Controversial opinions on metal

the OTHER thing to consider is that what seem at first to be random changes become something different once a listener has spent enough time with a record to KNOW what's coming. this changes the experience, the anticipation of the schism to come becomes quite addictive, it is itself something you can respond emotionally to very differently from the first few times you listen and go "well what the hell, why have they done THAT". i think opeth (excluding the last two records) reward repeat listening hugely.
Never thought about it like that. When I first listened to them I was one of those who was like ZOMG HIS GROWLS, and I would skip the song once it went soft, but being able to eventually appreciate all aspects of the songs really changed how I look at music. I totally agree about them rewarding repeat listens, that's how it was for me at least. I am able to see why some might not like it if I really really try, but for me the awesomeness of each section outweighs any flaws in the transitioning between soft and heavy.
 
It's just that I always heard so much shit about it that never cared to give it a listen. Seems I did good haha
I may give it a listen anyway out of curiosity in a bored day just to see how is it so bad
 
yeah the production on almost all metal albums these days SUCK! no dynamics, too clean, the snare sound, it just sucks, no feeling in it.

Your band has the worst recordings I've ever heard, and Brock Lesnar would lose to Fedor. Brock has no technique beyond wrestling, and even then he's just throwing his weight around.
 
Cold Lake is way better than its reputation and in fact is not a bad album at all. The fact that Celtic Frost released it is its main fault.
 
Cold Lake is comparable to Angel Rat: really weird and hard to digest, and a great deal "lighter" than each band's previous material. Maybe it's because I prefer VoiVod over Celtic Frost, but I think Angel Rat is the better album; a great one as a matter of fact.