Watershed some light

I think too many people get prog rock and prog metal mixed up.Opeth is definately a metal band.
Although some of their ideas are progressive (to say the least), I would consider them a metal band.
I think their best albums are Blackwater Park and Ghost Reveries. However some of the songs on
these two albums get a bit tedious. If the new cd is as good as those, I would get it.

The T wrote: Damn! This is something else... We're now discussing one review as if that review (or any review for that matter) was really important in the big scheme of things... It's one guy's opinion! Whether he's right or wrong, knows a lot or knows sh*t, hates the music or loves it, it's one guy's review.  Suddenly we are giving a review much more importance than it really has... Do you think that because of that review Akerfeldt will become depressed and suddenly stop making music? Do you think it makes the album any good, if you think it is (I think so) or any bad if you think the albus is bad? Does it really matter THAT much to you?   Hell, the reviewer in question has written many reviews that I disagree 200% with... and you know what... do you think I suddenly sold all my cds because of his negative reviews? I still like the music? The same goes opposite: do you think i love everything he gives 5 stars to? Of course not. The same with anybody's reviews! They're just opinions.   If everyone is so concerned about that review, is because for some it may say some uncomfortable truths... maybe some of you started to doubt that OPETH is really that glorious because of that review... don't let that insecurity about your tastes make you denounce a single review... If you like OPETH, (like I do), read reviews, agree or disagree, and, well, go listen to the album! Or sell it! But because YOU like it or dislike it!   Damn is so ridiculous.... Writing 1-star reviews of albums everybody praises to the heavens is dangerous, believe me I know.

If you were including me in that, my short blurb about the guy was mostly in response to what he said here on the thread, not his review, though I found his review somewhat ridiculous.

Maybe I just need some time between having played World of Warcraft for a month.  I can honestly say that I became much more jaded against idiots who think they're the coolest thing ever in that month than probably the rest of my life combined.

I do like your reasoning, Certif!ed, but there's still a big black hole in there you're not addressing. 'Not prog' is, according to you - what? Do you mean 'this album doesn't incorporate the things we associate with 70's prog rock', or 'this album shows no sign of progressing beyond accepted musical boundaries'? Or by calling it 'run-of-the-mill' should I take it you subscribe to some form of the latter definition?

If we could hear that loud and clear it would really help put your review in context. A dyed-in-the-wool proghead coming to this site might well understand that according to one of those definitions 'Watershed' is prog, but according to the other it is not. So ...

russellk wrote: I do like your reasoning, Certif!ed, but there's still a big black hole in there you're not addressing. 'Not prog' is, according to you - what?   Do you mean 'this album doesn't incorporate the things we associate with 70's prog rock', or 'this album shows no sign of progressing beyond accepted musical boundaries'? Or by calling it 'run-of-the-mill' should I take it you subscribe to some form of the latter definition? If we could hear that loud and clear it would really help put your review in context. A dyed-in-the-wool proghead coming to this site might well understand that according to one of those definitions 'Watershed' is prog, but according to the other it is not. So ...

^ I think that you simply set the standard *way* too high. As I see it, only about 10% of all the albums in the archives would fall within your definitions. For the typical music enthusiast a rock piece in 7/4 with Mellotron is prog. That doesn't mean that it can compete with one of Genesis' masterpieces, but still it's sufficiently different from mainstream rock to merit that label.

All music magazines describe Opeth as a prog band. The German magazine Eclipsed is usually quite reluctant when it comes to the more extreme styles of metal, but even they recently featured a two page article and interview with Mikael Akerfeldt. These things will not convince you to change your mind - I'm just saying that most people use an entirely different definition of "prog" than you do. And as you said in the other thread: Defining "prog" is much more difficult than defining "table". Maybe one way of uniting the different attempts of definition is to introduce levels of progressiveness - that way you could perhaps grudgingly admit that Opeth are prog, albeit on a much lower level than for example Genesis.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   Sensible idea - but would take a new thread. Maybe it would suffice if you reviewed some prog metal albums which deserve more than 3 stars in your opinion ...

^ No, the review rating guidelines say absolutely nothing about 'not prog'. In fact, given that we have a 'prog related' category, it seems to me clear we have to rate some albums differently - or end up with the maximum rating available for prog-related albums as a 3.

And I don't agree that even if an album has those things I listed all together (I accept you dispute some of them in the case of Watershed) it still might not be prog. After all, the list was lifted from the definition of prog offered on this site.

To be clear: are you arguing that the definition of prog offered on this site is NOT correct, but on the other hand insisting that we ought to abide by the LITERAL meaning of the rating guidelines?


Edited by russellk - June 12 2008 at 04:07

Certif1ed wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   Sensible idea - but would take a new thread. Maybe it would suffice if you reviewed some prog metal albums which deserve more than 3 stars in your opinion ...     A.C.T. - Last Epic (actually, having heard it a few times since, I think I was probably being a bit generous). I wouldn't call that one prog *metal* ... but I like it, too.   Death - Scream Bloody Gore (OK, I admit, I was having fun with that one - but it IS progressive in the literal sense of the word, if not so much in musical content). Haven't heard it - at least not as closely that I could remember it now. It seems peculiar to me though that you would name this early Death album and not one of the later releases like Symbolic or The Sound of Perseverance.   In short, I'd need to review a Progressive Metal album that had Progressive music on it, and, many times bitten, er... many times plus one shy... I'll gladly compile a list of albums which might intrigue you.   MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: I do try to reason this out in my reviews - and I do give credit for where I hear Prog (I am carefully using this neutral term so you know I'm not getting mixed up with Prog Rock) - but if it's not clear, then a thread on Prog in Prog Metal would be a useful discussion.   There is no difference between the terms "Prog" and "Prog Rock" ... unless you're adding your definitions of the terms to every post which contains them, people are bound to misunderstand.    Yes there is - Prog is short for Progressive and is used to prefix -Rock and -Metal (not to mention Jazz, Trance and a number of other Progressive genres). It means the same in all cases.   I do not make definitions up. You might not be making them up, but IMO you're wrong in assuming that these definitions are widely used by everyone. For most people "Prog" is merely a contraction of "Prog Rock" ... and IMO both labels describe a style rather than an attitude. The Flower Kings are Prog Rock through and through for example, although 95% of their discography is neither innovative nor experimental. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather use the word "progressive" to reference the attribute which you usually mean by "Prog". MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote: Finally (for this post!), I simply do not hear Watershed as a Prog album in any way, shape or form - it's so run-of-the mill and like so many other rock/metal albums I've heard recently that it's not funny. I feel like the little boy in the crowd shouting "The King's got no clothes on!!!". I don't hear any Nickelback or Creed on Watershed. So far you appear to be the only one who got the impression that this is just an arbitrary rock/metal album ... It's not just me - look further up this very thread. And that is EXACTLY the impression I have. What is so radical about this album? Acoustic guitar intros? (painted your post blue in order to avoid confusion) There's absolutely nothing radical about Watershed. Still, it doesn't sound like Nickelback or Creed. Like I said in the other thread: There can be different levels of prog, and like I said above: "Prog" can also mean a stylistic similarity ("sounds like Camel") which neither implies that the band is on the same artistic level than the band they sound alike, nor does it imply that the band is trying to compete with that band. Mikael is a big fan of 70s bands like Camel and Nektar, but if you asked him to compare Opeth to these bands I'm sure he would be eager to point out that there can be no competition. Likewise, Steve Wilson coming here and praising Jethro Tull - Thick as a Brick doesn't mean that his albums have something to do with that classic album ... rather the reverse. MikeEnRegalia wrote: Certif1ed wrote:   People have picked me up on the grounds of credibility, yet it is the large number of "Masterpiece of Progressive Music" ratings that damage this site's credibility, IMO, not a 1-star rating from a Collaborator. It is a masterpiece of progressive music ... it all depends on how you define "progressive music".   Nickelback?   MikeEnRegalia wrote: [QUOTE=Certif1ed] Imagine a dyed-in-the-wool proghead coming to this site, seeing a vast swathe of 5-star Masterpiece ratings for this album - and there is a warning when you select this, so really, you should think about this and decide whether it's a Masterpiece of Progressive Music or whether you just like it a lot - there IS a difference, and I have rated wonderful albums down simply because they're not Prog. I don't care about "progheads who have become that rigid and inflexible over the years. And about your strategy to reduce the rating of albums who you think aren't prog: Of course you can do that, but you should be aware that the rating is used to calculate an overal average rating which people use as a reference without taking into considerations the "directions" which you include in your review. So in effect it may be misguiding to many people.   My "strategy" as you call it (and until now I had never considered) seems perfectly legitimate - if it's not Prog it can't be a masterpiece of Prog, can it? That's the whole point ... only a small minority thinks that it isn't prog.   Not caring about people that come to this site shows me where your heart is at - and it's misleading to brand stuff as something it is not. I care a lot! It is because I care that I'm taking the time to write this post.   It's clear that I'm now being accused of making stuff up and holding my own opinions. If anything, I'm accusing you of misleading people into thinking that your definition of prog (and how you apply it to Opeth) is the one which is commonly used. But I'd rather not use the word "accuse". I would never ask you to change your review or to quit what you're doing ... I've learned from my mistakes, at least I hope so.   Whatever.   YOU decide, and I'll keep listening and reviewing.   You're all different I'm not!

Well from your(certif1ed's) profile-

Dream Theater - Images And Words - 3 stars
Pain Of Salvation - Remedy Lane - 3 stars
Opeth - Blackwater Park - 2 stars
Queensryche - Operation: Mindcrime - 2 stars
Dream Theater - Scenes From A Memory Metropolis Part II - 2 stars

All these albums are top-notch....definitely 4 stars in my book.

I'm not trying to attack you or something...just that some of your reasoning seems absurd.
I mean, how is being influenced by other artists but creating a new sound bad in anyway?

Also, even I'd like to know your definition of prog, as very often you mention in these reviews that they are not progressive.

The T wrote: Damn! This is something else... We're now discussing one review as if that review (or any review for that matter) was really important in the big scheme of things... It's one guy's opinion! Whether he's right or wrong, knows a lot or knows sh*t, hates the music or loves it, it's one guy's review.  Suddenly we are giving a review much more importance than it really has... Do you think that because of that review Akerfeldt will become depressed and suddenly stop making music? Do you think it makes the album any good, if you think it is (I think so) or any bad if you think the albus is bad? Does it really matter THAT much to you?   Hell, the reviewer in question has written many reviews that I disagree 200% with... and you know what... do you think I suddenly sold all my cds because of his negative reviews? I still like the music? The same goes opposite: do you think i love everything he gives 5 stars to? Of course not. The same with anybody's reviews! They're just opinions.   If everyone is so concerned about that review, is because for some it may say some uncomfortable truths... maybe some of you started to doubt that OPETH is really that glorious because of that review... don't let that insecurity about your tastes make you denounce a single review... If you like OPETH, (like I do), read reviews, agree or disagree, and, well, go listen to the album! Or sell it! But because YOU like it or dislike it!   Damn is so ridiculous.... Writing 1-star reviews of albums everybody praises to the heavens is dangerous, believe me I know.

Well, we are on a discussion board rite....seems fine with me as long as its civil and productive. Any uncivilized post can be moderated.


Edited by Demonoid - June 12 2008 at 15:22

Watershed is significantly below Blackwater Park and Ghost Reveries.  3 or 3.5 stars from me.