Album Rating: 2.5
It is, undeniably, a step forward from heritage, more cohesive and consistent.
I kind of understand why a lot of Opeth fans feel like this but at the same time I find it ridiculous that people are calling this a step forward. Musically this is a big step back.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
If they'd have called it "Opeth Does 70's Prog" and released it as a compilation it would probably be liked by more people.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
This album? I dunno, it seems pretty well liked as it is tbh.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
The average has been consistently going down for the past month overall it's growing off people
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5
A 3.6 is still "great" though.
|
| |
Heritage's average slowly went down too. When it first came out it was 3.6 for a while
|
| |
Album Rating: 4.5
When I wrote step forward, I meant in terms of where Heritage left off, not comparing it with other releases, because I'll have my doubts there. "Musically this is a big step back" I'm not quite sure about that statement. I think it was the logical thing to expect from Opeth since the departure of Mikael from his metal roots in terms of the composition, and I don't look at it as a step back.
|
| |
Old timey fans may very understandably disagree
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
When I wrote step forward, I meant in terms of where Heritage left off, not comparing it with other releases, because I'll have my doubts there. "Musically this is a big step back" I'm not quite sure about that statement. I think it was the logical thing to expect from Opeth since the departure of Mikael from his metal roots in terms of the composition, and I don't look at it as a step back.
Just to clarify I think Heritage was a big step forward in that it saw them embracing a long overdue change in style. I feel that this is big step back from Heritage because it continues with the same prog influences but is much less musically adventurous and less interesting due to more conventional song structures and composition (which isn't a bad thing in itself but in this particular case it leaves a lot to be desired).
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
It's not a logical thing to expect more of the same.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
@JT surely you could consider Watershed a change in style before the change that was Heritage? I mean, they ditched most of their key characteristics in that album and they were certainly adventurous, musically.
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
Yeah Watershed was the start of a change in direction but it wasn't until Heritage that they fully embraced it.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Watershed was boooring
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5 | Sound Off
*amazing
10 points to the Lotus Eater alone
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
It's better than this or Heritage that's for sure
|
| |
Not for me
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
Lotus Eater, Coil, Burden are ace, rest is so-so
|
| |
Album Rating: 2.5
Coil, Lotus Eater, Hessian Peel and Heir Apparent are all really good, don't really care for the other three songs at all.
Heritage is definitely better than Watershed overall. Prefer WS to this though.
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.0
"A 3.6 is still "great" though."
pleb alts dude
|
| |
Album Rating: 3.5 | Sound Off
The metal epics are amazing, coil and burden are some of their best nonheavys, hex is great and porcelain is fine it's just inconsistent with some annoying parts, like the last minute of lotus eater and the last minute of burden
|
| |
|
|
