Magnus

One more night with Henk as a guest performer?

I find that people who love to throw around words like "triggered" and "snowflakes" are usually just projecting. And it's certainly true in this case. Because what's been triggering people more in this thread than the mere mention of a certain 16 year old girl who advocates for action against climate change? You know, at this rate I'm half expecting someone on this forum to make some nonsense claim about how the #metoo movement is really some kind of man hating feminist conspiracy and not about empowering women.

It's not about taking shots. We can have a difference of opinion, that's fine. But if we were to move the goalposts back to where they originally were we'd be back to asking ourselves if the idea of Nightwish simply referencing Thunberg and her activism in the context of saving the planet would mean that they endorse anything other than what they'd be quoting at face value. And the answer to that is a simple no. They would not be endorsing Antifa simply by association, regardless of what our opinions on the latter are. They wouldn't be endorsing anything but the message they'd be referencing in their work, which is unlikely to be anything but her general message about saving the planet. And that shouldn't be controversial. But we don't even know if they're even going to do that. So it's not really worth dwelling on this topic for too long.

Your anecdotal evidence means very little, when it's just a drop of water in the ocean. Antifa is not a monolithic group. Like I mentioned earlier, their lack of leadership results in a lack of uniform action. For better or worse, you simply can't paint all of the people who consider themselves part of this movement with a broad brush because they don't necessarily have anything in common except the goal of opposing fascism. It's totally fair to argue that some of this opposition has manifested itself in less productive ways, but that's not the point I was trying to make though. Thunberg's message is clearly not endorsement of political violence, just because she wore an Antifa shirt once. Thus, it makes it absurd to argue that anyone quoting or referencing Thunberg in regards to the topic of climate change somehow also by association endorse political violence. I also wasn't trying to compare the lives of Thunberg and Gula. I was talking about using either of them as symbolism, political or otherwise, in art. It's bloody obvious they wouldn't be used in the same thematic context, precisely because the circumstances regarding their relevance as somewhat public figures are widely different. In the hypothetical scenario in which Nightwish would have made reference to both of them, it would then be logical that this would be limited to the context of the artistic work. That is to say, Thunberg having once worn a shirt that to some people represents political violence is about a relevant as Gula wearing clothing that to some people represents oppression of women. Meaning not relevant at all. Neither to the subject matter of the music, or the band's overall political stance. But speaking of foolish comparisons though: putting BLM and white nationalists in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal is as mind boggling as it is twisted. You may not agree with how some people who identify with BLM act, and that's fine, but it's clearly a movement created in response to the racism and discrimination many black people in America face. White nationalists are literally on the other side of this, endorsing any and all oppression of and injustice against people of colour. Lastly, people attempting to discredit Thunberg by implying she's just a pawn with no actual opinion on her own, or that if she had one she wouldn't care about the climate, is honestly a sad sight to behold. While it's fair game to argue that her understanding of the world is too limited for her to be seen as an authoritative voice, and I don't think anyone in here argues that she should be seen as such either, she's not some small child who will parrot just about anything she's told. She's old enough to grasp the basics, and thus make informed opinions. She's more than capable of talking about this subject because she genuinely wants to, not because she's been told by others to do so. If you're truly concerned about the indoctrination of small children by adults, may I suggest taking a closer look at religion? But that's a topic for a different thread, of course. Bottom line being that to simply use Thunberg as a symbol for having a conversation about climate change as part of an artistic work should be a non-issue.

By opposing views you mean fascism? Because Antifa stands for anti-fascism. The vast majority of everyone who considers themselves to be part of that movement are peaceful protesters. Their lack of a top-down power structure is both a strength and a weakness. It would be incredibly dishonest to argue that Thunberg somehow is in favour of political violence just because she's been seen wearing an Antifa shirt. It's a bit like saying Sharbat Gula actively stands for oppression of women for wearing a hijab and that she shouldn't be referenced in music with a message that is completely unrelated to the aforementioned issue. But I digress. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I doubt Nightwish is going to go all in on politics. They're more likely to simply adopt a broader message, like saving the planet, than getting bogged down in details. It is important to talk about climate change and what to do about it. Any references to Thunberg would most likely be symbolic of this, rather than being part of a larger political manifesto that's bound to divide the fanbase. And that's also how most people view her, I think. Not as some kind of political authority (that would be the 99% of all scientists who agree that climate change is not only real but something that we contribute to and exacerbate), but as a conversation starter. If the symbolism of a 16 year old girl talking about saving the planet offends you, then I don't know what to say.

I'm assuming a lot of Nightwish fans don't enjoy Epica then. I very much doubt Nightwish is going to go in-depth with political messages. But I see nothing wrong with taking broader, less disagreeable stances like "don't destroy the planet" in the lyrics and imagery. And that particular topic goes hand in hand with Tuomas's love for all things nature. Art can be a good way to get people to talk about an important subject without preaching what and how to think on it.

The singles from the previous album were stronger, but this one is still catchy. https://twitter.com/AmberianDawn/status/1185146834764865536 They're embracing the "ABBA metal" tag

For me it depends. I do want to hear them cheer or sing along when asked to. Or during moments where it clearly adds to the atmosphere of the performance, like during the guitar solo in the recording of Ghost Love Score from Buenos Aires 2012. I don't want to hear the crowd audibly cheering throughout every single performance like some constant background noise though. I love the Tampere recording in general. It's probably my favourite official concert footage of the band released so far. However, the one small complaint I have about it is that the audience presence is downplayed even during moments when it would be a better look for the band if they weren't. It looks a bit awkward when Floor tries to get the audience all fired up during performances like Stargazers and Ghost Love Score, but all you really hear is Floor going "hey! hey! hey!" to barely any response (yet the audience is visibly reacting). Like I said, I don't need to constantly hear the crowd in the background, but when asked to participate it's a just not a good idea to edit the footage to make it look like the band is playing in front of a dead crowd. That's just not fair to either the band or its fans.

The DVD format is over two decades old by now. While I get that Blu-ray players might not have taken off in certain markets, let's remember that a DVD is limited to sub-HD content (576p PAL and 480p NTSC). It's barely worth the effort in an era when even the digital options have better specs (despite also being heavily compressed!).

So excited for the new album era to begin!

Not the same thing though. Those recordings are owned by the record labels, who have every right to monitor how they're being monetised. The songs themselves, as in not a specific recording of them but the lyrics and melodies, are owned by the actual songwriters and not a label. I think that's right, but I'm not entirely sure. I would assume that if it's a within a professional context, when you're backed up by bureaucracy, you do indeed have to pay royalties unless the show is free of charge. Street musicians being an exception, for obvious reasons. But I think professional recordings are where the real money's at. For every copy sold of Tarja's Act 1 a certain percentage of the revenue is paid to Tuomas (due to the inclusion of Nemo) as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber (due to the inclusion of Phantom of the Opera). Not to mention the songwriters involved in the 80's medley. So financially it makes sense for a band to not include cover versions on their albums, compilations and live releases.

EDIT: Oops. Seems I accidentally made a double post by mistake while trying to edit this one. Sorry! To the moderators: feel free to delete this one!

I don't think you need permission to cover anything live? You would need it to record and release it though.

Not sure if I agree. Like I said, both he and Tarja sing it very well on a technical level. The chemistry just isn't there, and I suspect that this is in part due to lack of interest in the source material and to some degree also the conflicts within the band at the time. It's not like Floor and Henk move around that much, but they're totally in character the entire time. And Marko and Floor have this chemistry too during performances like Devil & the Deep Dark Ocean where they both get really into it.