Metal Reviews

I'll give Opeth credit for having the shortest rotation in my cd player. BOO YA!!

Um... I'm just using Wreath as an example. They really haven't written any good death metalish riffs, ever.



I said 'METAL version of Pink Floyd. Note the METAL.



And this is original? My arse. I'm not going on and on about how bad a band Opeth are, I just dislike them. But Jesus, where does the originality come in? If Opeth are original, then surely Dark Angel are, since they did the same thing: Took a template which before had been not pushed to the limits of extremity (prog-metal), and pushed it to the limits of extremity. Throwing light and shade dynamics and folk influences doesn't make it anything original, it makes it a giant melting pot of this that and this other thing, kind of sewn together poorly.



So... no effort whatsoever then, considering that their heavy parts are generally eclipsed by countless other melodeath bands, like earlier Soilwork, earlier In Flames, Nightrage, earlier Arch Enemy, yadda, yadda, et cetera.

Opeth were stuck in a complete rut following Still Life, concerning progression, through Blackwater Park, Deliverance, and Damnation. Ghost Revries shows some progression, but really, only in the addition of a few atmospheric keyboard parts easily eclipsed by dozens of other bands with keyboards (Dream Theater come to mind, and I don't even like Dream Theater, but their keyboard parts are still much better than Opeth's). Also, the vocal patterns are a bit less obvious, and a bit more experimental. I do agree with the review there - Mikael Akerfeldt is getting more comfortable with his vocals, and finally trying out some less obvious vocal hooks.

Why do they have an 'understanding' of prog-rock bands? Because they can write long songs? Pah, that's not progressive. Because they can mix heavy and acoustic parts? Pah, not progressive. Folk influences? Pah, not progressive.

EDIT- forgot to note that I'd overlooked your post for a while, and that is why this was so late.

It seems that you're analyzing them from the wrong direction, man, Opeth aren't trying to be extreme or masters of any one style.. their work is a mish-mash of several different genres and gentle prog-rock seems to be the one that wins out. Comparing them to metal bands is possibly more useless than comparing them to Pink Floyd.

If thats prog rock then I'd rather listen to WHAM

If they're gentle prog-rock at most, then why do they have a vocalist that death growls all the time?

If I can't compare them to metal bands, then how are they metal?

Who can I compare them too, then, if not metal bands, or prog-rock bands? If prog-rock is their prevelant style, why is comparing them to the general archetype for all prog-rock bands useless?

You make no sense, lizardtail.

Archetype for prog-rock? Say no more! All the good prog LPs were released in the 70s, and the thing about the genre is that it progresses.. so it stands to reason that some prog groups would have taken advantage of better production to add a harder edge to their sound. To add to that, Opeth write songs in segments rather than the verse chorus structure, feature meandering intros and outros, complex sequences of chords and use poetry for lyrics. So yeah, I'd say they were very very prog, while not sharing all that much sound with Pink Floyd.

as for the death growls, they work more for atmosphere than aggression and I dare say the point is to add a touch of the macabre to their music.

this is all just a theory of course, but prog has to have gone somewhere.. it certainly didn't end up as Pagan's Mind..

So... wait... you just spent a whole paragraph talking about how similar they are to prog-rock without distancing them from Pink Floyd, and then saying that they aren't similar to Pink Floyd.

This doesn't make any sense.

And since when are any of the abovementioned things progressive? All of them have been used before, many times. Why does 'progressive rock' have to mean something that has nothing to do with the definition of the word 'progressive?'

ugh, first, prog rock is a wide genre, widening in my view, so someone can be prog without sounding like Floyd. Ta dah.

Secondly, listen to music that's placed in a defined genre and consistently find all the things I mentioned, because it's hard. Until progressive actually becomes mainstream, then eschewing traditional song structure and aesthetics in favour of your own more quirky compositions is still progressive, as long as you're not copying another band's sound.

as for Edge of Sanity, I always thought they were terrible, c'est la vie. I'm not really a great fan of Opeth either, or for that matter, Pink Floyd.

Eh, I still think of Us and Them whenever I hear The Leper Affinity, in terms of song structure... but their latest has the vibe of Dogs and Pigs on the Wing.

I guess it boils down to relative opinion. Damn.

You're entitled to that obviously, but my point was not "Edge of Sanity are better" (even though they are ^_^), my point was that Opeth took the blueprints for their sound from that band and was mentored by it's main guy. So I just figured all the shtick about Opeth's incredible originality seemed a bit ridiculous.

Man... there's really no need to attempt to be this patronising about it. Amazingly, I realise that Wreath is just an example. Perhaps the fact that I have already said a couple of times this thread that I don't like that song, makes it a bad example to use when in an argument with me, seeing as how I'm trying to tell you what I like about Opeth. And yes, I can read that you said they sound like a metal version of PF... It is the fact that very few of their riffs are actually distorted versions of Pink Floyd ones that makes me query what you are saying, not my inability to read. :roll:

The fact is, I don't think you have constructed an argument that disproves their originality, and really the only thing you seem to be saying above is that you think other melodeath bands have better riffs. So... first your argument is that Opeth only have metalised Pink Floyd riffs, and now it is that they do have pure melodeath riffs, but Nightrage and early Arch Enemy have better ones. I suppose you can also give a checklist of things which apparently are not progressive, but seem to give very little examples of things which are. This would be useful, seeing as how you're arguing that Opeth are ripping off progressive rock bands. Most of your statements are jumbles of fact and opinion, I think: "Throwing light and shade dynamics and folk influences doesn't make it anything original, it makes it a giant melting pot of this that and this other thing, kind of sewn together poorly". It is fact that they are kind of a styllistic melting pot, and for all intents and purposes, this gives them originality. The fact that you add that it's poorly sewn together does not indicate otherwise, because that is purely your opinion.


Also, I think your analysis of the changes made to their sound on GR is inaccurate. You argue that the only real difference between it and Still Life is the addition of keyboards and "less obvious vocal patterns". I think you need to listen to it more closely, if you can bear to: As someone has already said on this thread (I forget who), the opening to "Baying of the Hounds" actually sounds like Deep Purple in parts... I don't care wether you like this or not, but to claim that no stylistic changes have been made is simply inaccurate. Additionally, I can hear Akerfeldt actually singing pure blues scale melodies, which is also something never previously attempted by this band. So actually I would say that the difference between this and Deliverance (assuming we exclude Damnation and class that as the last standard Opeth album), is greater than between any other two of their career. Bear in mind that I only listened to it for the first time today, and examples of this type are likely to increase once I have listened to it more throughly.

Sounds like Deep Purple? What breathtaking originality!!

There is no way this is more of a jump in sound for them then MAYH was, that was easily the biggest single-record jump of their career and will most likely never be matched again.

And in case you weren't listening (you insist you read fine, but I don't know...) there is no such thing as a checklist for what IS progressive. The very existence of such a thing would make it no longer progressive in the truest sense. To be progressive is simply to go to new places, not to rip off deep purple or to write long songs or any of that, but to actually take music to new places and do things in new ways. For example, back in the early-to-mid nineties taking death and black metal and mixing in clean vocals, twisting song structures, using instruments new to the genre, pushing the technical boundaries and such were fairly progressive things. However, these things are simply part of those genres now. Bands who choose to include them aren't groundbreakingly progressive anymore, because it's been done and can be easily listed. Progressive music is what has NOT been done and can NOT be listed as the accomplishments of another band.

However, I do agree with lizardtail to an extent. Insofar as that certain things such as song structure can continue to be progressive even if they have been explored already. It's been a while since bands started eschewing traditional verse-chorus song structure, but the very nature of doing that tends to continue being progressive because it eliminates the blueprint and forces the band to create something new and (hopefully) unique (unless they like, just rip off some Opeth song or something, but we're assuming that that doesn't happen ).

Sorry 'bout that.

In any event, I think they are. That's what they sound like to me, and having listened over and over to Animals and Ghost Reveries back-to-back, I can say that with all confidence.



Um, the thing about the melodeath bands having better riffs was in response to your saying that they put effort into their riffs, which I don't think they do.

I stated quite a few times that they don't have exclusively Pink Floyd riffs. They also throw in chugga-chugga death metal riffs, most of which are nothing that haven't been done prior to 1994, and some melodeath riffs, which decreased after their first few albums. Nothing we haven't seen before.

Especially considering the Edge of Sanity notation, which you seem to have ignored. I consider it especially apt, after a few listening sessions to Nothing but Death Remains and Unorthodox, which I acquired via Metal-torrents.

What's progressive? Doing something different and new. Opeth isn't doing anything different and new.

Progressive:
Ulver, for instance
The Axis of Perdition
Catch-Thirtythree,
etc.



I said that minimal stylistic changes had been made, which is true.



I don't really know about the technical intricacies of blues scale melodies as opposed to whatever Akerfeldt usually sings, so I can't answer that.

Really, this is quite a step compared to Still Life-Blackwater Park, but it's nothing like the leaps other supposedly progressive bands have made between albums, and certainly nothing that really changes their sound to an extreme degree, or does anything exciting and fresh with it. It's the same old 'intro-first riff-second riff-acoustic section w/clean vocals-intro riff-some other riff-acoustic section-possible folky breakdown-end' Opeth.

As for Opeth being progressive - they are not progressive in the general sense of the term. Their sound has not changed much from album to album, and they are not stunningly original. I do consider them a progressive metal band as a way of describing their sound though, since it is much easier than saying "a folkloric melodic death metal band that writes long songs". Progressive death metal just flows off of the tonge much better. :roll:

Since Blackwater Park they haven't been doing their formula very well. Deliverance is just boring, and Ghost Reveries's heavy parts are just like a slow "CHUGCHUG CHUG CHUG" and don't really seem to have any energy, there's one or two parts that do have energy but not many. I also wanted the "borderline black metal" album that Mikael talked about on Lamentations, and was disapointed not to get that. xD. They added keyboards and chugging parts, and quite frankly I don't like either.

As for comparing Opeth to other bands - does it really matter that much? I think we've established that Opeth are not something entirely new, but rather a mishmash of different styles. I don't think we'll ever really get beyond that so we might as well end the discussion.

I think it basically comes down to "I like Opeth" or "I dislike Opeth". There are no bands that are better than them in basically every way, so there is no point in arguing beyond that. You can assume they dislike Opeth because of their popularity or whatnot, and it is probably true for some people... but arguing with people who have proven that that is not the reason is just pointless.

Uh-huh... well this is all very well except for the fact that Dead Machine is arguing that they sound like a metalised prog rock band. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between the use of the word in that sense and the one you have just used it in.

And you point out that we can't compile a progressive checklist, but you seem to proceed to do it anyway, by saying that most bands nowadays that eschew verse chorus verse structure, are progressive. This is as bizarre an example as ever I've heard, seeing as how it includes pretty much everyone playing black metal. This is especially odd, seeing as how you argues that "twisting song structures" is an example of something that was progressive when MAYH came out, but is not any more. In fact, it seems more and more like you are just making up on the spot what constitutes progressive music.

And sounding like Deep Purple? Is this original in a wider sense? By definition no, and in fact so obviously not that I wonder why you bother to point it out. However, within the context of Opeths music, this is a radical change, and is one example of the ways in which they have progressed, by bringing in elements new to their genre. Predictably, you will argue that how can anything that sounds like Deep Purple be progressive. Then perhaps I can ask you in what ways mixing clean vocals and DM vocals, and twisting song structures was progressive even in the mid nineties, seeing as how all these musical elements had previously existed in other genres.

Well yeah I would agree with you that all the bands you mentioned are doing somethin "different and new". I would also argue that I don't think that with "Blood Inside" Ulver have done it especially well, although overall I still like them a lot. I think that, while this band has made single bigger alterations in sound between albums, this really indicates change as opposed to progression. I could argue that Metallica were a progressive band because of the difference between Reload and St Anger. (Although clearly I do place Ulver in a higher league artistically at the moment, it's just an analogy).

With Opeth it has been a gradual process of refinement and alteration whilst retaining the same musical basis. To my mind this also represents progression. Of course it is not revolutionary, but then I don't think many pro-Opeth people here have claimed that it is. It is, however progressive. This is not to say either that bands who make large changes in their sound are not progressive, just that it doesn't necessarily follow that they are either. The blues melodies and the Deep Purple-esque bits are all examples of ways in which the sound of this specific band has progressed within their own parameters. And as I have already said, I think you are wrong to argue that the styllistic changes made have been pretty much negligible.

Anyway this is really going nowhere... I am off to relisten to Edge of Sanity and see if I am suddenly converted to RC's point of view. But unless that happens there is little point continuing this thread.

Umm... St. Anger wasn't anything new in music, as opposed to most of Ulver's catalogue post-Nattens Madrigal. So that's not a very good analogy.

What Ulver is doing is something new in music, that makes them progressive.

Change as opposed to progression? I don't see where you're going with that. Ulver is making strides in music, while Opeth is mainly redoing what they did with Still Life, but now with keyboards and the other alterations mentioned. If I had to say so, Opeth would be the one 'changing' as opposed to really 'progressing.'



No, but they do wrongly claim that Opeth is original, which they aren't.

Jesus, I can see what you mean. This is degenerating into 'you're wrong! No, you're wrong! No, you're wrong' and onwards. Best to end it here.



Yeah, I'd have to agree.

Well, it was fun arguing with you, even if it did go nowhere, just like the last time we argued about this.

I like this album a lot. I would stop short of calling it album of the year though (that title is reserved for This Godless Endeavor). Why do so many people lurk on these forums simply to attack bands like Opeth, when they get positive reviews? I don't waste my time calling Jesu crap when it gets an inflated score. Some like Opeth and some don't. Leave it at that. So what if they are not original? That doesn't make a band good or bad. Is it because they are labeled "progressive" death metal? Fine, call it something else. I don't care.

As for the Pink Floyd comparison: I don't get it...dumb comparison. Both are labeled progressive, and both play acoustic guitars; beyond that they share nothing in common. I am sure there is some subtle influence, either directly or indirectly, but they don't sound alike. End of story.

As for progressive, there is basically 2 ways you can define it:

A)Something new and original, this is the literal definition

B ) A band that has a lot of talent, generally has long songs and generally eschews verse/chorus. This is the "progressive metal" genre of bands like Dream Theatre, Andromeda, Fates Warning etc.

Ok then. Agreed to disagree.