Eyesore wrote:
the666th wrote:
Eyesore wrote:
Well, you're missing my point. First, your second paragraph here cancels out your first paragraph.
I don't see how. Can you explain, instead of stating?
They cannot cancel each other, because they deal with different subjects: in the first I said how great O:M is and how nothing will change this, in the second I explained why stories aren't very important to me. Where's the contradiction, the canceling?
Stating and explaining should be the same thing, no? You say you don't see the connection between part two and part one, then you explain yourself and try and say the music is all that matters. Then you go on to say you never paid attention to the lyrics or the concept of the album, thus making anything you say about the connection between the two albums completely invalid.
I think you missunderstood me. I didn't say I don't see the connection between part two and part one. What I said was: "I don't see the connection with the original, or rather with the way that it's percepted.", which meant that I don't see how could a new weak album diminish the merrits of the first one. Maybe I didn't worded it too well, but that's what I meant, (and I explained that in the following sentences) so therefore your argumentation about a contradiction is wrong, because it starts from a false premise.
Eyesore wrote:
Yes, the music is great, but one of the main reasons that album has sustained such high esteem amongst music is the story behind the music. If there wasn't that great mystery there the album would still be great, but would definitely not be held to such high esteem in 2005. You may love it, and you may not have paid attention to the story, but I'd bet a million dollars that overall, in general, the album would not be recognized as one of the greatest albums ever without the story behind it. I personally think musically Rage For Order is their best album, and it's definitely on par with Mindcrime, but you don't see people talking about that album like they do Mindcrime. What's the difference between the two? The story.
I always thought O:M is on a higher pedestal among metalheads than Rage for Order because it's speedier, heavier, and overall more metal, if you want. At least that's why I like it better, although I completely agree that RfO is extremely awesome too.
Eyesore wrote:
A bad story in the sequel ruins the legacy of the first album. Plain and simple. You never paid attention to the story, so your opinion is really pointless. And I say that in no way to sound like an asshole.
I see what you mean, but we're simply seeing things differently. You care about the story and you're worried that O:M2 could have a negative impact on O:M, I care mostly about music and I know that, however horrible O:M2 could turn out to be, this couldn't impact on my perception of O:M. There are probably people out there who see it your way, and people who see it my way. Since noone else pitched in with their opinion, and since we won't persuade each other, let's just stop it here, it's already too long and probably boring for all other people visiting the thread.
As for this Dio news, I think he's a good choice. Halford is my all-time favourite vocalist, but I think Dio is better suited for Dr. X, and I disagree with Fingon when he says that Dio's not compatible with Queensryche. I think they could go great together, provided the songs are well composed. There's much better contrast between Tate's voice and Dio's, than it would have been the case with Halford. And I also think Dio can lend some much nedeed power to Queensryche compositions. I would be very curious to hear what Dio had to say about this, and how he appreciates the new songs.
