all_sins_undone
New Metal Member
- Oct 5, 2005
- 4,934
- 7
- 0
Time for a Name Change?
- Thread starter hibernal_dream
- Start date
First off all, Opethian666, allow me to congratulate you on a fine post, which manages to cross quote me in ways that may make it seems as if I am contradicting myself, though, alas, I am not. I do find it funny, though, that all of this spawned out of my original comment about Morningrise being more structured than Orchid. For years now, this has seemed as the most obvious thing to me...
Now, allow me to quote what you said:
Honestly, if this is what I said, it was not my intent. I don't believe I did, though, and nothing of what you quoted prove this wrong. Repetition is not the problem with Orchid, after all, but rather in what order riffs are repeated in.
Now, moving on. Like I said, what makes Orchid disjointed and awkward is not the amount of times riffs are repeated, but rather, when and where they are used. The transitions and clean passages, in particular, appear so random one might wonder if they were ever even written for the songs they ended up on. I must admit, it has been a good amount of years since I listened to this album, but I'm fairly certain on this point (the bass line at around 6min in the first song, for instance?). The moods and atmospheres are so wavering, being pulled into one song is impossible; it's more like two or three shorter songs, all cut into pieces, then put back together in random order as one long song.
And this is exactly where Morningrise shows improvement, I believe. Not that I am sure exactly how I can make myself clearer at this point, though. I mean, that each and every song on Morningrise utilized the same progression and technique, should be evidence enough to prove that the guys were at least exploring the concept of song structures at this point, amateurish as it may have been. That there are still some issues with transitions and so on, no one can deny, but compared to Orchid? I can't say I agree there.
Now, allow me to quote what you said:
Honestly, if this is what I said, it was not my intent. I don't believe I did, though, and nothing of what you quoted prove this wrong. Repetition is not the problem with Orchid, after all, but rather in what order riffs are repeated in.
Now, moving on. Like I said, what makes Orchid disjointed and awkward is not the amount of times riffs are repeated, but rather, when and where they are used. The transitions and clean passages, in particular, appear so random one might wonder if they were ever even written for the songs they ended up on. I must admit, it has been a good amount of years since I listened to this album, but I'm fairly certain on this point (the bass line at around 6min in the first song, for instance?). The moods and atmospheres are so wavering, being pulled into one song is impossible; it's more like two or three shorter songs, all cut into pieces, then put back together in random order as one long song.
And this is exactly where Morningrise shows improvement, I believe. Not that I am sure exactly how I can make myself clearer at this point, though. I mean, that each and every song on Morningrise utilized the same progression and technique, should be evidence enough to prove that the guys were at least exploring the concept of song structures at this point, amateurish as it may have been. That there are still some issues with transitions and so on, no one can deny, but compared to Orchid? I can't say I agree there.
Opethian666
Booze influenced
- Sep 17, 2005
- 1,105
- 0
- 36
Crimson Velvet said:
They don't just make it seem, they simply show that you are contradicting yourself. If you can't be honest enough to admit that, I don't know why I am even discussing this with you. If you did not contradict yourself, please show me the missing parts of your posts that I supposedly let out to make it seem as if you contradicted yourself, while in reality you did not?
Billions of people around the world find it the most obvious thing in the world that their specific interpretation of a specific god of a specific denomination of a specific religion exists and interacts with them. Your opinion about Morningrise and Orchid holds as much truth as many other things that seem obvious to many people around the world. It is only when something is not only obvious, but can also be demonstrated and explained, that it actually holds truth.
Ah, but here we get to the basis of all this. It may not have been your intent, but you did clearly state it, as your posts show, even though you dishonestly deny it, although any sane person who reads your posts will agree with me. As for the order that the riffs are repeated in causing Orchid to be unstructured, this is a pretty subjective statement. Different people will think differently about how atmospheres and melodies are supposed to match. One person likes dissonance more than others, or likes dramatic moodswings more than others. On Morningrise, the transitions however are not just of the kind that one riff changes into another that may or may not fit well with the previous one, but a riff that stops, seems to end the song, and then suddenly a different one starts that could just as well have been the beginning to a new song, even without having to add a pause. BRI could have easily been 3 songs, simply by splitting the song in 3 parts without any additional modifications. If you think this is possible with any song in Orchid, please name it.
It's also been a long time since I've listened to both albums, and I don't have them here, they are at my dorm room, so sadly I cannot check the songs atm. However, as I've already said, randomness in music concerning atmospheres and melodies is subjective. If you let someone who is used to pop music listen to Ghost Of Perdition, which would seem perfectly structured to most of us, they would think of it as total chaos. The stop-starts in Morningrise however are clear to most people, even here (feel free to post your opinion if you disagree with me), especially in BRI. And remember, it's a 20 minute song, taking up almost 1/3rd of the album, so I don't really see how it can be considered an exception to an otherwise structured album. Anyway, I don't really want to discuss whether Orchid is more structured than Morningrise, since it will just be my own opinion derived from how I view structure and my own subjective experience of music. I only replied to you initially because you replied with insult to someone who dared challenge your opinion that Morningrise is more structured than Orchid, without even explaining why, which would only be your subjective opinion anyway, and then you replied to me (which I at least expected would be a long post concerning many aspects of structure, compared between the 2 albums) with only a comment about the small aspect of never repeating a riff, somehow thinking this proved your very general statement, and then assuming that I hadn't even noticed this aspect, and finding it "comical".
Actually, they completely abandoned the general concept of song structure on Morningrise. A conventional song structure is something like ABACDAB or AA'BA''B'A'''C etc... When you don't repeat any riffs, you cannot even begin to construct a song structure like that. Not repeating any riffs is rather a concept, an idea that they utilised on the album, nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, I hope you now understand why I posted in the first place, not because I think I can objectively prove that Orchid is more structured than Morningrise, not even because I have the opinion that this is true, rather because of your inability to accept other people's opinions and at the same time the inability to even defend the point which you expect other people to accept. It seems however that you've dramatically changed your attitude since I've started posting. "I believe", "I can't say I agree there". Keep it up.
Don Corleone
Emre
For people who don't have endless amounts of time to waste, I conveniently summarised your arguments above.
According to the above formulation, the only thing with any structure would be mainstream pop. Why you think repeating parts is the only possible form of structure is beyond me, and the 'stop-start' argument is based on an extremely narrow conceptualisation of a song which would exclude any piece with several movements from the definition.
Stilgar
Berzerker
Heh. Thanks for the summary. I also refused to read the post for several reasons (length being one of them).
Personally, I don't care if Orchid or Morningrise are structured or not. They're both damn good albums. That's what matters to me.
Opethian666, I'm just gonna skip the first part of your post here, as I am sick of repeating myself.
Aaaaaalright, then.
Well, he annoyed me...
earlier, I had been threatened with hanging for my views, and so I scooped all the members here into the fanboy club, and I posted brashly. It happens.
Actually, I believe my original term, as soon I realized this was escalating into a debate, was a "system". Unfortunately, I am not schooled well enough in the science of music to recognize the correct semantics in every situation. However, "system" was my original assessment, and remains my prefered term now as well (at least in retrospect). I guess my opinion will boil down to this, then:
I believe Morningrise is a better written album than Orchid.
And the reason my tone towards you have changed, is because you are obviously not cut from the same cloth as the people who responded to my original posts. Your first post and user name led me to believe otherwise, though, which is why I may have appeared harsh at first, and I apologize for that. I try to treat everyone on these forums with respect, provided I feel they deserve it. Many here do not.
And don't mistake my refusal to simply accept your opinion as a general feature of my character. If I felt that you made a stronger case than me, I would not hesitate to say so. However, it seems non of us can make stronger arguments than "it feels more coherent to me". You seem to feel that the start-stop thing is what hinders the Morningrise album. I disagree. I believe that the overall melodic and and moody incoherency is what hinders the Orchid album. You disagree. Agree?
Aaaaaalright, then.
Well, he annoyed me...
earlier, I had been threatened with hanging for my views, and so I scooped all the members here into the fanboy club, and I posted brashly. It happens.Actually, I believe my original term, as soon I realized this was escalating into a debate, was a "system". Unfortunately, I am not schooled well enough in the science of music to recognize the correct semantics in every situation. However, "system" was my original assessment, and remains my prefered term now as well (at least in retrospect
). I guess my opinion will boil down to this, then:I believe Morningrise is a better written album than Orchid.
And the reason my tone towards you have changed, is because you are obviously not cut from the same cloth as the people who responded to my original posts. Your first post and user name led me to believe otherwise, though, which is why I may have appeared harsh at first, and I apologize for that. I try to treat everyone on these forums with respect, provided I feel they deserve it. Many here do not.
And don't mistake my refusal to simply accept your opinion as a general feature of my character. If I felt that you made a stronger case than me, I would not hesitate to say so. However, it seems non of us can make stronger arguments than "it feels more coherent to me". You seem to feel that the start-stop thing is what hinders the Morningrise album. I disagree. I believe that the overall melodic and and moody incoherency is what hinders the Orchid album. You disagree. Agree?
Opethian666
Booze influenced
- Sep 17, 2005
- 1,105
- 0
- 36
hibernal_dream said:
If you would've taken the time to read my entire post, you would have seen that I do not claim that morningrise is more structured than orchid, and I was not making arguments to try and prove that point. I was merely putting forth a few small arguments as to why the opposite is not immediately true, and of course had to use arguments as to why orchid could be more structured than morningrise to do this.
See here:
Opethian666 said:
I don't know where you get the part where I say that repeating parts is the only possible form of structure, I simply said:
Opethian666 said:
So you see, I was talking about conventional song structure, and the general (most common, so popular) concept of song structure. Besides, A, A', A'' and A''' are not repeated parts, but modifications of earlier parts.
I completely agree that this is also only a small fragment of a broad spectrum of approaches to song structures that can be followed, but then again, I wasn't making a case for morningrise or orchid being more structured either way, I was simply pointing out that it was not immediately objectively evident that either album is more structured.
I'm not contesting whether it can be considered a song, I'm putting forth an argument as to whether it can be considered a well structured song. Anyway, I feel no need to debate whether orchid or morningrise is more structured, I hope you will understand that by reading this post. I simply wanted to point out that it is not so evident as crimson velvet would have it seem in his initial post I replied to.
Crimson Velvet said:
Ok, you don't need to explain yourself, I am not really as serious about all of this as it may seem, just entertaining myself by a little bit of discussion.
It could well be considered a system, I see no problem with that. I am not well-schooled in the science of music either, far from it, but then again that wasn't really necessary for what I was arguing against, since I wasn't claiming anything one way or another, only contesting a claim.
You don't need to apologise, especially on an internet forum where no one's feelings will be hurt. I would never, however, base my opinion of people on their usernames, or even individual posts. Many people do not really feel it is necessary to think of a decent username, and just use something that is convenient. Also, I was pretty young when I first registered here.
Of course I agree to disagree, and I don't even think we really disagree, since I don't have a distinct opinion one way or another concerning the "more structuredness". I do not think that Orchid is more structured than Morningrise, because I think something as general as that is impossible to objectively analyse and quantitavely measure, to be able to make an accurate comparison.
The arguments I brought forth in favour of Orchid were not to support any statements of mine concerning which album is more structured, I used them to show the fallaciousness of your initial statement that it should be self-evident that Morningrise is more structured.
Anyway, there's only so much that can be debated about one little issue. It may have been a bit silly of me to even start a debate about it, but what can I do, I'm in my exams, and I have to fill my breaks. I think the end turned out well, and hopefully I'll be back after my exams with booze- and grass-influenced posts instead of these gibberish exam stress-influenced posts, which will seem extremely boring to me in a few weeks.
Godhead59
Dim Sam
Korlich
So Judah fucked it up
Whats funny is that BRI was made for Orchid, which is why its so "disjointed" and despite the production sounds like an orchid song...
Opethian666
Booze influenced
- Sep 17, 2005
- 1,105
- 0
- 36
Actually the choice "depends on the new album" seems quite sensible to me. Maybe the poll should have been "under what circumstances should Opeth change their name?". If the next album is techno or rap, would YOU want the name to be defiled?
If the next album is techno or rap, then that is what Opeth becomes. You don't just change the name of your band because youre changing your style. I think changing a band name is absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary and I don't know why anyone thinks Opeth should change their name. Just because fans don't like their progression, or think that they've changed their style too much, or anything for that matter doesn't mean the band should just change their name or even care what they think.
So you are against name changes under all circumstances? I somehow doubt Cannibal Corpse be a suitable name for a trance group.
Listen to In Flames' Subterranean and then listen to Soundtrack to your Escape (if you want vomit in your ears). That band is completely different now, but theyre still In Flames because that is the music that In Flames wants to make. I don't like them anymore, so I don't listen to them, but I wouldnt want them to change their name just because I think what they've become is trash.
If Cannibal Corpse wanted to become trance, that's up to them and that is the new Cannibal Corpse.
If Cannibal Corpse wanted to become trance, that's up to them and that is the new Cannibal Corpse.
Sigh. I see you're making best effort to destroy any meaningful/intelligent conversation. Just as you can raise In Flames, Gorguts changed their name when a new member came in, though they sound reasonably similar. Cynic changed their name when they decided to become softer. I'm talking about the principle here - should the band change, would it be in their best interests? When should this occur? I'm sure you're not silly enough to believe that whatever the band thinks is best.
Similar threads
