The official Opeth thread v. Bring on the new album!

[countoftuscany42]

if we were to assume they should drop the name Opeth due to their new direction, in my mind that means they have completely moved away from their current sound with no intention of going back.  As far as i can tell, that isn't the case.  yes heritage was a step away from the ordinary for them, and pale communion doesn't seem like it'll be totally back to their 'normal' style, but at least its moving back in that direction isn't it? none of us have heard it so its tough to say, but it seems to me that this album will be the balance between heritage and their older sound.  based on that, i see no reason to not continue using the name Opeth.  Storm Corrosion already had an Akerfeldt sound while being completely different, id say thats good enough for that argument 

[?]

Even if Mikael had wanted to change the name, I'm 100% sure Roadrunner and the management wouldn't have let him do it, because dropping an established name in favor of a new and unknown one after 20 years would be a commercial suicide. Besides, the line-up is almost the same and they still play the old songs live, so I don't see any problem. Some bands have gone through way more radical changes yet kept the same name.

[PROGdrummer]

I just thought I'd drop in and say that Heritage is my favorite Opeth album.
I was a fan since Ghost Reveries.

[Buddyhunter1]

Heritage would probably be my 5th favorite Opeth album, behind Blackwater Park, Ghost Reveries, Watershed, and Deliverance.
I still think it sounds enough like Opeth to be considered an Opeth album, and the band has the right to write whatever kind of music they want.

I am bummed that the old sound is a thing of the past, but if Akerfeldt's just not into it anymore, then it's for the best. At least he's not forcing it and created half-assed music as a result.

[Jaq]

I don't think Opeth should change their name, but I agree that their new direction appears to be "riding 70s progressive rock as hard as they can" and as I said before, Opeth is a lousy 70s prog rock band. Mikael can do what he wants, but another Heritage just isn't interesting to me.

[425]

I'm a rather new fan, as I have only Heritage, Watershed and Blackwater Park. I'm one of those folks who listened when people said "if you're not sure about the harsh vocals, get Heritage to see if you like them for their songwriting, then try to get into the growly ones." Of those three, Heritage is probably my least favorite while BWP is my favorite.

But, I wanted to contribute this as someone who heard Heritage first: The album sounds, from a compositional standpoint, like their earlier albums. It sounds like someone turned down the distortion on the guitars and Mikael decided to stop growling, and also Slither just got on there somehow, but for the most part, it sounds like the Opeth approach to songwriting, just applied to a new form of arrangement, and sometimes not even that. The first time I heard The Leper Affinity, when the acoustic section began, I thought, "this sounds just like something off of Heritage!" I know it might be weird to read it that way as I'm sure most people heard TLA long before hearing Heritage, and I'm not demanding that people love Heritage (especially since, as I would agree, it is a huge change of direction), but all I would suggest is to give Heritage a listen and then listen to The Leper Affinity and some other of the older songs and see if they can't hear the similarities in songwriting style and in arrangement for the folky parts, and applied to a different arragement for the heavy parts.

[Nel]

It's funny, when I first got into the band, I was much less tolerant of growl vocals, and wanted so badly to hear an all-clean vocal album by them because I thought those sections in their songs were beautiful. And then I got Damnation and, while I enjoy a few songs on it, don't really find it all that interesting. And then Heritage was announced and I was excited, and have never been able to get into it. That said, I'm all for the band doing whatever they want to do, because there's always a good chance they're going to put out something I like. Heritage was a miss for me, but I'm still on board for whatever.

[Onno]

I agree with you 425. I got into Opeth a bit after Watershed was released. Even though I didn't like Heritage at first, it really grew on me and even though the album sounds completely different, to me the songwriting and arrangements are still Opeth. Yes, it's hard to spot them, you really have to listen well to notice the similarities. But I can't say I agree with the statement "Mikael should not have released Heritage as an Opeth album". The three times I've seen Opeth live since Heritage came out, the Heritage songs fitted really well with the rest of the set.

If you don't like Heritage, fine. If you think it should not have been released as an Opeth album, fine. But at least consider the fact that at least some of us do think Heritage sounds like an Opeth album, and that the whole band does as well.

[black_biff_stadler]

The way I see it is the band thing counts for nothing because no band ever goes on record saying recently released material ain't up to snuff with their revered shit anyway. Beyond this, most of their big Heritage supporters came on board either with GR or WS so it's not like they had any serious expectations or potential for disappointment anyway. I'm glad the newer fans and prog-leaning fans have more music to enjoy but it miffs me when some people act like the dissentors are unreasonable for not liking it and try to tell someone how to be a fan of a band they've liked for WAY longer since it's silly to act like the two groups have similar degrees of sentimental investment in the band. Basically, imagine a prog band you liked abandoned most of their melodic side, introduced roaring as a complete replacement for clean vocals, and showed no signs of returning to their familiar style and, as a result, released stuff far below your usual level of enjoyment and I came around as a much newer fan telling you "Eh, shit happens" in so many words.

[Onno]

I don't think the band thing counts for nothing, but I agree with you that it isn't as bulletproof since no band will ever say they dislike recently released material. We'll see what the band thinks about Heritage in the future I guess. I don't know if most Heritage supporters came on board with GR or WS, but I agree with you that those 'new' supporters (including myself) have less sentimental investment in the band. I can see where you guys are coming from, your example was good. It's a hard pill to swallow that a band you've loved for so long suddenly releases an album that is in a completely different style, and it becomes harder when the next album is announced and it turns out that album won't be like the old stuff either.

However, coming back to this thread and either constantly saying that you don't like Heritage and saying how shit the album is and how it shouldn't have been released as an Opeth album isn't exactly doing anything, is it? No offense, but I guess however bad you think Heritage is, someday you have to accept that it has been released as an Opeth album (even though you may still think it is not an Opeth album) and that Opeth probably won't go back to the old style in the very near future. You can't really do anything about it and constantly getting wound up about the album and Opeth's future direction will not result in good discussion, but will result in constant 'fuck you cause you do/don't like Heritage' arguments.

I can understand why you don't like Heritage, and I don't think it has anything to do with you not having listened enough or not understanding it or whatever. I hope you can understand as well why other people like me do like Heritage and maybe you can see why we think it's still an Opeth album. Of course you don't have to, but I think this thread would be a lot more fun if we didn't have a 3-page discussion about Heritage every month with the exact same content everytime.

Now, for your sake and mine, I hope that Pale Communion won't tear open the rift between Heritage-lovers and -haters any further, but it may do just that. Either way, I hope the album's gonna be good. I'm probably going in optimistically, as are the other people who like Heritage, and you might not do so. We'll see how it turns out 

[black_biff_stadler]

I think it'll done one of two things:

1. Be as boring to me as WS and Heritage were and run me off for good leaving Opeth's Orchid-Ghost Reveries run plus half of WS as stuff I can still listen to from time to time whenever I've had a long enough absence to no longer be burnt out on it from listening to it too much while I basically disavow their newer material.

2. Win me back at least to a small extent by having some focus and balls thoroughly missing on Heritage and much of WS.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

But, I wanted to contribute this as someone who heard Heritage first: The album sounds, from a compositional standpoint, like their earlier albums. It sounds like someone turned down the distortion on the guitars and Mikael decided to stop growling, and also Slither just got on there somehow, but for the most part, it sounds like the Opeth approach to songwriting, just applied to a new form of arrangement, and sometimes not even that.

I think that's pretty much what I would say. Heritage stills sounds very much Opeth:ish if you were to ask me. With that being said when I listen to their older materials I keep thinking about the seize of thier balls and how humongous they must be today. That fact alone have them at the heighest peak of respect within the metal scene, if you were to ask me.

[425]

I agree entirely with Onno. I completely understand why someone would just not like Heritage, while liking the rest of the band's discography. Even though I argued that the songwriting still sounds like Opeth, I think it's very clear that there's been a significant change in style and arrangement. And I have no intention of telling fans who have been around much longer than I that they must like it or else they're intolerant or closed-minded or something, because the reality is that even if a few are, many aren't, they just don't enjoy the style. I really only mean to state my opinion on Heritage and present a contrary point of view to the one that says that it bears no resemblance to the rest of the band's discography.

[BlackInk]

Listened through Heritage the other day. Not a bad album, just not very interesting. And most of the songs have pretty much the same basic structure. First a cool or mellow intro, then something silly sounding, then outro.

[Buddyhunter1]

2. Win me back at least to a small extent by having some focus and balls thoroughly missing on Heritage and much of WS.

I doubt you'll be satisfied in the balls department (bet that sounds amazing out of context), but that preview posted earlier made it sound like the song structure will have a lot more focus than the past two albums.

[black_biff_stadler]

Context is irrelevant. Balls virtually always satisfy me.

[Mister Gold]

Context is irrelevant. Balls virtually always satisfy me.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I don't care either way on the band name thing. Either way it seems like the same thing in practice: Mikael Akerfeldt and co. writing new music and playing it in combination with older material live. The only situation I wouldn't like would be if the band changed names and didn't play the original Opeth stuff again.

[Ben_Jamin]

Wasn't Heritage, Storm Corrosion, and Grace for Drowning an album trinity? That could be why Heritage sounds the way it sounds. I enjoy it due to how evil-ishly simple the atmosphere is.

Plus, your forgetting Mikael had other songs written for Heritage but were scrapped because Martin Mendez wouldve been disappointed if that ended up being the new album at the time.

[Buddyhunter1]

Plus, your forgetting Mikael had other songs written for Heritage but were scrapped because Martin Mendez wouldve been disappointed if that ended up being the new album at the time.

Mikael didn't like them either, hence why he deleted them completely.

[Ben_Jamin]

Plus, your forgetting Mikael had other songs written for Heritage but were scrapped because Martin Mendez wouldve been disappointed if that ended up being the new album at the time.

Mikael didn't like them either, hence why he deleted them completely.

ITs on the making of dvd...

[rumborak]

I would say the fact they Mikael, as much as Steven Wilson, don't want to keep treading old ground, makes me appreciate them even more. I have never understood how a band like DT can just stick to the same thing for 25 years and not get that "been there, done that" feeling.
Opeth and SW will gain some fans and lose some, but so did Genesis, Queen and David Bowie. But they're the ones whose discographies are still listened to, exactly *because* there's so much to choose from. No offense to posters here, but you can't fault the artists for not wanting to be as one-dimensional as their fans' listening habits. Keep also in mind, while you can switch between different bands on a given day, they hear their own songs every single day of their lives. To use DT again as a counter-example, I can not even *fathom* playing exactly the same songs ever single day for months on end, in the same order, at precisely the same tempo.

[Onno]

Agreed, Rumbo!

[TioJorge]

I would say the fact they Mikael, as much as Steven Wilson, don't want to keep treading old ground, makes me appreciate them even more. I have never understood how a band like DT can just stick to the same thing for 25 years and not get that "been there, done that" feeling.
Opeth and SW will gain some fans and lose some, but so did Genesis, Queen and David Bowie. But they're the ones whose discographies are still listened to, exactly *because* there's so much to choose from. No offense to posters here, but you can't fault the artists for not wanting to be as one-dimensional as their fans' listening habits. Keep also in mind, while you can switch between different bands on a given day, they hear their own songs every single day of their lives. To use DT again as a counter-example, I can not even *fathom* playing exactly the same songs ever single day for months on end, in the same order, at precisely the same tempo.

I concur. Verily. The one thing most of my favorite bands have in common is that they've got pretty diverse discographies, so for me at least, this was an awesome thing (after the initial shock wore off). Especially since I love the sound they came up with. But I could have just as easily hated it it, it really kind of gives the wait for the new album a more anticipated excitement. I think it's awesome I can go through their discography and hear a few little changes throughout each album, then get progressively (harhar) different until it just does a tripple-axel-backflip-barrel-roll on you and the two newest albums are from a different dimension. It's awesome. But I suppose it'd suck if you don't like 'em. Win some lose some. I'd rather have that chance to have the artist do what inspires them and what they want then have the band drift into obscurity because I'm bored of them (not to have a DT bashing contest but-). It's like going into band coma.

[KevShmev]

I get what rumbo is saying. 

Say Band A has 12 albums and all of them are roughly in the same style.  You probably aren't gonna listen to your 11th or 12th favorite of the bunch very often simply because you can get the exact same thing out of the other albums, but with the quality being much higher. 

Now, say Band B has 12 albums and they are stylistically are all over the place.  Maybe you don't think your 11th or 12th favorites are that great, but they might sound unique within the context of that band's discography, simply because it it very likely that none of those other albums sound like them, thus you are way more likely to listen to them than you are the 11th or 12th favorites by Band A.

That is generalizing, but I think you'll all get the gist of it.

[Mladen]

I couldn't agree more with the last couple of posts, especially with this:

Opeth and SW will gain some fans and lose some, but so did Genesis, Queen and David Bowie. But they're the ones whose discographies are still listened to, exactly *because* there's so much to choose from.

[rumborak]

MM said in a recent interview "we have an obligation to sound like DT. If I want to hear Annihilator, i'll buy an Annihilator CD". I could not have disagreed with him more.

A very fitting scene is from the movie "Rockstar":
 https://youtu.be/zy8QXucoSkU

(Skip to 2:25)

[ThatOneGuy2112]

But you really have to remember that DT music, just by itself, is extremely diverse as it is. I've played certain songs to friends one after the other and some of them did not believe me when I said that they were written by the same band, much less that they came from the same album. The whole comparison to Annihilator is rendered moot when you know that it's straight up thrash a lot of the time, and that's no disrespect to those guys either, cause they kick loads of ass as well.

All respects to Opeth and SW for doing whatever it is they like to do with their music though. And I understand the point rumbo's making here, but I personally don't usually look for how similar or how radically different one band's release might be from their previous releases; I judge it based on it's quality and how well it stands by itself. It's all subjective, but as long as the new Opeth album kicks ass, you'll see me spinning it for a good while, going to the shows, expressing my love for it, not because it was different, but because it was good. Quality music can come from anywhere.

[rumborak]

I personally don't find DT's output, at least as of late, very diverse. In fact, the last two albums I would call the most homogeneous of their career. *Despite* stuff like the orchestral section.

I think what makes Opeth and SW different is, Mikael and Steven are the clear creative heads of their respective bands. Whereas DT, especially after MP's leave, seems to be more democratic. I wouldn't be surprised at all if each of DT's members at some point or another thought "man, I wish we would shake it up a bit, venture out more". If you're the head of your band, you can yank the steering wheel and do that, but in a democratic band you're just 1 of 5.

[ThatOneGuy2112]

I'd really only call SC and BC&SL homogeneous to one another, as ADTOE is to DT12 as of late. In their 12 album discography, that ain't too bad and even if it might sound like more of the same, there's still quality songs to be found. As I've said before, you don't need to totally alter your sound in order to sound great, and if you alter your sound there's no guarantee that you're always gonna sound great. I love King Crimson in this regard because no matter what sound they were going for, they always put out great shit. With Yes (which happen to be one of my all time favorite bands having made some of my favorite albums ever), they didn't always go strong IMO. I could see the appeal in their poppier albums but they really don't do that much for me. It's all subjective of course, but I can agree that some of DT's albums may blend together in comparison to Mikael and SW's stuff.

[Onno]

So, I was going to make a big post about DT's diversity, but I guess it doesn't really belong in this thread, so I'll post it somewhere else Let me put it this way: I really like Mikael and Steven for creating such diverse music. Even if they'd put out something I didn't really like, I guess I could still give them credit for doing something they wanted to do, for doing something different. That's better than bands creating the (almost) same album each and everytime until we as fans get bored of it (i.e. Slayer). I find it hard to love a band which does the latter. DT, in that aspect, is still quite diverse, but I have to agree their diversity has decreased a bit the last few years.

[?]

Let me put it this way: I really like Mikael and Steven for creating such diverse music. Even if they'd put out something I didn't really like, I guess I could still give them credit for doing something they wanted to do, for doing something different. That's better than bands creating the (almost) same album each and everytime until we as fans get bored of it (i.e. Slayer). I find it hard to love a band which does the latter. DT, in that aspect, is still quite diverse, but I have to agree their diversity has decreased a bit the last few years.

Amen.

[DebraKadabra]

Break out the 8-bit NES!!!

[Sketchy]

That's amazing. I wish this had been final boss music in so many games.

[bout to crash]

YESSS