Written by Milena on 20.09.2011 at 15:50

Written by malaikat on 20.09.2011 at 15:17

I mean, bashing prog band for having "prog wankery" is like bashing thrash metal because it's riff based. Or bashing black metal for being LoFi. Or bashing folk metal for using folk melodies. Or...

Well, there IS a review on MA bashing Ensiferum for folk interludes

Written by Doc G. on 20.09.2011 at 09:33

I don't get why people complain about points being knocked off for the lack of metal/death growls. To me, that dynamic is what made Opeth interesting in the first place; the interplay between the mellow, ambient parts and the steamrolling death metal parts.

Written by Slayer666 on 20.09.2011 at 15:03

A shame Opeth always ruins the good, atmospheric parts with prog wankery.

Written by Richard on 20.09.2011 at 16:11

Having influences from 70's prog rock is fine, but if Opeth have gone completely regressive and retro, then that's surely the opposite of the nature of 'progressive music'? Bloodbath are rehashing 90's death metal, but that makes them progressive compared to Opeth rehashing 70's prog rock - sort of.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 20.09.2011 at 15:58

Written by pisymbol on 20.09.2011 at 04:45

If you are an Opeth fan, I think you will absolutely adore this album. Period.

I'm sorry but I couldn't help wondering wha the hell did you mean by saying this?
Just because I agree with the review (I would give it a 7,0 or so tbh) I'm suddenly not an Opeth fan? Yeah...

Written by malaikat on 20.09.2011 at 15:17

Well, they are prog band, not gothic/sludge atmospheric band.

I mean, bashing prog band for having "prog wankery" is like bashing thrash metal because it's riff based. Or bashing black metal for being LoFi. Or bashing folk metal for using folk melodies. Or...

Nah, you get the picture.

Written by Slayer666 on 20.09.2011 at 17:24


Fair enough, I expressed myself poorly.
What I meant to say was that I kind of enjoy the non-prog, atmospheric parts but the prog wankery parts bore the hell out of me.
And they're not completely a prog band, there is a lot of other stuff going on in their music, so it's not really fair comparing what I said to "it's stupid to bash thrash for being riff based".

Written by R'Vannith on 20.09.2011 at 17:00

Written by Richard on 20.09.2011 at 16:11

Having influences from 70's prog rock is fine, but if Opeth have gone completely regressive and retro, then that's surely the opposite of the nature of 'progressive music'? Bloodbath are rehashing 90's death metal, but that makes them progressive compared to Opeth rehashing 70's prog rock - sort of.

I like the logic in that thought.
But i'm not so sure that using the term '70's prog rock' to describe this album, or any album for that matter, actually captures what it sounds like, even a prog rock album from the 70's. After all '70's prog rock' isn't of exactly the same sound, sure you can use it in general terms but saying that Heritage is fitting of this description is vague. I don't really understand how describing this album in that way actually gives anyone an accurate impression. For those who listen to 70's prog rock, they would find this description frustratingly broad. For those who know next to nothing about prog rock they would base the description of '70's prog rock' simply of what they have heard of it, or think it sounds like.

Basically what I'm saying is when the reviewer says '70's prog rock' I have no idea what they think that that sounds like. Unless there is some common understanding among metalheads, or people in general, as to what '70's prog rock' sounds like that I just haven't picked up on.

Written by pisymbol on 20.09.2011 at 17:01

I think the overwhelming majority of Opeth fans (whether metal is their favorite genre of music or not) will generally enjoy Heritage as a solid release.

Written by X-Ray Rod on 20.09.2011 at 17:58



Regardless if people accept it or not, what most people liked about Opeth in the first place was the contrast between the ambient parts and the death metal parts. It was Opeth's appeal and what was mostly interesting about them.
This album totally lacks any sort of contrast of that kind and I can totally understand people not liking it because of it... and I agree with them but I keep my score at 7,0-7,5 because I just see this album as a curiosity, almost as another band, like... Opeth 2.0 hehehe.

Written by Hammer Pie on 20.09.2011 at 11:39

Written by BitterCOld on 20.09.2011 at 06:41

DT split the wickets between the haters who will completely freak out and froth at the keyboard because a progressive metal band just chucked aside every single metallic element and the hordes of fanbois who think everything Opeth ever recorded is the best thing put to tape and that Mikael >>> Beethoven.

and there will be some rational people in the middle, but for the most part, brace for whining from the two extremes.

I've never understood this "rational middle" cliche. How is it different from saying anyone whose opinion is too far from your own is an idiot?

Written by malaikat on 20.09.2011 at 15:17

Written by Slayer666 on 20.09.2011 at 15:03

A way too generous review/rating for this boring album.
A shame Opeth always ruins the good, atmospheric parts with prog wankery. You're awesome musicians, we get it already. This goes for all of their albums, not just this one.

Well, they are prog band, not gothic/sludge atmospheric band.

I mean, bashing prog band for having "prog wankery" is like bashing thrash metal because it's riff based. Or bashing black metal for being LoFi. Or bashing folk metal for using folk melodies. Or...

Nah, you get the picture.

Written by Slayer666 on 20.09.2011 at 17:24

And they're not completely a prog band, there is a lot of other stuff going on in their music...

Written by BitterCOld on 20.09.2011 at 20:24

Written by Hammer Pie on 20.09.2011 at 11:39

Written by BitterCOld on 20.09.2011 at 06:41

DT split the wickets between the haters who will completely freak out and froth at the keyboard because a progressive metal band just chucked aside every single metallic element and the hordes of fanbois who think everything Opeth ever recorded is the best thing put to tape and that Mikael >>> Beethoven.

and there will be some rational people in the middle, but for the most part, brace for whining from the two extremes.

I've never understood this "rational middle" cliche. How is it different from saying anyone whose opinion is too far from your own is an idiot?

there is a massive difference between having a differing of opinion and the standard MS tanking/score inflation.

if someone has the Opeth discography scored between 7's and 10's, with a spread, i'll take their opinion seriously, even if they differ from mine. if someone has Opeth's entire discography scored at 9+, or write reviews like this one, i have no problem ridiculing their tastes and just flat out discarding their opinion. Just as i disregard anyone who tanks an artist's entire discography...


i have my favorite bands, but it doesn't mean that everything they've ever put out is a 9 or 10.

but then again, this is MS, where apparently to 70% of our users, every album ever recorded is a 9, 10, or a 1... and a score like a 7 (Good) or 7.8 (almost very good) is viewed as a slam and attack on the artist.

Written by Hammer Pie on 21.09.2011 at 02:27

...

Written by Merchant of Doom on 20.09.2011 at 17:51

well, I 'm quite old and I listened to lots of 70s prog rock when I was young and I know exactly what the reviewer means... it's not vague and I don't find it frustrating, also because 70s prog rock has been mentioned millions of times in relation to Opeth. I find it quite strange that it's vague for you... if you don't get the reference, maybe it's time for you to broaden your horizons and listen to some 70s prog rock? I'm not being patronizing, but lots of "modern" metal is deeply rooted in the past, so it's always useful to listen to old stuff as well as to new.

As far as the comment about progressive music being progressive and not regressive: progressive music has nothing to do with a progressive view of music... it's the structural pattern of the music...

Written by Hammer Pie on 21.09.2011 at 02:27

But if you think not everything your favorite band has put out is a 9 or a 10, that's still just your opinion. If someone does think Opeth is the best band ever and has the entire Opeth discography scored a 9 or a 10, I still don't see how that makes their opinion any less valid. Everyone has their favorite albums, but that's not okay if several of those favorite albums come from one band whose style you really like? And if someone thinks Opeth is boring and has their whole discography voted low, does that automatically make them a bandwagoner or an idiot? When you're dealing with subjective taste, I don't understand how "I really love this band" and "I really hate this band" are extreme, label-worthy opinions.

Written by BitterCOld on 21.09.2011 at 03:21

because 10's should only be absolute stand-outs. the best of the best. landmarks, with 9's being still near the absolute pinnacle. when 10's are handed out like (insert current equivalent of those AOL disks in the late-90's) and 9's for anything just a note shy of perfect (what should be between good and very good), it inflates the entire scoring system to where virtually everything is overhyped and it's routine to see a grade of a "Good" in a review (as i said before) treated like a personal attack on the band because the reviewer had an "ax to grind" or is "unobjective" (not a word) - that last one has come up so frequently i wrote a fucking article on it so someone could post a link in the thread rather than re-hash the same entire arguments again.

Every band that has put out more than three records has strong albums and albums that don't live up to those expectations.

when someone likes a band to the point you are blind as to shortcomings, or dislikes a band to the point where you cannot acknowledge quality even if it's not of your taste (say, anyone who has an album currently ranked in the top 100 of all time a "1") their opinion, in my eyes, is worthless. i'd much rather take the opinion of someone capable of looking at something with a critical eye.

but this is all offtopic.

Written by R'Vannith on 21.09.2011 at 03:12

Written by Merchant of Doom on 20.09.2011 at 17:51

well, I 'm quite old and I listened to lots of 70s prog rock when I was young and I know exactly what the reviewer means... it's not vague and I don't find it frustrating, also because 70s prog rock has been mentioned millions of times in relation to Opeth. I find it quite strange that it's vague for you... if you don't get the reference, maybe it's time for you to broaden your horizons and listen to some 70s prog rock? I'm not being patronizing, but lots of "modern" metal is deeply rooted in the past, so it's always useful to listen to old stuff as well as to new.

As far as the comment about progressive music being progressive and not regressive: progressive music has nothing to do with a progressive view of music... it's the structural pattern of the music...

When you say it's not vague for you, '70's prog rock' instantly brings some aspect of the music to mind? My problem wasn't so much with being able to identify something which I think sounds like '70's prog rock', it's more a problem of how do I know if that is the same thing the next guy is thinking of. You know what I mean?

I've listened to quite a bit of 70's prog rock, but when it says that this album sounds like that, that would obviously refer to some similarity that all that genre shares. But it seems to be implied that what I understand as having a '70's prog rock' sound is more-or-less the same as what anyone else would think. That's what I don't get.

I mean it's difficult to define 70's prog rock in the first place. If you're listening to Heritage and say, 'Yep, that's some 70's style prog rock right there' how can I be sure that what that is for you is exactly what it would be for me? I mean you might draw comparisons between particular bands that you've heard from 70's prog rock, but what if I've heard completely different bands?

I have no worries being able to understand the reference in the review. Describing it as '70's prog rock' brings plenty of things to mind. I just wonder if that's the same as what everyone else is thinking, particularly the reviewer. That's what I meant by it being a 'vague' description. But if what I think '70's prog rock' sounds like is similar to what the reviewer thinks then, obviously, there is no problem.