You Motw guys should know...
- Thread starter Static
- Start date
Baliset
guitar deity
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
Xtokalon said:
It seems to me what you're saying is "if you don't like something, don't criticize it, because its clear you didn't understand".
I'm not going to tell anyone that they're wrong for hearing coherency in Opeth's music. Coherency is the wrong term anyhow...Focus might be more to the point. I'm fine with people not appreciating the flow of motW songs, its just when they extrapolate "these guys made this stuff just to be weird" and starting casting aspersions on the entire creative process that I get irritated.
If nothing else I think Opeth rules for creating very interesting (to me, anyway) music and appealing to a scene that doesn't always appreciate variety.
And to XFer: I think "coherency" (or whatever) is just as subjective as "pretensiousness", but if you and I get into another "subjective vs. objective" debate it will be the death of the board.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
Opeth is easiest to appreciate once you know the songs in and out, i.e you've listened to it heaps. Yes, that sounds like a fan-boyism and I'm not the only one who will tell you that, but I could easily say the same for MoTW. In fact, the only reason I checked out MoTW is because I read in a review its similar to Opeth...and in many ways I think thats true. Artistically not at all, stylistically yes in quite a few ways. Just the whole 'long epics' that are really hard to understand unless you have heard them alot...both bands do that...and I love that type of music because once you've listened alot, you get alot out of it. Morningrise is special because although it has NO structure, once you've learnt to anticipate all the sections, it all comes together and sounds really good.
I've talked to quite alot of people who have heard Maudlin of the Well and said they are 'pretentious' AND 'incoherent'. However I've heard the same arguments against Opeth. I think such baseless accusations come about because the songs are long and epic, and go through alot of changes, and people who can't be arsed with learning it get all pissed off other people seem to love it...just because they haven't given it a proper shot. Also what the music is *really* trying to express is often lost on people.
To tell you the truth, the only album I can remember having listened to and dismissed as 'incoherent' is Tales From Topographic Oceans by Yes, besides that I think I always try hard enough to 'get' the music before coming to such a dumb conclusion...and a band only seems 'pretentious' to me if they are giving off the impression they think:
A. Look how arty/good/skilled we are, aren't we special!!
or
B. We write songs that are 15 minutes long just for the sake of having long songs...(even though after many listens its just a mess).
I don't think MoTW is guilty of A, and I don't think Opeth is guilty of B...as it didn't take too many listens to me until Morningrise made enough sense to be an enjoyable listen.
*rant mode off*
I've talked to quite alot of people who have heard Maudlin of the Well and said they are 'pretentious' AND 'incoherent'. However I've heard the same arguments against Opeth. I think such baseless accusations come about because the songs are long and epic, and go through alot of changes, and people who can't be arsed with learning it get all pissed off other people seem to love it...just because they haven't given it a proper shot. Also what the music is *really* trying to express is often lost on people.
To tell you the truth, the only album I can remember having listened to and dismissed as 'incoherent' is Tales From Topographic Oceans by Yes, besides that I think I always try hard enough to 'get' the music before coming to such a dumb conclusion...and a band only seems 'pretentious' to me if they are giving off the impression they think:
A. Look how arty/good/skilled we are, aren't we special!!
or
B. We write songs that are 15 minutes long just for the sake of having long songs...(even though after many listens its just a mess).
I don't think MoTW is guilty of A, and I don't think Opeth is guilty of B...as it didn't take too many listens to me until Morningrise made enough sense to be an enjoyable listen.
*rant mode off*
YaYo
whendaydescends.com
- May 6, 2001
- 4,458
- 23
- 38
'pretentious' is often a label given to something that is either technical or weird, by a person who just doesnt get anything from it.
And for those kind of reasons i tend to agree with Xtokalon. If you don't love certain music then it is really hard to judge what they are doing right and wrong. You can make objective comments about things, observations... you can obviously claim what you dont like about the music. But its all pretty useless, because any band does more wrong than they do right... whats important is what they are trying to achieve and whether they are achieving it.
Of course if nobody criticised stuff then ego's would go through the roof and fanboyism would run riot.. so the negative comments are good, just as long as the person making them doesnt feel like they are the lucky ones to see how some music sucks while the fans are fooling themselves. Or something like that.
imo, Its far more important to hear whats good about a band.
Hmm.. did i stay on topic? i dont know...
And for those kind of reasons i tend to agree with Xtokalon. If you don't love certain music then it is really hard to judge what they are doing right and wrong. You can make objective comments about things, observations... you can obviously claim what you dont like about the music. But its all pretty useless, because any band does more wrong than they do right... whats important is what they are trying to achieve and whether they are achieving it.
Of course if nobody criticised stuff then ego's would go through the roof and fanboyism would run riot.. so the negative comments are good, just as long as the person making them doesnt feel like they are the lucky ones to see how some music sucks while the fans are fooling themselves. Or something like that.
imo, Its far more important to hear whats good about a band.
Hmm.. did i stay on topic? i dont know...
YaYo
whendaydescends.com
- May 6, 2001
- 4,458
- 23
- 38
Anyway, i do agree with most of the comments about Opeth.
One of my absolute biggest complaints about them is repetition. They write a riff, and then repeat it without change 4/6/8 times.. useless. It complete goes against what they are trying to achieve with their song structures and the riffs themselves so i'd have to say it is a bad thing for them.
And yes, their song structures are incoherant, but it does create a cool journey once you learn the songs, and i think that's what they were going for.
But one of my immediate attractions to motW was how you arent like that, where each song has an identity, and seems to be complete.
Opeth you could interchange riffs on the whole albums and it'd sound just as right, most of the time.
One of my absolute biggest complaints about them is repetition. They write a riff, and then repeat it without change 4/6/8 times.. useless. It complete goes against what they are trying to achieve with their song structures and the riffs themselves so i'd have to say it is a bad thing for them.
And yes, their song structures are incoherant, but it does create a cool journey once you learn the songs, and i think that's what they were going for.
But one of my immediate attractions to motW was how you arent like that, where each song has an identity, and seems to be complete.
Opeth you could interchange riffs on the whole albums and it'd sound just as right, most of the time.
azal
love is the answer
FalseTodd
Skirt Wizard
I have to say that the whole "well you just didn't get it" or "you didn't make enough of an investment" thing offends me. It implies that people who don't like something are somehow ill-equipped to make a personal judgment. I've listened to Opeth *alot*. I like them *alot* in many regards. I just feel that, to me, their music falters at a certain level. And that is not to devalue the opinion of anyone who finds their music totally revelatory or whatever. Just don't imply that it's *my failing* that their music doesn't speak to me the way it does to some people.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
but still.. I think it's plain. if you have never actually went "I dig this album", then chances are you haven't really understood it; but not only that, you're standing in a position where, given a more intelligent inspection of the music, you might contradict yourself later. for instance, I used to hate Orchid - and many Opeth fans actually do- but now I think it's Opeth's greatest by far. I smack myself in the head for ever bad mouthing it. I'm only relating a familar circumstance: you think you know everything there is to know about an album, but then days later you're humbled to find how wrong you've been. so I'm saying it's wise, for one thing, to be "open" about a band. statements especially of the kind of "it's incoherent, just a bunch of riffs strung together", are dismissive.FalseTodd said:
in your case, since you're saying you like the music and criticize it for having a lack of "focus", I wouldn't apply my criticism to you but don't you think it's a valid one on its own?
FuSoYa
Lunarian
haha, whoa.
Xtokalon, what about if I really really used to love an album and now I dislike it? Does that mean I once understood it but somehow lost my understanding of it?
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
well, I don't know if this defends FalseTodd or attacks him, but...
you can't say that if you don't think an album is great it's got to be the listener's fault; it could be a failure of the artist to produce an objectively good album.
likewise, you can't say it's always the failure of the artist to produce a good album. sometimes a listener is deluded or unable to pick up complexities or just plain stupid.
so are you saying, x, that the album in question is objectively good and failure to appreciate it is a failure of the listener, in this particular case?
you can't say that if you don't think an album is great it's got to be the listener's fault; it could be a failure of the artist to produce an objectively good album.
likewise, you can't say it's always the failure of the artist to produce a good album. sometimes a listener is deluded or unable to pick up complexities or just plain stupid.
so are you saying, x, that the album in question is objectively good and failure to appreciate it is a failure of the listener, in this particular case?
no that means you're writing from the heights. and you are good. criticism can be intelligent, but it can also misinformed. for instance, I can criticize the hell out of Opeth music too, but you won't find me writing "it's an incoherent mash of riffs". I'm not attacking disapproval per se of an album. I'm criticizing very particular statements.FuSoYa said:
also, you think about it, the view is a minority view anyway. if Opeth music is so incoherent, and some guy insists that "objectively" it is incoherent, then he'd be hardpressed to understand how such incoherent music is loved as it is. Opeth aren't so popular because fans are "like wow, this is the most incoherent fucking music ever!"
sayin!
FuSoYa
Lunarian
well, saying that you 'understood' someone's music is tantamount to assuming you knew what they intended when they wrote it. Maybe Opeth wrote a song, trying to make it sound crappy, and you loved it. But I thought it sounded crappy.
Who better understood the music?
Who better understood the music?
I'd say that as a path for discussion that's more profound than I'm willing to go.FuSoYa said:
But here's a quick stab: Your assumption is: Music appreciation is about "getting into the head" of the person who wrote the music. The more precisely you empathisize with the composer's own feelings or intentions with regard to his work, the better you have understood it. That's the name of the game. BUT.. that's a very problematic treatise of music and how it, interpersonally, connects listeners and composers. I don't agree with it, so your question is nonsequitir to me.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
Wait a minute, I totally don't agree with that statement at all. That was your assumption, not mine! Everything you have said in this thread is iterating that you think music appreciation is about getting into the composer's head.
hmm. it's not about getting into the composer's head that I'm really talking about. i'd hate to sound flaky but here goes.FuSoYa said:
primarily, it's about seeing the possibilities for a public piece of music, and understanding that given this music, I can relate to it one way, another guy another way; we can both make statements of the music; these statements can denote something in between the space between the music and all possibile listeners; and since this space is common to all, listeners can actually adjudicate between the statements they make. one guys says this music is incoherent as a matter of fact, another listener retorts: how can that be if I as a listener see its coherency perfectly and naturally? etc.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
OK, so how does that relate to: Sam's not liking of a certain piece of music means that he obviously doesn't understand it?
I understand the possibilities that the movie "Lost Highway" can produce, but I still think the movie is crap. (these possibilities were designed and executed poorly in my opinion)
I understand the possibilities that the movie "Lost Highway" can produce, but I still think the movie is crap. (these possibilities were designed and executed poorly in my opinion)
