Talk:Opeth

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass Kudos to the writers, this is one of the most thorough GA nominations I've seen

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Just about every line has a reference, well done.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass Very much so.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass no problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass no problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass though I would recommend that the lists of albums and band members be put into tables if the article is to be further promoted.

7. Overall:

   Pass Exceptional article. -Ed! (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Related acts

I am aware that there is a dispute regarding the related bands section of the infobox. As someone uninvolved in the dispute, I am offering a third opinion- with a band with such a rich history as Opeth, the best way to determine 'related acts' is through member associations- if Opeth and these other bands have a member or members in common. If this leads to too many bluelink bands, then further discussion may be needed. Judging related acts by listing bands which sound similar is too subjective, while listing tour partners, bands covered and whatnot is far, far too broad. I reccomend that this discussion is continued here, so that all interested parties (myself potentially included) can follow it easily and comment freely. Can I also add that age and education levels of different editors is utterly irrelevent- we work not on editors' own knowledge, but on reliable sources, not to mention the fact that we have no way of confirming people are who they say they are. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-posting this becuase I am unsure if you recieved it the first time. If so, I apologize for any troubles. (*=non-music related) There are many reasons as to why Porcupine Tree should be an associated act of Opeth. NO, they do not have any related members, but there are many other contributing factors that I (and others) believe should be concidered valid for this particular case.
1)Steven Wilson, vocalist and main songwriter for Porcupine Tree, played an integral part in the writing process in 3 of Opeth's 9 studio albums as a producer.
2)Steven Wilson contibuted vocals to numerous Opeth songs spanned over those same 3 albums. (2001's "Blackwater Park", 2002's "Deliverance" & 2003's "Damnation")
3)Steven Wilson contributed guitar lines, guitar melodies, keyboard patches, and tribal hand-drumming solos to songs also spanned over those same 3 albums.
4)Steven Wilson wrote the complete lyrics to the song titled "Death Whispered a Lullaby" off of Opeth's album titled "Damnation".
5)Mikael Akerfeldt, vocalist and main songwriter for Opeth, contibuted vocals to 3 songs off of Porcupine Tree's studio album titled "Deadwing". (tracks 1, 3 and 5)
6)Mikael Akerfeldt contributed a guitar solo to track 5 off of the same Porcupine Tree album.
7)Akerfeldt & Wilson have an as-yet-untitled side project together in which they already have 1 song completed. (an alternate mix of a b-side track off of Porcupine Tree's 2002 album titled "In Absentia")
8)Akerfeldt & Wilson have been best friends for over 6 years.*

I hope that you will look into my points really closely and give a true third-party non biased opinion. Once you read into the information I am sure you will see where I am coming from with this "arguement". As far as Dream Theater is concerned. I offered user Burningclean a truce in which I offered for Dream Theater to remain off of Opeth's associated acts but in return Porcupine Tree could remain on the said list. He declined. I believe I am being fair and civil about this and I hope a proper resolution can be made.

Okay, we will add PT (alphebetically), however Dream Theater stays out of the infobox, they have nothing to do with Opeth. Just as a friendly note, I recommend signing your comments with four tidles (~~~~) —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Metalstyle (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit: points of clarification

At Burningclean's request I have read through the article and copy edited. Great article, by the way—it's evident that a lot of hard work has gone into it, and reading it has actually made me interested in the band. A few points of discussion or clarification:

• I attempted to be consistent in treating the band as singular (Opeth is rather than Opeth are) but at times that has introduced some awkward-sounding prose, so sometimes I avoided the issue by saying things like "the second album" rather than "its second album". Perhaps some more work is needed on this issue.

Thanks, I know that is an issue with my writing, but so far I haven't been able to pinpoint just how it should work. But all of the changes you made sound fine, IMO. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• We usually try to describe album or song content in the present tense, as we do with literature. We can say, "The band recorded the album" (past tense) but usually prefer "the album features Opeth's longest song" (present tense). Some work is needed on this, as I found it troublesome to introduce switches back and forth between tenses.

Cool, I see what you mean - if you notice any more switches please point them out. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• On that note, might it be advisable to change Though its style originated in Scandinavian death metal to a present tense such as "originates" or "has its roots in"?

Yea, that sentence was recently changed by another user, it used to read "While firmly rooted in... " - I changed it back. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...the band began incorporating acoustic guitars and guitar harmonies into its sound; the group relied less on blast beats and the aggression of death metal, and formed the core sound of Opeth. Something is missing here; what was it that formed? Does this mean to say something like "...thus developed the core sound"?

I rearranged the sentence to read: "The group began to rely less on the blast beats and aggression typical of death metal, and incorporated acoustic guitars and guitar harmonies into its music; developing the core sound of Opeth." Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Due to problems with Candlelight Records... I was left wondering what the problems were. Is there another noun that could be more specific and descriptive?

I replaced the sentence with: "Due to distribution problems with the newly formed Candlelight Records, the album was not released until May 15, 1995, and was released only in Europe." - The label had only released 2 albums then(Emperor), and they were still getting it together. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• With only five songs and lasting 66 minutes, the album featured Opeth's longest song, the twenty-minute "Black Rose Immortal". This sentence could be clearer in its message about how long Opeth's songs are. "Despite having only five songs..."? "The album comprises five songs but lasts 66 minutes." (There's that issue of present tense vs. past tense I had mentioned.)

• "I had to lie somewhat... saying that we could do this recording very soon, it won't cost more than a regular single album". Needs a citation?

Added the cite back, it must've been removed accidentally. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• entering Nacksving studios in 2002 Is it "Nacksving Studios", a proper noun?

Fixed to Nacksving Studios. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• the band moved to England to first mix the heavy album Did they actually move there or travel?

Changed to "After recording basic tracks, the band moved production to England to first mix the heavy album" Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Although Åkerfeldt initially believed the band could not finish both albums, Opeth completed Deliverence and Damnation in just seven weeks of studio time, which was the same amount spent on Blackwater Park alone. This seemed out of sequence; should this sentence be placed earlier in the section?

I put that sentence there because it was after the info on the release of the second of the two albums - I guess it might be better insterted before the release info - I moved it a few sentences up. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• "To be honest", Åkerfeldt said, "that's such an insult after 15 years as a band and 8 records. I can't believe we haven't earned each and every Opeth fans [sic] credibility after all these years. I mean, our songs are 10 minutes long for fucks sake!"[27] If we are putting sic for "fans", should we also put it for "fucks" (missing an apostrophe)?

I'm not a big fan of even keeping the "fucks sake" - the same point could be made ending the quote after "our songs are 10 minutes long" Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• the first time the band rehearsed properly I'm not sure that "properly" is quite right here.

Removed. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• he wanted the song "Isolation Years" on the album Is that linked to the previous clause because it is a song that is or is not about "the occult"?

You know, checking the citiation it says that the work is a concept, except for that song, so Im not sure where that came from... it doesn't say anything about the occult being of prominent influence, it doesnt say anything about re-writing any lyrics... I think that whole sentence should be out. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Watershed has a set release date of June 3, 2008 What is a "set release date"? Is it different than a release date?

Changed to "Watershed is set to be released on June 3, 2008."

• twin harmony guitars Is it the harmony that is twin, or the guitars that are twin? If it's the harmony, there needs to be a hyphen: "twin-harmony".

Its twin guitars, so probably "twin-guitar harmonies"? Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I got tired of it, whole harmony guitar thing", Åkerfeldt said. "It got out of hand in the mid-90s. Every band was doing that thing." Could someone verify the quote? Something seems not right here.

The exact quote is: "Iron maiden, Thin Lizzy, At the gates, My dying bride etc…those bands got me into the whole harmony guitar thing. It got out of hand in the mid 90´s. Every band was doing that thing. I got tired of it and we changed a little bit." INterview from Hail Metal

I put the "I got tired of it" at the beginning for clarity, but it looks like its missing a "the" now. Like it should read: "I got tired of it, the whole harmony guitar thing". So I put that back in. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are all my questions and concerns at the moment, all very minor. Also, please feel free to challenge me about any of the copy edits I chose to make today. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help dude, and I would totally suggest checking out some Opeth - check out the song samples on the page for a taste of what they cover. Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You guys rock out big time. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Progressive rock?

???

142.162.199.159 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

ya? Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Damnation is progressive rock. Burningclean _[speak] 02:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhhh, melodeath?

I won't argue that Opeth is definitely prog metal but it used to also say they were melodic death metal, which they are....so what happened to that? 165.196.83.30 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont' think thaey are. Burningclean _[speak] 19:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that most progressive death metal bands incorporate melodeath into their style so there's really no need to put melodeath under there ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.151.151 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, that's not true. What about Death? Opeth is melodic death metal (besides the other genres as well) and I think it should say as much. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a real problem with it being added, just source it, reliably and correctly. Burningclean _[speak] 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That link didn't work? Damn. It mentioned their melodic sounding death metal (or something). Well idk how to find professional reviews, except on AMG. Oh, well, I don't really care whether they get the label or not. The other genres pretty effectively describe them as it is. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It worked, but it was unreliable. It was basically a finsite. Burningclean _[speak] 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3 and BTBAM

Why does it say I cant add BTBAM or 3? theyre also on the progressive nation tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.230.181 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They are supporting acts and not very notable to mention. In the FAC it was noted that they shouldn't be mentioned. Burningclean _[speak] 00:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Commas vs. line breaks

Alright, you all have to settle down. I'm starting to see profanity on my watchlist, that is screaming WP:CIVIL. You all should reach a consensus before you start being rude. Maby this calls for a vote. I would like the line breaks becuase their genres have long titles. Burningclean _[speak] 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And I agree. I have not used any profanity thus far, I would first like to point out. Second, I just want all the bands' genre delimiters to be left alone in whatever form they've been in for a while at least (for now, since there is no solution to the issue), whether that be comma breaks or line breaks. User:Niderbib and User:Anger22 have taken it upon themselves to go around on many different band pages to change genre delimiters (for no reason) to just incite edit wars. They give edit summaries like "it looks like a grocery list" or "this way has more space," to which I reply "bullshit," and even if it's true that is not a reason to change the genre delimiters. I wish they'd just settle this thing once and for all so there would be no argument over it one way or another. And of course I prefer line breaks as they've been around for way longer and were used for years on wikipedia before comma breaks came along and they seem to me to be more encyclopedic. But w/e, this isn't the place to argue this. But yeah, especially with a page like this where the genres are long, line breaks should be used. Comma breaks just make everything sloppy and look like utter crap. Not to mention you have to read and go to the next line which can just lead to confusion (granted, only if you're disabled). It's easier to read with line breaks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do those two editors start edit wars with each other often? Line breaks look much better for Opeth. I know that there is no such thing as "article ownership", but with edit wars on an FA, I believe it should be up to the nominator to settle it. That certainly does sound POVish, especially coming from me, the nominator and editor with most contributions, but that seems to be a smart way to settle this. Any ideas or comments? Burningclean _[speak] 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. My fault. Both those users are edit warring with me mostly. They have been going around changing pages to comma breaks. I don't mind what you're talking about, though. It is a little POV-ish, but idk any other solutions. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. What do you mean "NOW I'll shoot myself"? Burningclean _[speak] 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

??? I haven't edited this article since September , 2006. And that was a vandalism revert. I see no reason for the personal attack? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Was that to me or Navnløs? Burningclean _[speak] 22:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop distracting me from shooting myself. And to Anger22: Are you serious? My words could not have possibly wounded you. Why would you care? That wasn't even an attack. You've already personally attacked me. I talked to you and I was completely cordial and you were totally insulting to me. Well if you read what I said carefully I never mentioned that you edited Opeth. Just that you had edit warred with me. Now let me get this over with, damnit! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Navlos you were the one who cast dispersions against my username on a talk page of an article that I haven't edited in over a year and a half. Editors with personal agendas tend to detract from encyclopedia building. I think this is a very good article BTW. Kudos to whoever contributed to its FA. I have worked on many and I know it isn't an easy task. Carry on. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're trying to rach a consensus on line breaks or commas. Ha ha, I worked on it with copyediting help from Skeletor2112 by the way. Thanks ;p Burningclean _[speak] 22:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Skeletor is a very good editor. But I haven't spoken with hi since November, 2006. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heck yes he is. He also helped me with Alice in Chains. Burningclean _[speak] 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice you cleverly and conveniently did not even attempt to answer my questions Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't figure it was worth the time since you were about to shoot yourself anyways. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sir, you are a master of avoiding, I'll give you that. Care to elaborat in defense of yourself at all? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly am I defending again on this article about Opeth. Did you disagree with my vandalism revert of September 2006? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow, wow, man you are good. I suppose it's too hard to look a quarter of an inch or so up, so I will elaborate myself. I speak of my paragraph right above, which I will conveniently move for you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

“ Oh, now you're trying to act all high and mighty (no surprise there; I've dealt with some pompous wikipedians during my time here on wikipedia). I didn't cast anything over your username, I said facts. I didn't say who was "bad," only that myself and two other users had been edit warring on a variety of articles. You say people shouldn't have agendas, but then what's with the changing to comma breaks on genre delimiters here and there? Like on Cynic or Iced Earth or Amon Amarth (shall I go on?). Yes, this article is a great one and a shining example to other articles (line breaks included). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) ”

You shouldn't alter previous talk page discussion. That can get you a vandalism warning. As for your comment I am still confused. Amon Amarth?? I reverted vandalism on that page earlier today. A revert that took it back to a version including formatting with line breaks. Are you against this vandalism revert? If you look at the two thousand or so edits I have made in the last week or two you will see several page reverts that go back to revisions done by you. Again, using your preference for formatting. I have read all discussions across many talk pages related to this minor little piece of formatting. And the consensus clearly shows that the simple commas is preferred over any other spacing. If an infobox requires a correction with regards to dab links, or formatting that goes against set guidelines set by the music project then I will go ahead and edit as per consensus and remove the unencyclopedic 'grocery listing'. And if I see an edit that has no constructive merit and is only added because of personal pov or outright vendetta against other editors... then that gets a revert because it's pretty much the same as trolling. This article contains citations for its included genres (which looks stupid since all cited material should be in the main article and not the box) But, since the citations exist, likely to divert an edit wat, then they look fine in the extended listing. But if the citations weren't there then the article should conform to consensus. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

• Since this is an issue that would affect other articles, I have initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters. You are all invited. --Bardin (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This topic has the highest length:importance ratio I've ever seen. 86.159.195.192 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Prog death

I've removed prog death as it just redirects to tech death. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What?

Opeth is not death metal, they are technical death metal, They are never described as Death metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodfall (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Opeth isn't even tech-death (compare with meshuggah sound, another avant-garde metal band) - they are influenced-by in the better aproach. Otherwise they are a honest-to-goodness prog-metal group. Haxxiy (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd feel much better about this article if the bit saying they're rooted in Scandinavian death metal were removed, because as a big listener of bands like Entombed, Unleashed, Dismember, At the Gates, etc. I can tell you they're not rooted in it at all. They're progressive metal through and through, their roots are in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.197.234 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But if both tech-death and common death are wrong, perhaps their third genre would have to be simply MELODEATH? Haxxiy (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'Progressive death metal' is probably the most common term, although perhaps 'melodic' should be in there as well - they definitely use more melody than any death metal band or 90% of prog-metal bands, even if you ignore Damnation--MartinUK (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can fin a source that says that opeth is/were melodic death metal, go ahead and add it. But i've already done some shearching, and i don't think you have much of a chance. That being said, whoever keeps adding Prog death, stop. It does not have it's own article and Technical metal is clearly not a genre which opeth are generaly put under.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Its almost impossible to find a source who calls opeth melodeath because general midia uses genre terms very loosely. See, before melodeath comes it was impossible to think in a band being prog and death at the same time. I think death metal should be replaced by melodeath, at least referring to opeth's earlier works (they had twin guitar leads, growling and clean vocals, and acoustic sections; you can't get much more melodeath than that). 189.26.85.193 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Well, unless you have a source, to bad. To put up a genre like melodeath, which is not the genre that opeth are most likly refered to as, without a source, is original research which wikipedia does not tolerate. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So please someone come with a reliable source to Opeth being common death metal because it's by far more incorrect than calling them melodeath. In fact I only came with this because prog-death isn't a genre, and still Opeth needs to be qualified as something inside death metal realm. Haxxiy (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Opeth is not Melodeath, that's one thing. for them to be common death metal, or Heavy(or prog) metal would also be wrong. I think they are prog death, nothing else. the only album they show differen't styles is Damnation. Bloodfall (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Opeth were melodeath in thier earlier carrer mostly in Orchid, Morningrise, and MAYH. Hovever, bloodfall you need to remembe that wikipedia does not allow original reasearch, and it does not matter what you think opeth are, as you don't have any sources to back you up. Even if you did, it still would not be a good idea to label opeth prog death beacause thier is no prog death article, and opeth are clearly not tech death. And for referances for death metal,,,. These are just the results i got from entering "Opeth Death metal" into google news. Here is the full results. I think that shouls be good.

Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can also get melodic death metal results for Opeth. Mainly as a huge influence (equal to common prog-metal) to their unique sound. http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/opeth http://www.progarchives.com/artist.asp?id=1122 http://www.rhapsody.com/opeth Haxxiy (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

None of those sources are in any way viable. All of them are edited by user's and admins, and do not meet WP:RS.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If so, the sources you've brought quite don't fit a reliable tag. One calls them also prog and folk (should folk be there too, then?) and other uses death metal only as a umbrella term. Haxxiy (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The point is it is general smarter to trust the New York Times over user edited sites, which are not viable as sources. And the article does mention opeth as folk. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But nyt can't be considered a reliable source to music genres (as well as allmusic who calls opeth "symphonic black metal") http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/arts/music/24giga.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=in%20flames%20band&st=cse&oref=slogin here they say In Flames is thrash metal with arena-rock and electronic music. But anwyay, under wikipedia guidelines is askeed to find a truce in discussion; since everyone calls Opeth prog-death I think this should be in the rticle, but redirecting to melodeath. Why? first of all, all another genres there are progressive a,d redirects to it, and if the person be looking the death-metal side of Opeth, it is more reasonable redirect them to a page with similar music bands. Haxxiy (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the NYtimes is talking about modern in flames, who are definitly not your plain old melodeath anymore. And if you want to put in thrash metal and note the influance of arena rock and electro musicin the in flames article, you would be in your right to. Anf finally YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MATTER. WIKIPEDIA IS MADE UP OF INFORMATION THAT CAN BE VERIFIDED, NOT OR!!! Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. Your capitalized words clearly state to a reader that you lost your arguments. If you think is a opinion of mine that prog-death sounds more like melodeath than common death, so the opposite is your POV. Haxxiy (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It shows nothing, except that i'm getting tried with having to explain a very simple concept, which is that we can't add the melo death genre, as very few people and very few sources would refer to the band as that, and you have to provide a source to back up your claim. and this is not an argument. Arguments happen when thier is an cual dissagreement, with both patries having good points. You have none, excluding your suggest of disregarding multiple guidline based on your opinion of opeth is. Read this and coe back when you realise that you don't have a leg to stand on.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But above I haven't seen many people happy with the common death metal tag. A reliable source isn't everything if it does not reflect consensus (that’s why one can’t simply add pop rock to In Flames even with reliable source – it follows another wiki rule, IAR). Haxxiy (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It dosn't matter if people arn't happy. However it seems that the only one who isn't happy is you a a few single purpose ips. And adding pop rock to in flames is not the same as having death metal to opeth. For one, many people refer to opeth as some kind of death metal and everyone reconizes it is a least an influence. Personally, I think that they have some foom/death influences that might be notable, However, I don't have a source so I can't add to it. And since that you won't listen to any kind of reason, I am eneding the disscussion. Any change to the genre box will be regarded as vandalism.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Progressive Death Metal doesn't quite fit them, and definitely not Melo-death. and in response to Johan Rachmaninov, their first two albums were not Melo-death, they were progressive metal with some leanings of black metal (And I say SOME) Especially now they seem more like a prog metal band with Death Grunts, considering over time the singing has become about as much, and even more present than the death vox, but whatever. They don't really sound like any of the other bands in the Progressive Death Metal article. cause as I said, As opposed to being a death band with prog leanings, they seem to be a prog band with death vox. Spydrfish (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well actually I'd say up until Still Life they only had prog leanings. Spydrfish (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Article too US-centric?

All the information on fame, status and chart success starts with US references. Why? Opeth is not a US group, their style does not originate in the US and is not especially popular there, and they have charted higher in many other countries.--MartinUK (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is beacause the US buys a majority of records. If you look at the sale for many different kinds of products, such as films, there are seperate catagories for sale in the US beacause US Citizens are such big comsumers.Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

They are much more popular in the US than anyone else. Only Ghost Reveries and Watershed have charted elsewhere. Burningclean _[speak] 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, they seem popular in many places.--PrettyCoolGuy (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Watershed eaching #23 in the US probably involves selling more than reaching #7 in Australia, but their biggest audience is probably mainland Europe, especially Scandinavia. They'll've definitely charted tehre long before they did in the US or anywhere else. Watershed's also made the top 20 in Japan and at least the top 50 of most major European charts. I guess the deciding factor might be how much sales tailed off after the first week, whether it has remained or rebounded on many of those charts--MartinUK (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd say a plurality of editors on the English Wikipedia are from the US, so it's understandable that they would think of their home country first when attempting to determine the popularity of a musical act. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Genres

This question isn't meant specifically for this article, but, where did all the genre boxes go?! Revan ltrl (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I believe they modified the template to avoid the possible issue of the public's (let's say IP editors for example) thought and the users' unanimous opinion on what band is what. The Phantomnaut (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for a FA?

Hi there. Just a note: the article contains a template in the "Musical style and influences" section. This does not go with a FA status together. Do something about it. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed! Cannibaloki 19:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you replaced the tag with a citation! --156.56.137.36 (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that this article is a featured article. Cool. BT^C 02:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Thanks to all the editors! And good job! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

The statement that this band did not experience American commercial success until the 2003 release of seventh effort Damnation is prominently placed in the lede section of this article. This is a Swedish band; doesn't a statement of when they became a commercial success in the United States present the impression that their success in the United States is more significant than their success in other countries? The dates when the band became commercially successful in other countries are not given; why should the United States be different? Neelix (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd imagine it's due to the size of the USA market as a percentage of the entire world. See Music_industry#Total_Value_by_Country. Exxolon (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Progressive death metal

I have an issue with the first line of this article. Opeth is not just some ordinary "Heavy Metal" band, they are technically classified under the "Progressive Death Metal" sub genre of metal. FIX THIS AND KNOW YOUR METAL! \m/

If you'd stop SHOUTING and look at the infobox on the right of the article you'll see that genre there. "Heavy Metal" is used in the article lead as it's the most descriptive term for someone unfamiliar with the nuances of the differences between alternative music genres. Exxolon (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.179.95 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes Opeth death metal? Apart from the vocals nothing sounds hardly of death metal... I guess the could be melodic death metal or something...

You are Right, They had few Death Metal Characteristics aside from the vocals, and Their Latest album has Growls in only 3 out of the 7 songs... Their most Death Metal Album would be Deliverance, The song "Master's Apprentices" is similar to Morbid Angel and the last track even had Blast beating in it. I'd say unlike a band like say... Death, or Akercocke, Opeth is more Prog than Death. However I don't think they could be called anything else... Spydrfish (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Akerfeldt... bassist?

Formation section says

"Isberg asked former Eruption band member Mikael Åkerfeldt to join the band as a bassist."

and later

"Isberg and Åkerfeldt recruited drummer Anders Nordin, bassist Nick Döring, and guitarist Andreas Dimeo."

So I suppose he switched to guitar before this, but it's a bit confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.104.121 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me...

Progressive Death Metal!?!? Are you insane!?!? Death Metal is nothing like Opeth, Opeth are trained musicians, Death Metal is for those who want to be metalers and cant play anything. How can you insult Opeth by calling htem Death Metal!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.148.147 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you obviously don't know much about death metal. They do transcend genres, but they are rooted in death metal.76.20.137.214 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well,Death Metal is not poser at all.It is an important genre.But Opeth is not playing Death Metal,they never had.They can have their roots from Death Metal,but only Death Metal characteric they use is brutal vocals.It is more right to label them Extreme Progressive Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.119.126 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(forgive me if this post is not according to guidelines, I'm new) Please accept the fact that the rest of the metal world calls them progressive death. Including the band themselves. Thank you. Bertoscar (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that does not call Opeth a death metal band. Huntthetroll (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First time I saw them, Åkerfeldt said something like "I hope you're all going to enjoy the meal. Starter: Heavy Metal. Main course: Heavy Metal. Desert? Heavy Metal". Hoping to clarify... Brisssou (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First, learn something about death metal. Second, listen to Opeth. If still not convinced, read thousands of reviews and interviews of the members themselves. They are progressive death metal. And by the way, could you source that they are trained musicians? Not that I care about it but I haven't heard about this before. --Siipale (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Prog death

as it is mentioned before,Prog death does not exist at least there is no name of it in the Death metal article.The name actually is Technical death metal.Solino the Wolf (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many sources on the net referring Opeth as a progressive death metal band. A quick search on google with "Opeth progressive death metal" gave me 124,000 hits while "Opeth technical death metal" gave me 52,300 hits. I'm not basing this entirely by WP:Googlehits because it's not really that viable but the ratio has to tell you something. FireCrystal (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I know.The truth is technical death metal is a most common and sourced name for progressive death metal.But I'm agreed with you.As it is more common for Opeth to be called progressive,It's better to stay that way.Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to an understanding. :) FireCrystal (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction- description of Opeth.

The very first line of this article cites Opeth as a heavy metal band. This needs to be much more specific. Plain and simple 'heavy metal' is not suitable to describe Opeth. Opeth is a progressive death metal band- as acknowledged by most fans. Is there any reason why we can't put this in the introduction? Opeth is a subgenre of heavy metal; not heavy metal in its purest form. If people new to the band read this, then they are going to liken Opeth to Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden and other such bands. This in itself is an inaccuracy, as Black Sabbath and other pure 'heavy metal' bands are very different to the sound of Opeth. The first sentence needs to refer to Opeth as Progressive Death metal, and it needs to be kept that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craggus (talk • contribs) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Many times again, heavy metal is not an implied genre here but as a way to say they are a 'metal' band engrossing their main styles. It was used as a way to try to stop its editing from progressive metal to death metal and beyond which doesn't seem to be working (since people don't understand what it is meant to be for). FireCrystal (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Firecrystal The7thdr (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify.

Reading through this talk page I have found a few arguments over Opeths' classification in the musical genre. They are firmly ruited in Scandanavian Death Metal, with several progressive elements which stem from Progressive Rock to Folk tones.

Therefore I believe we should just call them, "Progressive Death Metal" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.31 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Although most people seem to disagree for some reason that I can't work out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craggus (talk • contribs) 14:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you implying to do here? Progressive death metal is listed under genres but if you were intending on removing progressive rock just think of their album Damnation, the solely progressive rock songs in other albums and progressive rock pieces in some songs. The genre stuff is seriously overdone now as you can see with this talkpage. FireCrystal (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

At Firecrystal: That is not what I was implying. (Yes, I made the orignal statement in this section of the discussion page while I was not logged in) I was merely saying that they truly are a progressive death metal band. The fact that a few of their songs and ONE album is progressive rock just makes there style of death metal all the more progressive. Calling Opeth Progressive Rock based solely on said songs and album would be like calling Metallica an instrumental group based on "Orion, The call of Khtulu, and Suicide and Redemption"

WhisperedConjuration (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then that would mean that Opeth are an instrumental group as well because they happen to have a few instrumental songs? If you didn't want progressive rock removed from their infobox then what were you implying? I don't seem to understand what you are trying to do here. FireCrystal (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How hard is it to understand. Just change "Progressive Rock" to "Progressive Death Metal"