Would you prefer to see Opeth endorse Abercrombie and Fitch, or Kenji Urban?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I'm just a fad, you'll get over it. As for evidence. I guess all that training at Quanaco has made you a regular Sherlock Holmes.
 
Nothinggod said:
What you think, Gucci instead, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Gucci has a lot more class than the ones you asked about. However, I always pictured them endorsing Line 6 amps (I know they already use Laney) - cause, you know, they're more of a band than they are, say, a fashion statement.
 
Haha thank you for making me laugh out loud.

But if this thread was actually serious I would say they should endorse H and M. I always thought it was some expensive hipster fuck store, but its actually really cheap and they have some nice stuff. And Madonna supports it, lawl.
 
Maybe they could hire Gucci to make them a line of Line 6 clothing. You know with the logo on T-Shirts and Jeans and stuff. They could even make red pod shoes.... I don't know though I think music is all about fashion I mean if you aren't cool who is going to like you?
 
My cousin, Marcus, invented and owns Line 6 (really bad thing to claim, sorry)- and knowing him, I don't think that'll happen. And knowing what I do about the guys in Opeth, fashion doesn't fit in to their music.

Cool? Cool to whom, exactly? Some people think wearing a certain brand of clothing is "cool". To me (and many on this shit board), sheer melodic, dynamic, lyrical talent is "cool".
 
Illidan said:
Cool? Cool to whom, exactly? Some people think wearing a certain brand of clothing is "cool". To me (and many on this shit board), sheer melodic, dynamic, lyrical talent is "cool".
Click to expand...

Please define "melodic", "dynamic" and "lyrical talent" and then tell me why what you think specifically is of any concern to anyone?
 
So, in other words you can't really define them, they are just catch phrases you use to try and justify your limited point of veiw. Which is why I wonder why you think your opinion is of any specific concern, or more to the point why it should be taken with any authority. It's ok, I understand, you didn't get the obvious satire from the start like almost everyone else that posted on this thread, I'm not expecting great leaps of empiricism.
 
Yup, I suppose so. Or I didn't want to explain it because it's a waste of my time when you already have the means to find the definitions without pestering me, and I don't really want to be your source or amusement more than I already have been in the last few posts. So long.
 
Yeah, it's a waste of your time. Kind of like how it's a waste of your time to respond that it is a waste of your time, right? Or not. I would be willing to bet it's more that you know your response will be inadequate and therefore prove my point. You pretty much said as much; "I don't really want to be your source or amusement more than I already have been".
Seriously how can objective terms like dynamics and melody cause a subjective emotional response like happiness?
I don't even see how you can say objectively that 'lyrical talent' has anything to do with anything at all. In fact, in all seriousness, which brand of clothes Opeth wear are just as relevant. What I mean is that to assume they are "lyrically talened" you have to assume several things. Firstly that talent is more than an arbitrary measure of something that is not really existant, that being predidactic ability. Secondly that your use of the word holds enough weight that we can go beyond subjectivity to assume that beyond all doubt it is exceptional compared to the normal measure. Which based on your failure to give a definition and your retorts about "I don't have to, it's a waste of my time", you seem unqualified to do. Which is why I ask why I or anyone else should take your opinion with any authority?
 
did you really need to go through the trouble of setting the parameters for those definitions? i assume you're here because you think opeth has a good sense of melody, dynamics, and lyrical talent like the rest of us. but then you did use what other posters have said to aggravate them in a thread that was designed to eventually lead to this trainwreck. seriously, what are you trying to do in this forum?
 
Ok, Obviously I need to spell it out in simple terms. My opinion about Opeth's use of melody and dynamics are irrelevant. About as relevant as which clothes they wear. Get it? Secondly I am yet to see anyone show me that they even know what either of those terms mean. This nonsense about talent though. What is talent? Its an arbitrary (that means irrelevant or unsupported) term. It assumes that someone can excell at something without any need to learn it. Also that they are excellent beyond all other normal measures. Which I don't believe is a subjective point of view. So no, I don't believe they have any sense of lyrical talent. Whether I like or dislike a given thing is about all I can comment on and I reserve my opinion. It has nothing to do with 'talent'. So to answer your initial question, yes I did need to go to the trouble to set the parameters for those definitions. What is the point of arguing a point when you really have no idea what you are talking about?
 
usually i can read the last few posts of a thread and get a sense of what it's about. welp, not this time apparently
 
Nothinggod said:
Ok, Obviously I need to spell it out in simple terms. My opinion about Opeth's use of melody and dynamics are irrelevant. About as relevant as which clothes they wear. Get it? Secondly I am yet to see anyone show me that they even know what either of those terms mean. This nonsense about talent though. What is talent? Its an arbitrary (that means irrelevant or unsupported) term. It assumes that someone can excell at something without any need to learn it. Also that they are excellent beyond all other normal measures. Which I don't believe is a subjective point of view. So no, I don't believe they have any sense of lyrical talent. Whether I like or dislike a given thing is about all I can comment on and I reserve my opinion. It has nothing to do with 'talent'. So to answer your initial question, yes I did need to go to the trouble to set the parameters for those definitions. What is the point of arguing a point when you really have no idea what you are talking about?
Click to expand...

you may feel that your opinion is irrelevant and that there is no need to express them, but you have no right to impose restrictions on others opinions. talent is whatever someone thinks it is. your assumptions are subjective. some believe that talent has no application in the real world but instead luck does. i believe that talent is innate but requires a stimulus, specifically some type of lesson, teaching, apprenticeship, etc. from which one can either learn at a remarkable rate (the talented) or gradually with discipline (the average bear). you say you can only express like or dislike of something. lets say you like opeth. what is that based off of, if not talent, dynamics, or melody, etc? how do YOU specifically differentiate between "good" music and the rest?

and you still havent answered my last question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

£xil on t}{£ Fa\\
what do you prefer? see opeth despite the drummer's problems and few tracks or wait?
Replies
18
Views
755
Opeth (Archived)
atrocity
A
AFairJudgement0
Opeth Live or Recorded
Replies
14
Views
868
Opeth (Archived)
Esplendor
E
Keltoi
How famous would Opeth be?
Replies
69
Views
4K
Opeth (Archived)
south_of_heaven213
S
outerone
Opeth and the new age of record releasing...
Replies
50
Views
3K
Opeth (Archived)
Fluxcored
F
N
Do you owe something to opeth, or does opeth owe something to you?
Replies
67
Views
3K
Opeth (Archived)
Jinn
J
Top Bottom