Radical Cut wrote:
Jesus. You love to twist my words and meanings around to fit your argument. You're a progressive bastard!
Where to even start...maybe start by reading my post again since you didn't seem to take any of it the way I meant it, you're arguing largely against things that I haven't even proposed, going so far as to literally answer for me just so you could lecture me about the answer you supposed I would give (how's that for putting words in my mouth).
On the subject of being progressive though, I gave a definition, not a checklist. I happened to mention that one crossover element, song structure, because it happens to be something that can continue to be progressive since it's very nature is to be new and different. However, things that are not changes, but rather additions (clean vocals, new instruments, and such) are not continually progressive because they don't come out in new forms every time they are used, they don't re-invent themselves. It is possible to do new things with an instrument of course, but Opeth is hardly doing that. Whether or not a band actually does something of their own with a song structure depends on the band obviously, but it CAN be progressive in the right hands, whereas these other things are much more often recycled instead of re-invented.
And then you're just combining two completely different things with this comparison of sounding like Deep Purple and adding new elements to the genre. When bands like EoS and others were doing new things with the sound they were adding things that can't be attributed to a single band(clean vocals, classical instruments, these do not belong to a single band), they were adding legitimate elements that could be expanded upon and worked with for years following. Sounding like Deep Purple simply can't be compared with making actual contributions to the development of a genre.
But christ, this is a lot of stupid shit to be arguing about when the only thing I was trying to say was that Opeth simply is not as strikingly original and progressive as people are claiming in here. We seem to have mostly established that they are progressive in the convenient, simplified sense, and not in the true sense. But for the originality thing all I've gotten is symantics and you telling me what I think. I agree that we may never agree about a lot of things concerning this band, but we might be amazed if we had a freaking substantive discussion once in awhile instead of this page-long padded argument bullshit. You're obviously an intelligent guy, so please, in the shortest way possible, just tell me why you think they are original. I really, truly want to know, without all the clouding of offshoot arguments and whatnot, just a straight answer.
Hahaha! Yeah OK I do twist peoples words... But actually in a strange way I take it as a compliment that you think I'm a "progressive baatard".
Sure you gave a definiton. But what is a definition other than a checklist of ways in which a word can be interpreted? Anyhow I can appreciate that's not the point so lets not get into it. Sorry... :oops:
After all of this, I think you are correct to say that many people overstate how radical Opeth are. In turn, however, I think you and DM understate their individuality. I disagree with both of these extremes, but seeing as how they're my favourite band, I chose to argue with you and DM as opposed to the other camp. But here, in simple language, is why I think they are original:
They are original because I can honestly think of very few bands- in fact, none, that sound exactly like them. They are one of the most immediately recogniseable bands in the metal scene today, to my ears. Their music, to me, has an atmosphere and ambiance that I don't hear in anyone elses. People can recommend thousands of bands to me that they think sound like Opeth, but I listen to them, and I can always hear big differences. This is why I think they are original!
As for the word "progressive", I think the main flaw in this ridiculous argument has been the application of it. Simply put, Opeth are "progressive metal" because they are influenced by progressive rock bands.
But if you want to use that word in a deeper way, I still believe it applies. I believe Opeths sound has
progressed in that it has changed gradually whilst still being recogniseably the same band. Honestly, I think the gradual integration of new styllistic elements has been undeniable. Subtle, yes, but still there. And so what if those new elements are taken from other places? Music is a collaborative process, so if Opeth are to take other ideas and utilise them as one element of one of their own songs, that to my mind represents a progression
within the context of their own work (so long as this influence is integrated in an effective and worthy way, which I think it usually is with this band).
So anyway, thats why I think they are original and progressive. Like I said, they're not revolutionary, and not radical. However, their music has progressed, therefore they are progressive.
