Originally posted by jester00
i think that every one who is critisising it almost certainly hasnt given it enough listens.
I am forced to agree, it does sound like some haven't let it sink in properly yet.. Ah well
I think Deliverance is an excellent album, it uses contrast (both dynamic and from singing to growling/soft to heavy) just as effectively, if not more so, than Opeth's previous albums.. The clean vocals are excellent, the growls heavier.. Also there is more variation in the styles and backings used. Its no longer clean vox, acoustic backing and growls with electric as tended to be the case in early albums, on D1 there is growling with acoustics and singing with heavy backing as well.. Oh, and the vocals are only harder to sing along to because there is more layering/are more harmonies, and less single vocal lines.. (and Trevj, even though my favourite growls are on MAYH, surely on Deliverance Mikes growls are more guttural than they have been?
They definitely sound it to me.. )
I also disagree that Deliverance is more simplistic. More subtle in its complexities, yes, but in no way more simplistic. Repetition has been a major element of Opeth's sound since the beginning, and it has got more common throughout the albums, but I think the riffs on BWP are repeated just as many times, if not more so than on D1. And the beauty of that repeated section at the end of the title track is the odd time signatures the almost mechanical, precise drums and then syncopated guitars every few bars. If you bother to listen not only do you have this but there are several crescendos which then break down again before the end of the song, and a gradual increase in the number of layers.. It works for me
Perhaps, like BWP my interest may not be maintained for as long by Deliverance because of the increase in repetition, who knows.. But theres a certain something which at the moment makes me think that will be unlikely..