Ignoring Older Material

[Demoke]

Somehow I never had a complaint about Opeth live setlist not including earlier material. In fact, what I miss is more newer songs: if I get two CDs, like Deliverance and Damnation, and I go to a show, I really want to see basically those songs live: I missed Wreath, and by the Pain I see in Others in the Deliverance gig, but I'm glad I could see the whole of Damnation live.

Still, we actually have to thank the band for at least trying to play all their songs (and as far as they know, they've played almost every single song live at some point).

Don't take me wrong, I love listening to older stuff, actually almost any setlist would be fine by me; but in a 2006 concert I want to see Opeth like it is at that point and not what it was like 15 years ago. For that I've got some videos at home... You know, it's 90-100 minutes and their catalogue lasts for 6 hours something. If something is to be dismissed, the right thing to be put out is the earlier material, no doubt.

 

[mot-]

It's their decision.

 

[Man In Black]

I definantly don't agree with those who say that the Orchid/Morningrise era was their best. Personally with Opeth, I feel that they have grown immensly with the passage of time. The songs on the earlier albums are really to disjointed for me to listen to. More than anything, they seem like some random (good) riffs slung together with some acoustic passages. This is more evident on Orchid than Morningrise. Songs will simply stop in the middle of heavy passage and then start an entirely unrelated acoustic bit without the slightest bit of relevence to the rest of the song. On the other hand, since MAYH the songgwriting seems to have gone in the direction of Mike writing with the entire song in mind, not just individual riffs. This makes the songs seem not only more complete, but a lot more enjoyable to listen to.

 

[sweet majestic darkness]

When I see bands in concert, I like to hear a variety of their songs. Ofcourse they will play more newer songs, any band does. I like when they throw in a few older songs in the set as well. And I agree witht he person that said it is better for them to play what they are comfortable playing, it does make a better show.

 

[Risquit]

They are a bit lazy, considering they forgot how to play "Harvest" sometime between the Lamentations DVD and the Lamentations tour.

 

[dorian gray]

nah dorian I think you are right... he said alot of stuff but he said that when he was bitching at the guy booing for the acoustic

yeah, i remember that. like i said before, that crowd was embarrasing.

 

[ViCyniC]

Opeth is confused. Their older material is at at least as good as their newer material. They should still play their older songs live...to relive their grandiose earlier period.

 

[KevyCanavan]

i am of the opinion that they should play 70% older material and 30% new material. i also agree that drapery and deliverance should be dropped in favour of maybe wreath and serenity or something.

 

[Korlich]

Personally I would have loved the DVD to inlcude material from all/most of their albums. I don´t mind so much that no MAYH has been included since DOTF is in all their sets. A song or two from each other album would be great though.

 

[cityofthemoon666]

BRI should be done live once before they retire old material, im sure they can do it

they play long songs anyway

 

[Manga-San]

I think Black Rose Immortal should be a "set in stone" encore. Since almost every Opeth song is 10+ minutes, and they only have 90 minutes, I think it would be cool to do one song from each album (That would make it roughly 60 minutes, right?), then, with the time left over, play what makes the guys feel awesome about themselves...

But thats just me...

 

[ethereallights]

They should at least play "Advent" or "Forest of October" because those are awesome songs, and there is no way they'll play "The Night and The Silent Water".

 

[x_OPETH_x]

i'm pretty much a fan of all their albums, although i listen to the first two the least. They're spectacular, when not compared to their newer albums. I also suppose that if Mike and Peter were to re-learn the old songs, they'd maybe not like how primitive sounding, or rough they are compared to their new material.
Don't get me wrong tho, i'm all for Opeth playing old material in a live setting, i think when bands take old classics and play them in their new style, the result sounds incredible.

 

[Tyrmthaais]

Opeth's set list IMO have been good the times I've seen them. Personally I don't think the older material would be that great live, when they were on the Fair Judgement tour 'Advent' was nice but it was missing something in a live setting and 'TBYF' was something special just seeing it once that one tour. In my opinion the newer material is better suited to a live setting, more sing alongs and campfire moments than their older stuff. The first 2 albums have a vibe that a late night head phone session is perfect for, and it would just be ruined, for me at least, if I was bothered the during the entireity of 'Black Rose Immortal" by worrying whether or not some drunk guy was going to spill beer on my new concert shirt.

 

[segaszivos]

Lets face the facts. Opeth didnt get popular until after the release of BWP. BWP was definately their break-through album that opened the band to the general public of metal-listeners or others that would even lend an ear to heavy music. Of course Opeth get even more popular with their release of Damnation due to is success as one of 2003s best progressive rock albums. So basically, someone is more inclined to like the album that they first listened to than the ones afterwards, atleast I so like to believe. People who love albums like D&D and BWP might be discouraged by todays standards of a terrible recording of Orchid, or the repeativeness of Morningrise (well, I view it this way, no reason to argue with me there).

Once you have your mindset of a band its hard to diviate or view it differently. So a person who heard a newer Opeth ablum before an older one might just in general not like the older, more undefined sound, or vise versa, why do you think that people don't like In Flames, Metallica, or even APC. Its not that the music is worse, its just different (with the exception of St Anger, because it really is terrible).

Just my two cents. Sorry if my thoughts don't make sense to you or don't flow. Also, I don't dislike any Opeth albums and sorry if offended one of your taste's, I can assure you that Morningrise is one of my favorite albums of all time.

Also, keep in mind that Opeth's latest tour was only to promote the sales of Lamentations and I for sure do remember hearing Demon of the Fall and The Moor, or do you consider only Orchid and Morningrise as older stuff?

Mr. Niel that Emperor cover rockz0rs my sockz0rs f0 sheezy my neezy keeps my arms so breezy. Do you only play the guitar?

 

[OpethMurders]

I gotta say that while I get nostalgic for the old stuff, it's starting to seem like the band has moved away from those first two albums for good. Maybe they'll do Nectar next tour like they hinted at last time...

 

[B Crouch]

I fucking hope they do some old shit live, that will be amazing!

 

[Luz]

Well, your question is interesting.
I have been wondering why they didn't play any song of their two first records on the DVD, that would be very awesome if someday they have the chance of performing them alive. I think someone in this forum told me that they didn't play that kind of stuff due to having problems with the record label.

Luz.-

 

[prowlergrig]

luz dude read the faq

 

[Dreadful]

I think they'll probably come back with 1 or 2 old songs every now and then...it's a possibility. We'll probably hear a song off Orchid that they haven't done in years like Twilight is my robe or In the Mist She was Standing. I saw Advent on the spring 2003 tour and personally to me that was the best song I've seen live from them...but I guess that's just my tastes talking since Orchid and Morningrise are my favorite Opeth albums.