How would you prefer I&W be presented on the 25th anniversary tour?

[rumborak]

I don't see any of those "disqualifications". Rush clearly could have treaded the 2112 ground. To this day is *the* album of theirs. Opeth, if anybody had said "what do you think of Opeth switching from death metal to 70s prog?", the answer would have been "if they want to kill the band, sure".
Same with Wilson. Porcupine Tree was filling the halls easily with their alternative metal. Going pop like he did was one hell of a ballsy move.

DT still plays the same style, essentially. Sure they evolved a bit, but  in a lot of ways they still play a variation of IAW. And 25 years later, it's just not convincing anymore. People show up for a convincing rendition of 80s DT. And James first of all, can't do that in 2017.

[TAC]

What type of stylistic change do you think they could have or should have attempted, and at which point in their career?

[King Postwhore]

Rumbo is talking about the run of albums from I&W through Octavarium.   All slight change of styles. Always challenging themselves sonically.

[TAC]

I didn't think he was talking about that run. I'm not sure, actually. I didn't think I&W through 8V was the issue.

[King Postwhore]

He's saying they challenged themselves to stretch out musically in those days.  Of late except for the new album they haven't.

[TAC]

I agree. I'm just wondering what types of changes Rumbo is thinking of. What directions could they have gone in?

The Astonishing was a huge step, and it can be argued whether it was successful or not, but I think it was quite a chance taking undertaking.

[rumborak]

What type of stylistic change do you think they could have or should have attempted, and at which point in their career?

DT is possibly *the* band who could venture into just about any musical territory, and do a good job at it. Take TA; it's all about technology vs manual music, where is JR's contribution for the electronic stuff? Or, in the early days JP would play jazz-infused solos, where have those gone? Charlie (yes, Charlie) brought pop as an influence. There were a lot of avenues for a prog outfit to go into, bit since they signed with RR, they've become mostly a regular metal band. *When* they venture into other styles it often is a joke insert, like JR's circus music, or another Metallica analogy.

My bigger point is that DT didn't deviate far from the center, and 25 years later this is now haunting them because they are still sorta expected to play 80s prog metal. Some people above say TA was a venture out, and indeed in some ways it was; but look at JLB's Nefaryus vocals. Unnecessary vocal lines that live became a big issue.

[TAC]

  bit since they signed with RR, they've become mostly a regular metal band. *When* they venture into other styles it often is a joke insert, like JR's circus music, or another Metallica analogy.

I think that's fair.

  but look at JLB's Nefaryus vocals. Unnecessary vocal lines that live became a big issue.

Personally, I would stand by the studio version. I think it's excellent, and I love the nod to Freddie Mercury. Even if he sand them straight live, I wouldn't care. It makes the studio version, the one that will live on, much more interesting.

[RaiseTheKnife]

Given how many times they've played each song from I&W over the course of their career, they should feel free to mix it up a bit after 25 years.

[The Presence of Frenemies]

I think DT's biggest problem is/was that they painted themselves into a corner. A lot of fans seem to almost have a Pavlovian response to an F#. Look at the YouTube videos where seriously the top comment is ""lol I forwarded to [F#] to see whether he could hit it".

You know, you make a fair argument, but actually I wonder if some of this sort of thing is James-specific. He's a notoriously spotty live singer, in that a lot of people know he's capable of brilliance but also of being way off. And I find it oddly cathartic to watch him fight with his range--it's bracing. Bracing in a way that, to compare to the Tesla example earlier, there is none of with Jeff Keith. Nobody's watching Edison's Medicine live to see if he can hit the E5 at the end--he can't, and he won't try. I mean, sure, people speculatively check out vids of guys who hit high notes 25 years ago to see if they can still do it, but likely in passing and then they move on. So I wonder how much of these sort of comments have to do with the unique experience of watching James in the YouTube medium. I don't think it's a great proxy for how people approach DT live as a whole. I mean, heck, the casual fan knows DT for the guitar and drum work far more than the vocals. And further, James, 1993 live shows aside, isn't anywhere near as known for his high vocals as any number of power metal singers. I'm not saying that there's no truth in where you're going, but it's a pretty complicated issue.

[bosk1]

DT is possibly *the* band who could venture into just about any musical territory, and do a good job at it. Take TA; it's all about technology vs manual music, where is JR's contribution for the electronic stuff? Or, in the early days JP would play jazz-infused solos, where have those gone? Charlie (yes, Charlie) brought pop as an influence. There were a lot of avenues for a prog outfit to go into, bit since they signed with RR, they've become mostly a regular metal band. *When* they venture into other styles it often is a joke insert, like JR's circus music, or another Metallica analogy.

My bigger point is that DT didn't deviate far from the center, and 25 years later this is now haunting them because they are still sorta expected to play 80s prog metal. Some people above say TA was a venture out, and indeed in some ways it was; but look at JLB's Nefaryus vocals. Unnecessary vocal lines that live became a big issue.

I'm not sure how DT even remotely resembles a "regular metal band," and I don't really understand what you mean by "haunting" in this context.  I just don't agree with your overall point at all.  Yes, DT definitely could have gone a different direction with their music (moreso than the diversity they already have).  But so what?  It doesn't somehow follow that they should do so.  You can Monday-morning-quarterback the band all you want, but for every "they should do this" you can come up with, I'm pretty sure the band (and most of the fans) would respond along the lines of, "No, we don't want to do that, and there's no reason to."  Just because they haven't met your personal expectations doesn't mean that something within the band needs to be fixed.

[hefdaddy42]

Opeth had no choice but to go away from death metal vocals, especially if they wanted to actually attract fans.

What are you talking about?

Maybe it was legitimate, like they just didn't want to do it anymore, but to me, it seems more of a business decision, than an artistic one.

It's legitimate.  Akerfeldt didn't want to do that anymore.  I mean, they still play older songs in their concerts, and AFAIK he still does the death vocals on those.  But his musical interests as far as creating new music veered away from that style.

[King Postwhore]

Opeth had no choice but to go away from death metal vocals, especially if they wanted to actually attract fans.

What are you talking about?

Maybe it was legitimate, like they just didn't want to do it anymore, but to me, it seems more of a business decision, than an artistic one.

It's legitimate.  Akerfeldt didn't want to do that anymore.  I mean, they still play older songs in their concerts, and AFAIK he still does the death vocals on those.  But his musical interests as far as creating new music veered away from that style.

I've also wondered as he got up in age, he knew how hard it would be to growl for every song.

[rumborak]

He actually had an almost fully written death metal album, but hit the delete button and wrote Heritage instead.

[ytserush]

My bigger point is that DT didn't deviate far from the center, and 25 years later this is now haunting them because they are still sorta expected to play 80s prog metal. Some people above say TA was a venture out, and indeed in some ways it was; but look at JLB's Nefaryus vocals. Unnecessary vocal lines that live became a big issue.

That's one of the reasons I dig The Astonishing(musically -- the "venture") They've been a "by numbers" band since the End of the Octavarium Tour. I've always been a fan of a band with that much talent pushing the envelope (Though I suppose the economics would dictate that they wouldn't do that.)

[Herrick]

I think tuning down is necessary for LaBrie to be able to do his best on these songs. I'm not really a fan of changing instrumental parts but then again I don't go to live concerts. I WILL be going to this one though and I love the album so I'd like to hear everything as close as possible to the original work...with down tuning and maybe changing vocal melodies for LaBrie.

I think I'll be happy with whatever they end up doing because it'll be my first time seeing them.

I was perfectly fine with the way they handled. Guitars don't age, vocal chords do. What's the point in having James choke on himself every night?

 

I geniunely don't understand why someone wouldn't like some changes made to the songs, like jams, alternative solos and whatnot. What's the point of playing (or wanting to hear) a song exactly like it was recorded over and over again in perpetuum? I'd go even further, lose the click and play the songs faster, with more energy, but that won't happen.

Speaking only for Herrick I love the album versions and I'm not a concert-goer. I want to hear the album (or songs whatever) played live. I love those songs. Some of the different things they've done live like Ruddess's silly stuff in A Change of Seasons...I'm not a fan of. But I totally understand why other fans want to hear something a little different especially if they've seen the band live a few times or a lot of times.  And the band plays these songs live fucktons of times so I get why they want to do something a little different. It's coool.

Opeth had no choice but to go away from death metal vocals, especially if they wanted to actually attract fans. Maybe it was legitimate, like they just didn't want to do it anymore, but to me, it seems more of a business decision, than an artistic one.

From the interviews I've seen and just listening to the band over the years (they've never been straight up Death Metal) I believe it's legitimate. The fact that Akerfeldt drastically changed the musical direction of the band proves (at least to me) that he didn't want to do that style of music any more. The lack of Death Metal vocals is the least of what certain fans dislike about new Opeth methinks. The "band" (Akerfeldt) could've continued with the older musical style and used less harsh vocals and I bet most fans would be content with that.