Talk:Opeth/Archive 1

message: I think the history section is a bit long winded and could do with being broken up into at least 2 sub headings. Maybe something like 1990 - 2000 and 2000 - 2007. Thoughts? Jpk82 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a try. We should look at how the article should be completed in the future. It looks obvious to me, to have section about the early beginnings, then the time until Mendez joined, then the long stable period the band experienced, and a new section that deals with Ghost Reveries, the addition of a keyboard as a fifth instrument and the upcoming releases.. I also created a timeline and added it to the article.. it's quite confusing when reading the article, I hope this helps to better understand the band's development. --Johnnyw talk 21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats brilliant! Much easier to read... Jpk82 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History length 

message: Opeth's fifth album, 2001's Blackwater Park, released under Music for Nations, received critical and commercial success in North America. The album displayed a stronger metal influence.
A stronger metal influence according to who? As far as Im concerned all of Opeths albums have displayed a roughly equal amount of 'metal influence'. I don't think this should be here...comments? Jpk82 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, IMO that's just POV... --Sn0wflake 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Jpk82 22:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The album displayed a stronger metal influence... 

message: I'm sure Opeth fit into that genre rather nicely. Progressive Doom/Death Metal suits them very well, what do you guys think?
:Read the above 'chat' about Opeth's genre before saying anymore. In the end, its not about POV, its about reliable sources stating what Opeth's genre is. My POV is that they do have a Doom influence, but i dont have a source, therefore, it doesn't really matter. Hellfreeze 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doom/Death 

message: In the section of former band members, "Andreas Dimeo" links back to Opeth.
I'm confused as to why this is being done, as he's only a former band member near the band's beginning, and never referenced later.
Shouldn't he have his own page, even if it's blank for now? Mattz1010 21:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, he does have his own page, it just redirects to the Opeth page.  After a quick google search, it doesn't appear that he has done anything since leaving the band so there isn't really anything to put on his page. I've removed the links to his page as it is silly to link to a page that just redirects back to this page.--Mbc362 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-linking page? 

message: I just added a hell of a lot of citation needed tags. Actually, there's not that many... but regardless, this page would benefit from a lot more references. I fixed the reference section too. --Dayn 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never assume common knowledge. I don't know for sure, as I haven't found a source to state it yet. 'Sides, it's unreferenced, and the more good references to make this article reliable, the better. --Dane ~nya 02:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: Aren't they considered Technical Death Metal?
: Opeth is not death metal at all, other than the growls and the slight leanings of their earlier demos + the song "Master's Apprentices." And for the record, they play too slowly to be considered tech death. Look at Cryptopsy. --Ryouga 04:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Death Metal

message: Self-nomination. Extensive article on a notable band in the modern metal/death metal scene. I just expanded it, and I can't think of any more information that could be added to it. Nadavspi 05:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed FAC nomination

message: The current version has pornography instead of videography as a section header. Normally I'd just fix it of course but since it's protected let's do things very properly and discuss the matter here first. Anybody want to argue for keeping the title pornography? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 05:06, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
:It's very obvious that you got trumped in the minute that you protected the article. This isn't a content dispute, just a matter of coping with vandalism. Fix it already.-gadfium 05:29, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's three of us, I'll take that as a quorum :-). --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 05:30, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
We don't need protection for a page like this. Petty vandalism can be reversed easily, protecting this page is counter-productive, So I vote to revert it.
Lone Isle 07:41, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videography 

message: shouldn't it say something about gene holgan's relation to the band. maybe under former mebers with an " * " next to his name
I added his name and bands he's been in under the Current Lineup where it also said Martin Axenrot was filling in for their American/European headlining tour.Ladysway1985 05:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  gene holgan 

message: I added this for The Drapery Falls, Still Day Beneath the Sun, and The Grand Conjuration, as they are singles and not demos(which is what they were under).Ladysway1985 03:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singles 

message: I find it weird that there is no mention on Opeth's usage of profanity. They rarely, if ever, use profane words, which happens to be very rare for a "death metal" group. Maybe one should go about writing about their non-usage, and such? It's kind of important, and it makes the band pretty unique (even more unique than they are already). --Anonymouses 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profanity 

message: why can't the logo image be put in the infobox like in every other band article here? the logo is transparent and in good quality! i've put it up there twice and somebody always bring it back down! --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 11:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it the first time as it seems out of place to me, however it's not too big of a deal to me so when you readded it I let it be.  I can't speak for whoever else reverted it though. - Blah3 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the logo 

message: pls pls pls, its unbareable to look at... idk how 2 fix it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.48.244 (talk • contribs) .
:done.. I just reverted the page back to an earlier state using the Page history. It's very simple, actually. --Johnnyw talk 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  omg sum1 fix da page its screwy! 

message: What was listed there as the "unofficial Opeth forum" is clearly not an active forum. I'd bet that www.opethforum.net is the largest and most active unofficial Opeth forum (although I've no way to confirm this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Westknife (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changed the unofficial forum 

message: Or maybe "doom/death". I reworded the section about Opeth attracting the attention of "doom metal fans" to being influential to "doom metal bands". Their affiliation with other bands (Katatonia, October Tide, etc.) and slower songs (esp. on albums My Arms, Your Hearse, Damnation) has a doom metal-ish look to them, along with the folk, jazz, and progressive rock influence as already noted.  --Danteferno 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with Damnation, being progressive rock more than anything. Could you please list some songs that have a doom metal connection? I have Blackwater Park, Deliverance, Damnation, and Ghost Reveries, and can't recall any songs actually being doom metal, neither could a friend of mine. On that note, I think it would be handy to mention it within the article; but not within the genre box, because even if a few songs are doom metalish, it shouldn't be listed there. Like The Living End having a couple of songs reminiscent of metal and ska, but not listed in the genre box, because the majority is punkabilly and rock. --Dayn 04:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Simply because a band attracts a certain genre's group of fans does not mean it's music is in that genre. Opeth's music doesn't really have enough similarity to doom metal to classify the whole band as such. shijeru 14:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would you suggest be put in the genre box? I personally don't mind the doom metal fan attention and influence being stated in the article, but definitely not the genre box. --Dayn 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doom Metal would not be the best genre to even attempt to cover all of Opeth's genre bases. There are deffinatly some doom influences in some of their songs...but i would stick to Progressive Metal, because they really do just have their own sound. Hellfreeze 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current revision seems okay to me. The only thing I'm not sure about is plain death metal; all their album pages are listed as melodic death metal (except Damnation listed as progressive rock, which I'll add soon) so I am unsure. I would be leaning towards saying they're more melodic than straight death metal, but I wanna see what others think first. --Dayn 14:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, the only thing about Opeth that really makes me think of it as death metal is the vocals. I think melodic death metal would be better than just plain death metal. Even though I don't consider it truly death metal at all they have the vocals, so that needs to be recognized and melodic death metal fits best to do that. shijeru 06:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've added it in. --Dayn 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely a doom metal connection 

message: Okay, there's been some debate about this, and I'd like to get everyone's opinions.
The current revision includes:
*Melodic death metal
*Progressive metal
*Progressive rock
They're not a straight death metal band, but they definitely do have elements of it; but the question is, do they have elements of normal, or melodic death? The progressive metal part covers a lot of stuff, and progressive rock is one of Mikael's prominent influences, not to mention Damnation.
In my opinion, Progressive metal and progressive rock do it justice. However, it's the death metal thing. They're basically a progressive death metal band... but perhaps this revision would be good?
*Progressive death metal (linking to Death_metal#Progressive_death_metal)
*Progressive rock
On further reflection, I think this revision might be better. I'm trying to come up with a few genres that exemplify the majority of their songs... it's just the whole death metal thing that throws me. I reckon perhaps it should just be shortened to progressive death metal and progressive rock, which would facilitate a need to change the album pages too and associated articles. Thoughts? --Dayn 05:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre 

message: Since there is a significant amount written about the albums, shouldn't there be a separate heading for them? The 'history' section meanders a lot and is unsightly as one massive section. Thoughts? If there are no objections, I'll take this to task soon. -- Ghostreveries 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. Let me know if some specific thing can be improved. --Dayn 23:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album discussion