadedness; I'm the one covering my bases and not concocting mind-boggling contradictions. I didn't assume anything (about your longevity as a fan?), unlike you and your presumption that I post for intellectual credit on a forum chock full of idiots. I post to counterbalance their bile with thoughts about music I love, not to gain unimportant internet recognition. Any part of my previous post you might have taken offense at exists likely because I guess you, "unlike me, have come to expect what Opeth has up their sleeves." Stupid, highhanded bullshit.
Speaking of assumptions...
Originally posted by Crepuscularia:
Okay, so the assertion is that Mike deliberately put in the "circus part" to represent embracing the 'hopeless delight' of alcohol? I think your analysis of the theme is very interesting, but I also think its utterly pointless to single out a specific section of music and say, "oh this passage represents blah blah blah". This is ridiculous; Opeth does not write program music and The Lotus Eater is not Peter and the Wolf. The best we can do is say that a certain section of music evokes certain emotions in us, and even that is purely on an individual basis.
Nope, that was never an assertion:
My inference of TLE's concept from its music is of course completely subjective, but this does not at all nullify the aforementioned truth about concrete concepts.
^That's been in the thread since I wrote it. Thanks for reading. Sad when your thoughts are good but rendered less relevant by context you ignored.
Originally posted by Tangled:
Referring to TLE I would have to agree with you. I find the drum work to be totally out of place, and at times overly flashy (alot of the fills and transitions don't make any sense to me) Its an interesting song no doubt, I tend to enjoy the keyboard breakdown. It sounds fine, the problem in that song is the drum work.
Really?!? I respect your opinion, though I wish you would better substantiate it. Honestly I find 2:52 - 4:14 of TLE among Opeth's best performance synergy on any album-- Axe's drumming practically making it. The song segment is so anguished, it's incredible.
Originally posted by Tangled:
I would think sincerity and originality would go hand in hand. Sincerity is overrated on its own, anyone can write a sincere watered down love song that we've all heard many times but I think originality is what makes each and every (good) love song interesting. Yes Mikes writing is emotionally authentic, but is it not at the same time original? I dont think Opeth fans want art for art's sake, I think they want heavy music that isnt quiet as mindless and one dimensional as the overwhelming majority of "metal" or just music in general is today. Opeth's music has dynamic and mystery, they dont put out albums that I can understand at first glance and then put down. I (and I would assume most fans) listen to Opeth albums endlessly. Its one of the few bands that I actually go out of my way for to buy their album, just so I can read the lyrics, look at the artwork and have a tangible copy of it, not just an Mp3. Their albums are simply amazing and too important not to own, I dont think any real opeth fans overlook that.
I agree completely that they go hand in hand, I just believe sincerity is more important because originality without it just sounds pretentious-- originality for its own sake. The next step above that is originality motivated by a genuine passion for the original concept, not for the status of being original. I find Mikael Åkerfeldt's writing sincerely motivated by authentic personal experience, fond homage to inspirations,
and passion for originality-- a beautiful, seemingly ideal combination. I infer your question-marked sentence was just a transition to the subject of Mike's songwriting originality, not actual doubt that I find Mike's writing original. I think I made it absolutely clear that I do and apologize if I suggested otherwise. Good contribution.
Edit:
I always thought that "funk" section was really creepy, it's sorta happy in an insane not quite right in the head type way.
Haha, there we go!
