Opeth?

oddentity wrote: schizoid_man77 wrote: oddentity wrote: I personally find Akerdfelt's growls velvety and luxurious.  Like a fatherly lion's roar. It's often said that growling expresses anger and rage, but it can also express extreme joy and happiness.    That is what I get from Opeth.  The extreme nature of the vocals gives their music an edge towards the joyous.       Well, that would explain why your user name is what it is But you know what I'm getting at, don't you?   I'm turned off by most death metal growlers because their growls are almost entirely composed of pain and hysteria.      They sound like demons screaming in total desperation from the sufferings from hell.   Horrible stuff. Akerfeldt, in contrast, sounds like he comes from heaven.   His growling is controlled, disciplined and majestic.     You can hear the lyrcis carefully enunciated, whereas you can't really make out what other growlers are saying because it is drowned out by all the hysteria. To me, Akerfeldt is an artist who uses music and lyrics to describe tragic situations in the same way that Shakespeare did with his plays.    He can summon up the rage inside him as an artistic device and paint pictures with it, but it is clear that he stands apart from it.     But with most other death metal bands, they all sound as though they are locked within the tragedy themselves.   There is no real artistry there.   Only a crude reaction to their own pain. It's a big difference, I think.

schizoid_man77 wrote: oddentity wrote: I personally find Akerdfelt's growls velvety and luxurious.  Like a fatherly lion's roar. It's often said that growling expresses anger and rage, but it can also express extreme joy and happiness.    That is what I get from Opeth.  The extreme nature of the vocals gives their music an edge towards the joyous.       Well, that would explain why your user name is what it is

But you know what I'm getting at, don't you?   I'm turned off by most death metal growlers because their growls are almost entirely composed of pain and hysteria.      They sound like demons screaming in total desperation from the sufferings from hell.   Horrible stuff.

Akerfeldt, in contrast, sounds like he comes from heaven.   His growling is controlled, disciplined and majestic.     You can hear the lyrcis carefully enunciated, whereas you can't really make out what other growlers are saying because it is drowned out by all the hysteria.

To me, Akerfeldt is an artist who uses music and lyrics to describe tragic situations in the same way that Shakespeare did with his plays.    He can summon up the rage inside him as an artistic device and paint pictures with it, but it is clear that he stands apart from it.     But with most other death metal bands, they all sound as though they are locked within the tragedy themselves.   There is no real artistry there.   Only a crude reaction to their own pain.

It's a big difference, I think. 

schizoid_man77 wrote: I'm listening to the moor right now, absolutely awesome!

This was actually the first Opeth song I ever heard ... I downloaded it (illegally) from audiogalaxy.com in 2002 or so.

Time to re-enter the discussion and say that I am glad to know that I am not the only one who can't get past the cookie monster vocals.  Being on a prog rock archives site it is hard to understand how I can have so much musical taste in common with many of you and yet just can't get in to this band that is so well liked on this website.  So far I have only had this experience twice: with Opeth and with VDGG.  Both musically sound bands with strange vocals which are "an acquired taste".

I'm listening to the moor right now, absolutely awesome!

WaywardSon wrote: Last night I listened to "Still life" three times on headphones and found I just can´t get into this band It´s not just the vocals, it´s the whole doom and gloom mentality, right down to the lyrics and album cover art. If I want doom and gloom, I listen to ´70´s Sabbath. They are good musicians though.

Well, that's called passion, Opeth has it.

And perhaps are you expecting the typical DT clone band? let me tell you Opeth aren't "your typical" Progressive Metal band, they're unique and an acquired taste, so as Tony R said, it is "your loss".

So keep checking them out!



Edited by P.H.P. - September 24 2007 at 22:22

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ I'm aware of the contradiction ... you cannot call their music Death Metal, but listening to it you recognise certain patterns that originate from Death Metal. Of course Opeth are much different from a band like Death, which more appropriately deserves to be called "Progressive Death Metal" (at least their last albums).  I guess these two bands differ in how they changed their style ... Death made their music more complex and technically demanding, while Opeth changed their songwriting while keeping most of the Death Metal trademarks in instrumentation and vocal style. In a way they could be called "Post Death Metal".

Exactly, Opeth are very very much different from bands like Death, and I would just call Death a "technical death metal" band, they were one of the first (if not the first) death metal that explored compositional passages and demanding stuff like you said, never seen before in that kind of music, but there's no way I could relate Death with Prog music, and there's no need to use the "Prog" word with them, and because if Death wouldn''t be "technical death metal", which bands are then? remember that this term is old in the metal scene, in the other hand with Opeth we're kind of forced to use the word "Prog" if we want to be accurate, I would just call Opeth Progressive Metal with death metal growls, just that...

and by "Post Death Metal" you're talking about Death Metal that doesn't sound very much death metal?

well, that's the meaning of the term "post" for me, something that could be, but in the end it's not, so I think the "post" word could be used in a way, a very far way to make clear that Opeth's music contains some Death Metal elements such as the vocals, the term "post" is useful only if the perspective is a metal one (i.e. a metal website) and if you don't know about Prog music, but we're in a prog site, don't forget that.

So, Progressive Metal for me.

^ I'm aware of the contradiction ... you cannot call their music Death Metal, but listening to it you recognise certain patterns that originate from Death Metal. Of course Opeth are much different from a band like Death, which more appropriately deserves to be called "Progressive Death Metal" (at least their last albums).  I guess these two bands differ in how they changed their style ... Death made their music more complex and technically demanding, while Opeth changed their songwriting while keeping most of the Death Metal trademarks in instrumentation and vocal style. In a way they could be called "Post Death Metal".

oddentity wrote: I personally find Akerdfelt's growls velvety and luxurious.  Like a fatherly lion's roar. It's often said that growling expresses anger and rage, but it can also express extreme joy and happiness.    That is what I get from Opeth.  The extreme nature of the vocals gives their music an edge towards the joyous.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ make no prisoners!

I never have