Opeth (Watershed) - Sack the HM vocalist??

Starless wrote: I don't think I'll ever get used to the growling tho'.

Well, just keep listening.
Listen to some melo-death bands...their growls are a bit easier to digest.
I remember how much i hated 'Death' to begin with. They basically introduced me to these harsh vocals, quite a few years back. It is an acquired taste and  just  takes  a bit of time imo.
Listening to death metal doesn't make you a fagg0t or any such thing(if you do have any such thoughts that is), as long as your musical taste elsewhere doesn't vanish.


Edited by Demonoid - June 14 2008 at 11:33

Cradle of Filth don't suck. They're one of the funniest bands in existence, not least because their music is structured so well, delivering the puns at all the right moments. Really good band. It's unfortunate so many here can't see past the make-up and stuff. And I've no idea why people here can swallow Magma's gimmick and are so opposed to CoF's at the same time.

Edited by Visitor13 - June 14 2008 at 10:41

Starless wrote: Now, I have always had a deep aversion to any band that features unintelligible guttural growling HM vocals (I'm an old fart),

Starless wrote: Prog doesnt have a definite sound. To say that Watershed isnt a metal based album is silly, I mean what else would you call it, country & weston, folk, cool jazz?

[/QUOTE]
You said that the only thing that "metals" the album was the growls, I took this to mean that the only thing that makes it metal is the growls,  which I dont agree with at all. If I'm wrong, can you at elast elaborate on your statment rather than saying that your finished with the thread. If what you meant is that it isnt streight up metal, well yes, I think that would be obvious to (almost) anyone that hears it.

I don't have a problem with "growls" - in fact, I wrote an essay on 20th Century music that discussed distortion in Heavy Metal music with specific reference to growly vocals, starting at James Hetfield, going through Lemmy and Chuck Schuldiner, ending up with Nick Bullen. Now there's a growler if ever there was one.

Treasure wrote: I can agree with that, the metal is there, but not as present as it often is. Look at Ghost Reveries, that album is an onslaught for the first 30 minutes. This new album seems to have run into a far more progressive direction, I think, mainly to the addition of a more Rock oriented drummer. The keyboardist, Per Wiberg, also seems likely suspect for being more progressive than metal.   Look at it this way.   Martin Lopez's drumming style usually consisted of double bass pedal beats more often than not. He was more jazz oriented and more beat oriented. Martin Axenrot has named one his influences to be Ian Paice. He's more rock oriented, rock of that kind usually has drum fills. The new drummer doesn't make such big use of double bass pedals like Martin Lopez did.   Basically, the new members are making the sounds more progressive.

I can agree with that, the metal is there, but not as present as it often is. Look at Ghost Reveries, that album is an onslaught for the first 30 minutes. This new album seems to have run into a far more progressive direction, I think, mainly to the addition of a more Rock oriented drummer. The keyboardist, Per Wiberg, also seems likely suspect for being more progressive than metal.

sleeper wrote: ^I dont think they could get many more fans, they are one of the biggest and most respected metal bands at the moment.

Starless wrote:   Now, I have always had a deep aversion to any band that features unintelligible guttural growling HM vocals (I'm an old fart), and this occassionally features the very same.

If you compare Akerfeldt's vocals with others in the genre, then you'll notice just how intelligible his really are.

The suprise is I haven't turned it off, as musically it is very inventive, time & key changes a-plenty, and with completely schizophrenic style changes, sometimes in the same song, "Hessian Peel" being a case in point.   I won't be buying it though simply because of the annoying mock horror vox that creep in now and again.

The vocals complement the music.  The emergence of extreme vocals in metal underscores this point.  Since metal generally emphasizes speed, aggression, and power, it seems natural to reflect in such an aggressive vocal style.  You may want to research its history a bit, e.g. many attribute the dubious honor of first album with extreme vocals to Seven Churches by Possessed (a simple, but seminal record in the genre).  As it turns out, they kept re-recording the vocal track until they felt the vocals suited the intensity of the music.  The vocal style also evolved in parallel with such hardcore artists like Crass and Napalm Death, whose lyrics were often the most acrid of jeremiads.  Again it's not a surprise that they'd express the angry frustration of the lyrics with an aggressive vocal style.

Here's my point - would they not be better off ditching the growling and thereby guaranteeing a much bigger audience? i would have thought they were too prog for a metal audience anyway.

Better off financially?  Maybe.  But then again, their former guitarist is probably better off financially since he resigned from the band (he holds an MS in Physics, and works in IT now, I believe).  By analogy, the single "Owner of a Lonely Heart" probably was much more lucrative to Yes (or that particular incarnation of Yes) than Close to the Edge, but it's unlikely that many around here would say that the former improved upon the latter.

^I dont think they could get many more fans, they are one of the biggest and most respected metal bands at the moment.