Why does Orchid never get any love?
- Thread starter Detective Clarence Beauregard
- Start date
it IS an amateurish album in the matter of production and vocals. Mikael cant sing at all compared to the later album, even MAYH is lightyears beyond morningrise and orchid both production- and vocalwise. Seriously though, I would love to hear a re-recording of the latter albums because I think they have potentional, maybe the twin harmonic guitars arent complex or elaborate but it still sounds amazing I mean just listen to TNATSW. I mean the primiary reason I bought the roundhouse tapes was because of UTWM and TNATSW
Vega Skater
Member
It may be amateurish in some respects, but just like any Opeth album, it has elements which are superior when compared to the other releases.
Forest of October 3.00-3.15: That grunt is just amazing! One of the heaviest bits of any Opeth song.
I love some of the songs on the album, but haven't really given it a fair listen. However, I do really like Forest of October and The Apostle In Triumph
I love some of the songs on the album, but haven't really given it a fair listen. However, I do really like Forest of October and The Apostle In Triumph
Sad Madrigal
Happy
- Mar 22, 2008
- 785
- 0
- 16
Stilgar
Berzerker
Orchid gets lots of love from me at least. It was the first Opeth album I ever heard, so it holds a special place in my heart. 
Personally I prefer Orchid to Morningrise. Very dark, enigmatic and majestic album. In Mist She Was Standing was the first Opeth track I ever heard, and until that moment I'd never heard anything like it. Some of Opeths best acoustic work lies in that album. In particular I'm thinking of the acoustic break in The Twilight is my Robe, but there are others. However, I can't say I listen to it as much as their later works but I still love it.
No. There is nothing wrong with the production!
I'll be honest - Morningrise was the second Opeth album I heard, and this was before I started posting on forums and such. So, only when I joined this baord did I find out that the production on that album is considered "bad", since I loved it - you can hear every instrument clearly, the bass is audible, the distortion sounds cold while the acoustics sounds warm. It adds so much more to the atmosphere of the music that I feel bad for the people who don't like it.
I thank you for your pity, I wish I liked them myself.
but as a matter of fact, the recording IS poor! Mikael's vocals are either bad or just badly recorded but compare the first two albums to MAYH and you will notice that his vocals are lightyears ahead on MAYH. besides that both morningrise and orchid has this sort of overall treble recording which I can only connect to early black metal band's recordings. While it certainly fits the black metal genre, I just cant connect this "treble feeling" which I connect morningrise and orchid with. perhaps I'm an idiot for saying so but I do think orchid and morningrise lacks... Depth..?
but as a matter of fact, the recording IS poor! Mikael's vocals are either bad or just badly recorded but compare the first two albums to MAYH and you will notice that his vocals are lightyears ahead on MAYH. besides that both morningrise and orchid has this sort of overall treble recording which I can only connect to early black metal band's recordings. While it certainly fits the black metal genre, I just cant connect this "treble feeling" which I connect morningrise and orchid with. perhaps I'm an idiot for saying so but I do think orchid and morningrise lacks... Depth..?
Nightmare_Heaven
Death Disco
I love Orchid....In the Mist she was Standing, Under the Weeping Moon, and The Twilight is My Robe are among my favourite Opeth tracks. I can imagine walking through a misty forest listening to it, same goes for Morningrise and MAYH. Those first 3 Opeth albums all share that similar atmosphere, and the atmosphere of the later albums, while by no means worse, is different.
stannar kvar
New Metal Member
I must say that I do find Orchid to be the best of the three first albums, but it took me quite a while to get used to the voice Mikael uses on both this and Morningrise. I find the songs to be stronger on this album then on both Morningrise and MAYH. I recently bought the japan-box with these records and have restudied them quite intensely for a little while now and find them all to be a lot better than I remembered them to be. But I agree with the first poster here: Orchid deserves a wee bit more credit then it gets in my opinion.
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
it's a good thing i didn't ask what word to use, then, because it's a totally amateur album in terms of songwriting, lyrics and song arrangement. it may be light years ahead of most bands, but it's still amateur. each song is in essence a long collection of totally different riffs, there is no coherency or even a general sense of direction in the songs. i love opeth, but the first two albums don't have nearly as much to offer as the later ones.
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
Amateurish compared to what? You just agreed they are light years ahead of most bands. You have a right to your own opinion, however I don't agree that the riffs are "totally different", and I think the first albums have much more to offer than the later albums...
i agreed that they are light years ahead of most bands because opeth's first album is still an opeth album, and only for that reason. amateurish compared to what? you tell me. it's amateurish compared to MAYH, SL, BWP, and on, it's also amateurish compared to any album that isn't amateurish. at this point you're probably realizing that the album didn't need to be compared to be deemed "amateur" at all.
as a band, opeth have progressed infinitely since orchid/morningrise. if you think the first albums have much more to offer than the later ones, you're wrong. i can see why some people have a place for the album in their hearts, but only because it's their first opeth album, and not exclusively because of it's musical quality.
as a band, opeth have progressed infinitely since orchid/morningrise. if you think the first albums have much more to offer than the later ones, you're wrong. i can see why some people have a place for the album in their hearts, but only because it's their first opeth album, and not exclusively because of it's musical quality.
metal_wrath
I dip my forefinger...
I understand what you mean by amatuerish but I disagree, of course the band has evolved somewhat... very few bands can boast a debut album as good as "Orchid". As I said you have the right to your own opinion, but no right to deny others the same. IMO the first albums have much more to offer. period.
Orchid was not my first Opeth album and has very little sentimental value to me.
in_my_time_of_disease
Whipping Post
I do love Orchid and Morningrise, and they do get a little less recognition than they should, I guess partly because the next 3 albums rape harder than almost anything and also because the following 3 specifically are a lot more mature, confident and complete than the first two, IMO. That being said, Orchid and Morningrise>>>most metal album iyam; and would rank responsibly against music in general. I'd give Orchid 8.5 or a 9/10, Morningrise probably a 9, whereas the next 3 10/10.
Similar threads
