Upcoming Opeth record

[DanLights]

+ infinity!!!!!!

It's one thing to change style etc, but then as mentioned already, Mikael is really the only remaining original member and it's noticeably become more and more the Mikael show as time has past. He continuously points out how over the 'metal' stuff he is, so be it... But that (in my opinion) has also translated live. Their visit to AU before heritage was memorable, and the time before was even more epic. Their show here after heritage was released... Flat, lifeless. Opinion is opinion I know, but I can't help but agree with ermz entirely. If he's really that over it, continuing as 'Opeth' with that attitude is shit for the fans

People seem to keep thinking he gives a crap what fans think of him or Opeth, if they don't like it anymore they can go find another band, there's plenty of them. He (and pretty much every honest musician ever, you guys know what I mean) never did anything "for the fans", he does it for himself, and is lucky (and surely grateful) that people still like it enough to keep it financially going, but I'm sure if someone tells him "I don't like your new stuff" he couldn't possibly give a flying fuck. Why should he? Fans who LIKE him keep him going, not those who don't. Fans who liked him and now don't, got their money's worth with the albums and live shows they liked, they don't have to keep buying the stuff they don't like, there's plenty of ways to listen to an album before buying it if they're not sure they'd like it.

 

[Ermz]

It sounds to me like you may have had this discussion in the past with someone who was much more emotionally invested into it than I, and hence assume I'm somehow exhibiting the same attachment. When Heritage came out I remember sharing my sentiments with some close friends, and shortly thereafter just stopped following Opeth. Nothing else. Having seen where they were headed after Watershed, I knew the band would eventually lose my interest. And that's fine - it happens. I'm not sure at what point acknowledging that makes an individual whiny or childish. It's very much obvious that the band I loved through the 00s simply doesn't exist anymore. Where is the fault in acknowledging that?

Regarding the band name, as mentioned before it's Mike's right to do as he will with it. My preference is that it not be used as a business prop, when most of its stylistic connotations are no longer relevant. But that's all it is - a preference. I understand people wanting to sustain a living from a business they've built over a long period of time. It's also understandable that releasing 'side projects' would be less profitable and involve less exposure, even in spite of the inherent publicity credit Mike's name has.

 

[abt]

... Heritage wasn't so much a shock stylistically, as we all knew Mikael was heavily influenced by prog, it was mostly a shock in the sense that the quality of songwriting was so poor compared to their prior, seminal records. The record just diddles on ceaselessly. I understand the desire to play prog, but Heritage is re-treading ground that was done better by bands over 40 years ago. It just makes no sense to me. Above all, I can't understand why it was released under the 'Opeth' moniker. It could just as easily have been a side project. If Mikael is truly over the growls, over the metal etc. then maybe it's time to call it an end to Opeth and pursue his tastes through other avenues.

Almost word for word what I wrote a few years ago in the original Heritage thread.

Having said that, a band of this calibre and age it's almost impossible to release anything. If it's too different everyone hates it and wants the old stuff. If it's the same everyone's bored.

 

[DanLights]

It sounds to me like you may have had this discussion in the past with someone who was much more emotionally invested into it than I, and hence assume I'm somehow exhibiting the same attachment. When Heritage came out I remember sharing my sentiments with some close friends, and shortly thereafter just stopped following Opeth. Nothing else. Having seen where they were headed after Watershed, I knew the band would eventually lose my interest. And that's fine - it happens. I'm not sure at what point acknowledging that makes an individual whiny or childish. It's very much obvious that the band I loved through the 00s simply doesn't exist anymore. Where is the fault in acknowledging that?

Regarding the band name, as mentioned before it's Mike's right to do as he will with it. My preference is that it not be used as a business prop, when most of its stylistic connotations are no longer relevant. But that's all it is - a preference. I understand people wanting to sustain a living from a business they've built over a long period of time. It's also understandable that releasing 'side projects' would be less profitable and involve less exposure, even in spite of the inherent publicity credit Mike's name has.

The only thing whiny or childish about it is that you "acknowledge" a fact that isn't true. If you said "I don't like what they've put out after X album so I stopped following them" that's fair enough, everyone has their own tastes and opinions. But saying the band is "dead" is not true, it's not dead, they still exist, they still play old songs live, they're still around, of course it sounds a bit childish to say it as if it were true. You don't like their latest stuff, that's cool, but the whole "THEY ARE DEAD TO ME!! Sniff sniff" thing has always seemed so entitled and whiny to me. Again, no offense intended, I know sometimes I seem like it's a personal thing when I get all ranty about bands, but it's not. And I don't think I've had this discussion before, at least not about Opeth

 

[Soul Forlorn]

but the whole "THEY ARE DEAD TO ME!! Sniff sniff" thing has always seemed so entitled and whiny to me.

"They are dead to me" doesn't necessarily have to be "entitled and whiny".

Opeth is dead to me. The band isn't dead, it still exists, still put out albums, still tours, etc. But, the band is dead to me. I won't be buying any more albums, attending any more concerts, and won't be following Opeth at all anymore. I'm not whining about it and I don't feel entitled. Just a simple fact. It's Mikeal's band...he can do with it what he wants and I respect him for it.

Really no big surprise here. With each album, it was easy to see how and in what direction Opeth was evolving. Unfortunately (for me), it was a direction I wasn't pleased with. With each album after Still Life my interest in Opeth dropped (with perhaps the exception of Ghost Reveries, which was a pleasant surprise).

 

[Terminus]

Ever since this thread started I pulled out Heritage to see if I would warm up to it, I've listened to it three times now...




















Nope.

 

[Ermz]

Really no big surprise here. With each album, it was easy to see how and in what direction Opeth was evolving. Unfortunately (for me), it was a direction I wasn't pleased with. With each album after Still Life my interest in Opeth dropped (with perhaps the exception of Ghost Reveries, which was a pleasant surprise).

Ditto. That about says it all.

 

[He's Dead, Jim]

Ever since this thread started I pulled out Heritage to see if I would warm up to it, I've listened to it three times now...

Nope.

Me too, although I still think it's a solid 7/10. Slither is terrible and The Devil's Orchard is boring, but the last 3 or 4 songs have some very traditional Opeth-y parts in them with great melodies.