Watershed some light

Hi, I'm one of the people who gave it a five-star review, so I thought I'd "Watershed some light."  I don't appreciate the generalizations about such reviews from some of the people, but moving on...

GIVE THIS ALBUM TIME!

I admit that this one took some time to get into.  I was kind of getting bored of Ghost Reveries, though I really enjoyed it for a while, and Blackwater Park never hit me like it did some of the other fans, so I was hoping this one would fill in the hole.  The first few times around, after track 3 ended and on throughout the rest of the album, there was one overwhelming thought going through my mind:

DISJOINTED!!!

After a few more listens, though, I found that the disjointedness was intentional.  The main character seems to snap back and forth between moods, and the music conveys that perfectly.  He goes from satanic to calm, calm to satanic, all in an instant.  Having a blend of the two is what made Opeth famous, but the ingenious thing -- and the thing that probably turns people off the most at first -- is that they almost completely do away with transitions in some parts.  It's an on/off switch.  At first it seems like bad songwriting, but if music is meant to convey emotion, I can think of no better instance than this album, in that it not only conveys the emotion, but it conveys the mental instability that goes along with it.  Case in point: the first bout of heaviness in Hessian Peel.

Also, I had been listening to this album at roughly 2x a day since it came out before I wrote the review.  I made sure I knew what I was talking about.  I suppose that as a Tool fan, they've trained me to look pretty deep into the music beyond just the music: what is it trying to tell me?  It's not simply a matter of notes for the sake of aesthetics.  Looking at it that way, I can easily see this being a very pointless and lackluster album, especially to anyone not into metal.

The feel of most of the album kind of makes me think of Sweeney Todd: light and kind of upbeat, but also very macabre.  I meant to go see that movie, because that whole concept seems interesting to me.

I will say, though, that if you're not a death metal fan, though, skip track 2.  I have recently really started liking death metal just because of the general proficiency of the drummers (I am a drummer).  Maybe as a result I'm "immune" to death metal, so to speak, because I actually really enjoy the growls now.  I absolutely detest metalcore growls/yells, though.

It's funny how music is.  You can listen to something and not really like it then boom, you finally get it and  then you can't get enough.  That's how it was with Opeth.  I bought "Damnation" because I read Steve Wilson produced it.  That is a wonderful CD, easily 5 stars.  Then I bought Blackwater Park and thought how could Steve Wilson be involed with this horrible growling band.  That was the end for me until I found Ghost Reveries in a used CD bin.  It had such glowing reviews I decided to buy it.  After my 2nd listening I got it.  I now own all their CDs.  Watershed is 5 stars and is definately a progression in artestry for the band.  The interesting bands will always change on every CD.  They still sound fresh.  Who likes the Rolling Stones new CDs?  They turned into a so so band after Mick Taylor left.  Now they're like the Beach Boys, if you see the live please don't play the "new" stuff.  I am a 55 year old grandfather who got hooked on Progressive Rock when I first heard Sgt. Pepper when I was 14.  I feel lucky that I got to see Progressive Rock develope.

Define me your view of "prog?"

I think you're review is valid, but you rail against it's supposed non-progressiveness at times, praise "Burden" for being typical, and dislike the anti-traditional melodic choices in "Hessian Peel." Also, you never came off as one who cared a lot about being "progressive" until now. It just seems like a lot of contradictions in there, Cert.

mellors wrote: Define me your view of "prog?"

Edited by Certif1ed - June 11 2008 at 04:39

Certif1ed wrote:   I would have given it more listens if there was any Prog in it.   I had not made up my mind before reviewing - rest assured on that. I NEVER do that.   I didn't try to "go the most negative" - it just turned out that way. I certainly wasn't as negative about previous Opeth albums.

To be fair, writing long decent reviews on an album you dislike lends, IMHO, more credibility to the reviewer. Certified's reviews are generally factually accurate whether one agrees or not with his/her sentiments.

Righto. I'm not interested in dissecting Certif1ed's review, as he has a perfect right to it. However, I think Watershed is progressive rock because:
- it uses some non-conventional time signatures and sequences
- songs 'develop' rather than simply returning to their original simple motifs
- the use of instruments is inspired by 'classical' prog
- the band has been influenced by prog musicians from KC to Camel
- the band demonstrates technical virtuosity in comparison to standard rock musicians
- some of the songs demonstrate a quirky humour characteristic of prog
- the lyrical subjects are standard prog territory
- the album is more than a collection of songs: care has been taken in song selection and placement.

None of these things, on their own, qualify any album as 'prog'. However, wouldn't most listeners suspect they were listening to something graced by progressive rock sensibilities? It's really hard for me to deny what my ears are hearing. Now I don't think 'Watershed' is the best example of OPETH's work - I gave it three stars - but I do believe reviews ought to be in the context of the BAND being reviewed and the GENRE the album sits within. If 'Watershed' is truly a one-star album, then we'd better be adding negative stars to the site!

Finally, I will criticise Cert's review for one point: I don't think reviews aren't the place to argue that an album/band is 'not prog' (particularly not when making such a definitive statement). We all have such different definitions of 'prog' that unless the reviewer is very clear what his/her definition is, there is no context for the reader to judge the 'this is not prog' statement. In particular some reviewers see prog as 'anything progressive/original' and others as 'sounds like the 70s'. These two are usually mutually exclusive, and it's often not clear which one the reviewer means. It's also provocative, since experts on the genre have agreed to the band's addition.

chopper wrote: Baza wrote: I think that Cert1fied's review is a disgrace to this site, it's unbelievably biased, he heard it only once and wrote here (in the middle of listening to this album) that he is bored by it... this is not serious. I think that his review should be deleted and also that he should be removed from the collaborator position, because this review affects the credibily of this site and it's colloborators. And I'm not saying that because I'm insulted by his bad review and rating, I don't think it's a great album, I would give it 3 stars, but at least I came to this desicion after at least 10 spins. It's not a "disgrace", he's entitled to give it 1 star if he gives reasons. However, if he really only did listen to it once then it's not really a valid point of view and the fact that he said "I truly expect it to end up on eBay like the other Opeth albums I bought." makes me wonder (a) why he bothered to buy it and (b) why he bothered to review it when he'd already made his mind up about it.

Countless times though, people have asked him to stop reviewing prog-metal, because he just doesn't 'get it'.
It's as bad as the fan-boys giving it 5 stars, but the other way around. The hater giving it 1 star.
Dreadful review, the analogies were dreadful. Nickelback? Cradle of Filth? Dimmu Borgir? No they sound like none of them.
I can't even be bothered to go on. Awful reviewer.

We care a lot!