Listening to Opeth's Discography

[soundave]

Some of these choices would require you to have all of Opeth stored as MP3's. You can vote for a way you normally do it, or a way you'd like to try. Hell, I don't care.

 

[dcat]

^ Nice One, I voted Other...

GR, then Orchid MR SL Del BWP MAYH...Damnation preferred on the live DVD.

I have one of those CD jukeboxes with 2 lazer pickups, un-interupted music...



MP3's disturb the balance of my mind, not that it's well balanced to start with.

I'll tell you bout it someday, check my AC recomendation in non Opeth chat.

 

[KjeXXXer]

Album Alphabetically, because that's how it's stored on my mp3, allthough shuffle is good too.

 

[Kenneth R.]

random, by album. that is, tracklist order, but albums out of order.

 

[Opeth Leaves]

Chronologically.

 

[Graft]

I concur with the post above!

 

[prowlergrig]

this isn't necessarily the best way, but i usually tend to listen to a band's newest album first and then work my way back. i voted reverse chronologically.

 

[LightningLixxx]

Chronologically.
Although I've never actually gone through their entire discog in one sitting, I've listened to 4 albums at a time and the best way always seems to be chronological order.

 

[AFairJudgement0]

as much as id like to listen to opeth from the orchid to GR, i usually listen to it on shuffle, as I only get 20 minute intervals of listening usually when im on the bus or something. But ideally im a chronologically from start to finish kinda guy. I like the progression, and listening to the differences between each of the albums. Cool thread!

 

[Korlich]

I would never listen to their Discography in one take!

 

[Tubbs]

Shuffle. Chronological listening gives the feeling of repetitivity, considering I would know exactly what song comes on next, so shuffling gives it more of a random and "non-stale" feeling.

 

[AFairJudgement0]

^^ yea.. i sometimes get that feeling where i just need to listen to something else. But Opeth is still great to listen to in one go. If i had the time id listen to whole albums at a time, just cause one or two songs at a time really doesn't do a band justice

 

[Tubbs]

Well, I suppose it would depend on the situation. If someone was a computer bum like me, who just sits on a computer for 8+ hours a day and doesn't do much, chronological would be an okay idea, since I'm doing other things as well to preoccupy myself. However, if I planned on taking music with me to a place in a car ride or something of the sorts, I'd personally choose shuffling the songs around for the reasons I mentioned above. It's not that chronological is bad; it's just so predictable.

 

[Jon Snow]

None of the above. Opeth sucks.

 

[Mr. Bland]

Personally I prefer to just pick one randomly.

Shuffle is what I chose. But I don't usually use it. 'Specially since all my Opeth are all in seperate folders. I just pick what I feel like listening, then just click on another.

 

[uponanoakenthrone]

if youve got the time, chron. cause the progression is awesome.

 

[N-MAYH]

if youve got the time, chron. cause the progression is awesome.

yeah i agree, i listened to the discog in one sitting in chronological order, its pretty sweet to listen to how much they changed in so many years, in like... 9 hours

 

[Esplendor]

I'd listen to it in reverse chronologically

shuffle sucks

 

[samlazzari]

definately in chronlogical order to listen to how the band has progressed and changed over the time.

 

[Tubbs]

shuffle sucks

NO U!