Separate names with a comma.
Join Symphony X and discover tons of other great Metal forums, sign up today!
Discussion in 'Symphony X (Unofficial)' started by Prismatic Sphere, Oct 26, 2011.
Anything would be better than something similar to the last 2 !
With the obvious exception of Masquerade, rerecording would almost pass as new material for me. Never mind the amature production, I cant listen to Rod Tyler without switching to something else after a few seconds if my life depended on it. So i really havent listened to the debut the whole way through, not by a long shot. I hate his voice. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT!
C'mon dammit!!! More people need to vote!
My vote goes toward an album in the same vein as PL & IC but with 99% of the album going back to the "V" style of playing. +1
I hear you. That wasn't an option though.
That's kind of like two different things there.
Communion really is great.
Even the outro with the drums and synth-bass grooving it out is simply amazing. This section is completely different than anything else they've done... I'd even consider calling it risky.
I'd sell my left nut on ebay for them to start taking risks like that again.
Id be happy with either one but I voted for a new record. I still really like IC, and PL has sorta gone down in my opinion since it first came out but I still don't think its a bad album.
It's one of my favorite sections in all of their music.
The biggest thing we have to a "risk" on Iconoclast is the middle section of When All Is Lost!
They should do more doo-doo lyrics!
What was risky about WAIL? Communion didnt even have a chorus. The "night and day" part is probly the closest.
^lol forgot about this demo. "hey there should be another riff here."
There's nothing risky whatsoever about anything in WAIL. It was a joke. I picked it out because it has a different, lighter sound than the rest of the album, and I'm sure somewhere there are newer fans of the band that think it's not METUL enough.
I love the structure of Communion. The fact that it has three or so different styles of "verses" yet no true repeating chorus makes it very unique and interesting. The "night and day" part could serve as a chorus of sorts, as could the "raise our heads up to the sky" section near the end, but neither really feels like a chorus to me. The former is sung over a theme from earlier in the song (albeit in a different key), and the latter feels more like a resolution than a chorus. Anyway, Communion is a breath of fresh air from all the copycat bands that adhere to boring, radio-friendly verse/chorus structures. Sadly, Symphony X's song structures have become more mainstream in the last decade, with only a handful of exceptions.
This, and I've stated it many times, is one of the most important things in writing creative music. This is a massively overlooked area in music composition. It is getting to the point where I am starting to dislike songs because of their structure alone.
This is one of the reasons Opeth is so great. Their structures are always different, and definitely unpredictable and interesting.
Oh god if Opeth ever starts writing standard structured songs i will eat a phone book page by page.
Here's what I think of "structure:"
I don't think structure alone has anything to do with a song being good or bad. But if a song has too many conventional elements, a conventional structure is going to be just an another dull element.
"Unconventional" structures don't save bad progressive music from being bad. In fact, they can just highlight it.
Absolutely. On the topic of Opeth, I find Damnation and its quality songwriting to be a much stronger album than Heritage and its overly "progressive" unconventional structures.
30 votes. Almost 700 views. Can you say dropoff?
Maybe repeat views, or people who wanted option 3: Neither.