[Vonx]

Quote:

Peh, all of opeth's albums have been based on musicality. 
 
I just didn't enjoy the "plugged-out" touch that heritage had, and I felt that musically, save for a few moments, that it didn't reach near the emotional power or impact that their previous albums had. It felt as though it was a backstage jam session with very little layering and touch and effort.
 
I never listened to opeth for their death metal aspects, but it did add a bit of contrast and power to their music that felt left out in this album. 
 
God, It's amazing how sensitive people are to opinions here, especially when just about every thread and every thread reply has an opinion of it's own.
 
I don't know how you could venture to call an opeth fan "closed-minded" to begin with, when opeth is definately a niche and requires a taste of it's own.
 
That's just being pretentious -_-
 
I agree to sternly disagree. 

 


Quote:

 
Agreed. The more I've listened to Heritage, the more I like it. At the very least its easily better than Watershed.
 
 

The lotus eater? Porcelain heart? Hex Omega?

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

The lotus eater? Porcelain heart? Hex Omega?

Sorry, I just think Watershed was weak, and I'm not the only one. Ghost Reveries destroyed it.

 

[Vonx]

Quote:

Sorry, I just think Watershed was weak, and I'm not the only one. Ghost Reveries destroyed it.

I respect your opinion, but I would apply that same description to Heritage. Except now I have a heap of intolerant anti-cultural hipsters on my back for doing so. 
 
An opinion is an opinion. 

 

[Vonx]

Quote:

C'mon, really? Heritage bashing is lame. Its a great album musically. Its also wonderful live. I agree its not death metal.
Metallica and Morbid Angel are more in the club you are talking about.

I think you only support the heritage album in a positive fashion because a large number of other Opeth fans seem to agree that it was a poorly made album. 
 
I personally don't care what other fans think, I have my own opinions, so for you to call my opinion "lame" is "lame" itself. 
 
Your free to disagree, but I personally think your opinion is as "lame" as you think mine is, to put it lightly. 
 
But I agree that Metallica and Morbid Angel haven't made anything worth listening to in a while as well. 

 

[Vonx]

Any atheist fans in here?
 

 

[bcasey25raptor]

Quote:

Any atheist fans in here?
 

Yes. This band is great. I originally found them as i am an atheist and was looking for atheist themed metal.

 

[PleasantNoise]

Quote:

Peh, all of opeth's albums have been based on musicality. 
 
I just didn't enjoy the "plugged-out" touch that heritage had, and I felt that musically, save for a few moments, that it didn't reach near the emotional power or impact that their previous albums had. It felt as though it was a backstage jam session with very little layering and touch and effort.
 
I never listened to opeth for their death metal aspects, but it did add a bit of contrast and power to their music that felt left out in this album. 
 
God, It's amazing how sensitive people are to opinions here, especially when just about every thread and every thread reply has an opinion of it's own.
 
I don't know how you could venture to call an opeth fan "closed-minded" to begin with, when opeth is definately a niche and requires a taste of it's own.
 
That's just being pretentious -_-
 
I agree to sternly disagree. 

It's not an album that grabs you, it's one you have to really sink into and immerse yourself in to enjoy (I feel that way at least)
I can't just listen to it casually whenever, I listen to it in the dark, so I can concentrate on it.

The problem with opinions is that they are easy to state, easy to disagree with, and easy to argue about, because no-one will have the exact same opinions as another person. so there will always be conflict.

I can call an opeth fan closed minded, for sure, I don't find Opeth to be a niche death metal act, they are more of an interestingly flavoured Prog metal band (from my point of view)
And anyway, you don't have to be open minded to listen to Opeth, the people I'm referring to are those that listen to opeth only for the death metal elements, and don't listen to the other side of Opeth.

Enjoy your sternly disagreeing, because I'm happy to voice my opinion regardless
 

 

[Vonx]

Quote:

Yes. This band is great. I originally found them as i am an atheist and was looking for atheist themed metal.

<3
 

 
Quote:

It's not an album that grabs you, it's one you have to really sink into and immerse yourself in to enjoy (I feel that way at least)
I can't just listen to it casually whenever, I listen to it in the dark, so I can concentrate on it.

The problem with opinions is that they are easy to state, easy to disagree with, and easy to argue about, because no-one will have the exact same opinions as another person. so there will always be conflict.

I can call an opeth fan closed minded, for sure, I don't find Opeth to be a niche death metal act, they are more of an interestingly flavoured Prog metal band (from my point of view)
And anyway, you don't have to be open minded to listen to Opeth, the people I'm referring to are those that listen to opeth only for the death metal elements, and don't listen to the other side of Opeth.

Enjoy your sternly disagreeing, because I'm happy to voice my opinion regardless
 

I was talking in terms of death metal growls. I think prog metal is easier to fall into the death metal ever could be, be it almost solely because of the vocals. 
 
"Progressive" is really more of a defining term than it is a genre, since their are genre's like progressive house, progressive trance, progressive rock, progressive hip hop, blah, blah, blah. 
 
The house genre is still the same, but progressive is generally considered the more experimental form of that house genre. 
 
Whatever, you knew that. 
 
And good, I want you to have an opinion, and never said you couldn't voice it! 
 
Disagreeing =/= disrespecting. 
 
 
 
 

 

[PleasantNoise]

Quote:

 

I was talking in terms of death metal growls. I think prog metal is easier to fall into the death metal ever could be, be it almost solely because of the vocals. 

 
 

Thats true now I think about it, I don't listen to alot of bands because of awful vocals.
But the difference between good and bad death growling is tonality.
Atonal Growls will always suck. and ruin songs, it's like having 1 dissonant note droning for the whole record,
Opeth doesn't have this problem, his growls are musical, and have a range, making them accessible in my opinion.
Also, Opeth's growls are broken up with good singing, making them even less polarizing as a band.
 
 

 

[wrathzombie]

 
Quote:

C'mon, really? Heritage bashing is lame. Its a great album musically. Its also wonderful live. I agree its not death metal.
Metallica and Morbid Angel are more in the club you are talking about.

 
I think if someone has never listened to any Opeth  and started with Heritage, they will have a different perspective to the band. I started out with Heritage and have went to enjoy
 
BlackWater Park and Damnation. I don't mind that Heritage and Damnation are more acoustic and Non-Death because I never followed them before.
 
Now I am listening to their earlier heavier releases and I have more respect for the band.

 

[drez]

Sorry, I just think Watershed was weak, and I'm not the only one. Ghost Reveries destroyed it.

IMO Damnation and Heritage should be called Mikael Akerfeldt Project

 

[Trogdor]

I think you only support the heritage album in a positive fashion because a large number of other Opeth fans seem to agree that it was a poorly made album. 

I don't quite understand your point.

I like Heritage because:

• I have listened to it
• I have seen the majority of it live - TWICE
• I am an Opeth fanboy (might as well get that out)

I personally don't care what other fans think, I have my own opinions, so for you to call my opinion "lame" is "lame" itself. 

I didn't really say your opinion itself was lame; I said ALL Heritage bashing was lame!

Look, you don't like it, that's fine. You started with "*cough* Heritage *cough*" comment, I responded. Not everybody likes psychedelic 70s prog rock. I certainly respect that. However, I get a strong sense from certain folks that the MAIN reason they don't like Heritage is no death growls. That's beyond lame.

EDIT: This conversation reminds of when Damnation came out.

Your free to disagree, but I personally think your opinion is as "lame" as you think mine is, to put it lightly. 

Let's agree to disagree about Opeth.

Atheist is great.

 

[macrocheesium]

Quote:

I was talking in terms of death metal growls. I think prog metal is easier to fall into the death metal ever could be, be it almost solely because of the vocals. 
 
 

I know what you mean. Opeth was my first ever exposure to growls (and I guess metal as well), and although that was new and weird, I tolerated them because the rest of the music was so great. By the time I finished listening through all of Opeth's material I had learned to appreciate the vocals. Now thanks to them, I have no problem with growls whatsoever.
 
I really don't get all of the Watershed hate that goes around here, with it being my favorite Opeth album by far.

 

[Vonx]

Quote:

I don't quite understand your point.
I like Heritage because:

1. I have listened to it
2. I have seen the majority of it live - TWICE
3. I am an Opeth fanboy (might as well get that out)

I didn't really say your opinion itself was lame; I said ALL Heritage bashing was lame!
Look, you don't like it, that's fine. You started with "*cough* Heritage *cough*" comment, I responded. Not everybody likes psychedelic 70s prog rock. I certainly respect that. However, I get a strong sense from certain folks that the MAIN reason they don't like Heritage is no death growls. That's beyond lame.
EDIT: This conversation reminds of when Damnation came out.
Let's agree to disagree about Opeth.
Atheist is great.

Actually, if you want me to get right down to it, I didn't like the album because of its lack of versatility. Every song seemed like a continuation of another, and 7 minute songs only had decipherable chords for about 2-3 minutes of it, and the rest seemed like half-engaged riffing in a basement jam session. I loved the power in which opeth had in their music and was struck by it when i heard it for the first time, both physically and emotionally.
 
One thing I grew to know and love about Opeth is their song structuring, how it would start out heavy, then ease seamlessly into a melancholic acoustical measure, then zip into a heavy metal riff and catch you off guard, although not doing it in an abrasive and unnerving fashion, but in a beautifully structured and well thought out and perfect way. That is an extremely difficult thing for musicians to accomplish these days.
 
Heritage was not a bad album musically, but i felt it lacked the delivery, structure, and power that other albums beheld. It's as if a fantastically talented street poet began to recite a very advanced and beautiful verse, but without any charisma, flow, or delivery, and paused several times throughout for no reason at all, further breaking up the structured flow until you wonder "What is he doing? Is he ok? It sounded like he was trying to recite a poem for a minute and then he went brain dead, isn't this the great (enter famous poet name here) that had so much charisma and power and beautiful flow in his previous poems that he recited? Is he ok? Is he being serious?" Thats exactly the thoughts I had about this Opeth album. It felt as if Jethro Tull was in my basement without any amps or mic equipment, stoned out of their minds, and decided to jam some opeth reminicient but primarily stoned induced measures that didn't mesh together. Except Jetrho Tull had fantastic song structuring and plenty of charisma in their own way, albeit they be stoned or not, so that's not even a fair comparison. This Opeth album however, did not, save for a few glowing moments. 
 
There were a few confidence building moments, like the progression in "I feel the Dark" where it progressed from an acoustic escapade stone out session into some well structured transitions and heavy, beautiful riffs.
 
I am not a death metal puritist, in fact one of my favorite genre's is solo acoustic, with the likes of Antoine Dufour, Andy Mckee, Don Ross, and just about anything else on candyrat records. 
 
Those three artists carry more emotion and structure and proper delivery than 1,000 average modern day artists combined.
 
"Famine" also has some beautiful riffs and nice song structuring, be it after the 3 minute stoned out piano session and prolonged silence breaks, turning what is really a 3 minute song into a 7 minute one.  
 
It just felt as if they were asleep the whole album, and came awake for a few wonderful moments, and you think to yourself "Finally, Opeths back again, here we go!" and then they fall back asleep and go into another stoned out escapade of silence broken by random tasteless guitar licks for another 3 minutes. 
 
It's still a better album than 95% of anything that's out today, period. And that's saying something, given that this was Opeth in one of their not-so-finest moments. 
 

 

[PleasantNoise]

Quote:

Actually, if you want me to get right down to it, I didn't like the album because of its lack of versatility. Every song seemed like a continuation of another, and 7 minute songs only had decipherable chords for about 2-3 minutes of it, and the rest seemed like half-engaged riffing in a basement jam session.
 

 Do you listen to jazz at all dude?
you can listen to a jazz piece, and not think it has any structure, or thought gone into it. which is completely wrong.
it will usually be based around a chord progression, which may change key signature every bar, so the bass player usually plays a walking chromatic line, or arpeggiated line, that fits over the whole thing. from there, a solo instrument can play over, the chords are a guide, the player may only play one note from each chord, the soloist doesn't even need to play notes from the key he/she is playing in, they can be dissonant, clash and whatever they like, as long as they resolve the phrase onto a not of the chord, it will sound correct and flow in a followable manner.

Basically, just because you don't hear the chord being played, doesn't mean the piece isn't carefully structured, it simply means your not being spoon fed the chords of a song, they are being left out, so as to keep the feel, but give the player more freedom to express as musicians, by not being tied down by chords, and traditional melodies.

When you say the album lacked versatility, but flowed well, do you think that it is simple to take an hour long album, and make all the tracks flow, not only as tracks, but as a whole album, and still cover everything that any opeth album has?
Everything about Opeth is still in Heritage, just at different ratios, with the addition of piano too.


And I would be seriously amazed if you could have a half-engaged basement jam, and even come up with one song that has the level of thought, and arrangement of the songs off heritage, As a musician, I know songs just don't appear out of jams, maybe a rock song, or a pop song, but not something like opeth, the idea of for a song may come from a jam, but it's nigh on impossible to just jam out songs with the complexity present on Heritage.