Opeth: 'A Lot of the Fans Aren't Quite Open Minded'

Guitarist Fredrik Akesson calls the fans unreceptive while discussing the groups latest release and musical diversity.

Ultimate Guitar

It's not rare to hear that metal fans can be stubborn and unreceptive, and it would seem that this is an opinion Opeth guitarist Fredrik Akesson also shares.

While discussing the sound shift Swedish metallers' made with their latest release "Heritage" during a recent Unsung Melody interview, Akesson confessed seeing a large portion of the bands fan base as not "quite open-minded."

The guitarist went on to take a defensive stance for the record, saying, "It's not like we did a pop album or anything like that. It's very dark, moody and intense in different spaces, but in a different way, of course."

He then continued with a talk about Opeth fans, adding, "I think a lot of the band's fans aren't quite open-minded; maybe it takes a little bit of time to digest each album, which I can understand. I think it was very important to do a different album, for Mike [guitarist/vocalist Mikael Akerfeldt] at least, and the whole band as well."

As far as the music itself goes, guitarist commented that the five-piece initially "had the goal to play the heavy riffs," just to scrap everything and start all over again.

"Mike wanted to do something different from the beginning," Akesson says. "That is for sure. He wrote a couple of songs first. They were more in the same vein as the previous album, 'Watershed.' Then, he deleted those and started off new. The edition of the song 'Heritage' was created then I think."

As far as the new album goes, latest reports say that the band is making "good progress" and aiming to go in a "different direction" from the previous album.

"Heritage" came out back in September 2011 via Roadrunner Records as the group's tenth studio effort. With 19,000 copies shipped in the US within the first week, it debuted at No. 19 on the Billboard 200 chart.

120 comments sorted by best / new / date

    I completely agree with Fredrik here. And he's right. Opeth obviously weren't capitalizing on a fad here, they were making the music they wanted to make. And that's all I can ask of any self-respecting musician. I would have been more unreceptive if they became complacent for the sake of their closed-minded fans. And it helps that as prog albums go, Heritage is pretty amazing.
    Just because someone doesn't like an album it doesn't instantly mean they're close-minded. I didn't like it because it didn't feel like Opeth to me. Not because it's "clean" and "not brutal". Deliverance was amazing and still had their signature sound and feel. Heritage just sounded like an attempt to sound like someone else with a hint of Opeth in it. Calling someone close-minded just because they didn't like something is absolutely ridiculous
    Except when every time there is a metal release there are people bitching about it. Metalheads are the worst music fans and this is coming from someone who likes metal alot. If its not exactly how they think the album should sound then it automatically sucks so yes, metal fans aren't open minded.
    Totally agree. I used to like "metal" a lot in my past, but not anymore in general, although I really like some records. It's difficult to say that metalheads are close-minded when a person himself is a metalhead, but now, when I'm free from that, I can step back and say what I really see and have always seen, but never considered, due to being biased towards "metal".
    I dunno, I still find a lot of signature Opeth sounds, like their treatment of the acoustic guitars on "The Lines In My Hand", the whole songs "The Devil's Orchard" and "Slither". You could have stuck those songs in the middle of, say, Watershed, and they probably would have been recognizable as Opeth songs. And I call people closed minded not because they dislike something, but because they're unwilling to give something a chance (or a second chance), or because they're unwilling to recognize that it is quality, even if they don't like it. I still see merit in a lot of the things I don't like.
    I not only agree with you, but would say that it's not something that is specific to metal music. Or even... music in general. I know pop, rap, punk, stoner rock, DnB etc fans who only listen to those genre's or even a specific sub-genre. That's just what some people are like.
    The album sounded like an Opeth album, they were just exploring a side of Opeth that they haven't fully explored yet. Yea, it was really 70s sounding, but it fit the band really well. I see tons of metalheads whining about the new album not being heavy though, as if anything that isn't heavy is instantly garbage music. That's not what it should be about..
    It is, but (for me anyway) it's sullied by the fact that it sounds like a modern band trying to do '70s Prog. So, it sounded more like they were crafting themselves to a certain style than adapting elements of that style to their way of songwriting. Still a good album though...
    I agree with you, that this album isn't something new for music. The argument that they were trying to do 70's Prog is pretty much in place. But I still think they pulled it off very well and I like the album. If you look at it like that Bloodbath(where Mikael used to do vocals) isn't something new for music. It is typical death metal but the way it is done in this group it's awesome to listen to even though it isn't something new, they did it well and that is still better than being something generic in my opinion.
    Does it need to be new and completely innovative? Have you ever heard of an homage? Mikael has always talked about his love for 70s prog bands like Camel and King Crimson and Comus. Hell, every soft part of their death metal songs sounds like something Andy Latimer would have written. The prog has always been a part of Opeth, they're just finally letting it fly.
    Yes, but comparing "Bloodbath" to Heritage doesn't really work...
    I am not comparing Bloodbath to Opeth, I am comparing the way the music was made. They took something that has been done and did it in their own way. Opeth and Bloodbath are not comparable.
    Ok, but I'm arguing they didn't really do '70s Prog Rock their way. They did how they thought it should be done, yes, but it still sounded and looked like a modern band doing '70s Prog Rock. There was nothing that put the Opeth stamp on it. Any other band today could have played it (note I said "played", not wrote; the composition itself was good), and it would have sounded the same. There wasn't much musical integrity to Heritage.
    Oh, then I kind of misunderstood, sorry. I can't exactly agree or disagree with that, as I do not know enough of 70's Prog. Could you recommend to me a few bands so I can compare ? =)
    hmm.. I would say King Crimson, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Yes would be a good start. Or maybe even something more modern like Steven Wilson's solo stuff.
    You forgot Emerson, Lake, and Palmer. Also, the Moody Blues' album "Days of Future Passed" is good. Of modern bands, try Porcupine Tree, Coheed and Cambria (after "Good Apollo IV" [not that their other albums weren't progressive, but after that album, there's more Prog elements]), The Mars Volta, Karnivool (not technical music, but definitly progressive), and Animals as Leaders.
    Thank you both I did do know of Porcupine Tree and Wilson from before, but I am going to check the others out =)
    Tell me, what IS the Opeth "stamp"? Does it have a tangible quality that can be quantified? I've listened to a lot of Opeth, and I can safely say that, while they do have a particular style, they've done a lot of different things in their career, and a move like Heritage wouldn't have surprised me five years ago either.
    In my opinion a band should explore new territory as much as possible. I find it enjoyable when a band tries new things.
    tell that to metallica fans.
    I'm a gigantic Metallica fan and Love load and Reload just as much as their earlier stuff
    What "St. Anger"? Because that was really their exploration phase. That and the Lou Reed collab that we don't speak of...
    I actually love St. Anger. It doesn't fit in with the rest of Metallica's discography and there's some awkwardness (that snare is still horrible) but it's a solid album that shows a different side of the band. The post-rock loving part of me really enjoys the repetitive, slowly evolving riffs that define that album. Lulu on the other hand is unredeemable. Just sounds like a metallica-influenced band with an awful drummer and no sense of musical structure let a homeless man mumble over one of their garage demos and then for some reason decided it was worth releasing.
    lulu was rather strange and shockingly unappealing in my opinion, but hey at least we now know that hetfield is the table
    OK, Heritage was a really different record, we got it UG. Stop throwing an article on the same matter every once in a while. I feel Opeth is becoming famous in this site only for the negative reviews of that album and I hate that. Opeth is not Axl Rose, Opeth doesn't feed on negative advertising.
    I think they're being a bit harsh... Damnation didn't have a single power chord on it, and fans ate that up.
    I loved Heritage, but then again, I'd consider myself more of a progressive (rock/metal) fan than a "metal" fan. I'd venture to guess those who are the opposite didn't like Heritage as much as I did. Even though those people may have felt "let down" because of the absence of Opeth's extreme metal side on Heritage, I like the direction of the band since Akesson's inclusion (Watershed/Heritage).
    Almost all the arguments that I've heard against Heritage have been "There's no growling, so it sucks".
    See my comment above. Most Prog Metal fans I've talked to (including me, though I don't talk to myself, lol) have an argument similar to mine.
    I think it's a freaking great album, and I love the new Opeth sound. It's refreshing to hear something new alongside the old work! I love bands experimenting with new sounds and different genre's. Keep up the great work!
    Well, to be fair, you can be open-minded and still not like something. Maybe that doesn't justify the outright hatred and vitriol, but it's still a valid opinion. Some music appeals to some people and other music appeals to others. It's really nothing to get up in arms about.
    It's always easier to blame backlash on the fans, even when you're a band like Opeth. If anyone was still following them because they were 'true metal', they probably killed themselves with Heritage, but what's more likely is they stopped listening to Opeth a long time ago. More power to them, or any band, to write whatever they want and be happy with it, but I hate seeing artists make excuses. Lots of Opeth fans are metal fans, but not all metal fans like or care about Opeth, so it's really disingenuous to pin this on metal as a whole or a closeminded community. For me personally, if Opeth puts out an album that sounds like 70s prog, I'm just going to cut out the middle man and listen to some prog.
    I am a music lover, en then its just a matter of taste. When i like the music from a band i might become a fan because i like their music. If the band changes it genre and i don't like it anymore, i'm not a fan anymore. I like metal. I can appreciate some other genres like classical music for example. But i just don't like jazz. I think i'm pretty open-minded as i can appreciate both metal and classical music. Some fans though are not music fans. For example: It doesn't matter what kind of music Justin Bieber would make. Many will stay fan of JB. Because its not primarily the music that they like so much. I think Opeth's fans are/were fan just because of their music, and not because of any other stuff.
    why is it that every ****ing metal fan I know says something along the lines of "I think i'm pretty open-minded as i can appreciate both metal and classical music." I appreciate that I probably know many wankers who are metal fans, and most metal fans are nice normal people, but why does stating you like classical music seen as like the ultimate show of credibility. Infact its not just limiited to classical music. People say i like metal, but i also appreciate jazz/ african tribal music/ rap (before it got commercialised of course) and all sorts of other unrelated genres to try and give themselves credibility, when talking about metal. if you can't make a cohesive defense about your specific music taste without name dropping different genres then you're an idiot. You are can say that you like one metal album, but disliked another metal album, WITHOUT jumping to defense by saying i like urm classical music as well. its like a get out of jail free card, and allows people like you to have unsubstantiated arguments. to be fair you made a reasonable post just now (if you hadn't included that classical music stuff) but anyone can make wild statements. Dio was shit, and ruined black sabbath,OZZY IS THE FUCKING KING - oh my opinion if valid because i like classical music... Everyone should just add "oh i like classical music, at the end of every single post they make" because i shows how smart they are." most people here probably like some other genre other then metal, and probably quite a few of them like classical music as well :O
    I don't think you really understand Metal fans, man...At all... It's not about what genres we like or dislike. Most Metalheads enjoy well-written music as a whole. When they dislike certain albums, it's probably because they don't find those albums to be well-written.
    my issue is not what music people like, its the pretentious way they defend it and laud there tastes over people, to add validity to their statements. so if you dislike a certain album, that a-okay, and i'm sure you have your reasons, but to say your opinion is more valid because you listen to classical music is bullshit for many reasons such as a) loads of people listen to classical music b) its just words with not reasoning or logical thought or musical argument, its just the words i like classical music so I'm open minded. c) so you if you don't listen to classical music you can't have a reasonable opinion about metal...of course you can.
    read what Second Rate commented below. He summed up what I was trying to in a much clearer better way!!!
    I have not been able to get into the new album personally. It just hasn't spoken to me in the way that other albums by them have. I'd never say a bad word about them for it, tho. If they did not make the music that they wanted to make in the first place, they may have never found a fan in me. I'll continue to pay attention to further releases, no doubt.
    heritage was amazing! changed styles completely but still had that signature dark opeth tone to it. genius
    depends on the type of metal fan i guess. if you look at mastodon, they've basically changed a LOT on every album, with a complete break in vocal style from blood mountain to crack the skye, and a very different way of song structures from that album to the hunter, yet the fans have praised all of the material for what it was: great music.
    In my opinion, you have to be pretty open minded to appreciate Opeth to begin with. Yeah, they are technically prog metal, but there are so many elements from different genres in their music. In all honesty, I believe that Heritage just doesn't live up to their previous releases.
    Modern Prog Metal and Post-Metal is pretty much like that. It has been since the '90s. But yeah, I agree; it's doesn't live up.
    "While discussing the sound shift Swedish metallers' made with their latest release" "the sound shift Swedish metallers' made" "Swedish metallers'" "metallers'" "'"
    I don't really think it's that much of an issue to be honest. Even among people's favorite bands, you rarely hear anyone say that they like the entire discography. It's possible to like the whole thing, but if a band puts out enough music eventually there's going to be an album you don't like either cuz it's the same stuff or because it changed into something you didn't like. People underestimate how hard it really is to retain the interest of people for an extend period of time, I mean like 10 years +. I love Opeth, like almost considered tattooing their logo on my back (teenage idiocy at work) but they have albums I don't care for, it's not a bad thing it's just the way things are.
    Exactly. It's always been like this. Change your sound, fans will complain... don't change your sound, fans will complain. "We want something new, fresh... no wait, we want our favorite album v2.0!" I'm sure the guys from Opeth fully understand that though, and were just venting some frustration. At least they didn't go all Cryptopsy on us, and really lay into the longtime fans.
    I listened to Heritage not really expecting anything, and I enjoyed it from the start. Expecting anything specific from Opeth will always end in disappointment- they're one of those bands that will always have a signature sound, but have a (freakin awesome) surprise at every turn.
    Taken from a notational and compositional perspective Heritage was absolutely brilliant and it wasn't that the fans aren't open-minded, it's that they expected something with a little more aggression. It takes time for certain people to adapt to Opeth's new sound since it's significantly different than their previous works. A good portion of Opeth's fans are metalheads and they tend to expect some growls, fast riffs and such.
    This. And of course, there is a difference between not liking an album because you genuinely dislike it and not liking it just because it's different. Personally, I think Heritage was a good record overall, but I don't like every song. Does that make me close-minded? I guess not.
    Just because it's compositionally brilliant doesn't mean it was well-done. It sounded like a modern band trying to do '70s Prog Rock -- rather than a modern band doing modern Prog.
    I don't think this is how you meant it but how would sounding more like modern prog instead be anymore original or any better for their integrity, there a modern band that wanted to play 70s style prog, pointing out that that's what they sound like as an argument just brings us back to the fact that it's all just a matter of subjective taste. What I'm hearing is "They sacrificed the integrity of their music by playing what they wanted to play instead of what I thought they where prepared to pull off as a band", I'm not saying it's wrong to have that opinion, just don't make an ass of yourself by pretending it's a intellectual argument that transcends personal taste.
    No, they sacrificed their musical integrity because Heritage, in an effort to sound like '70s Prog, has several parts where it's obvious they didn't know what to do. So, they just filled those parts with stop-gaps, compositionally. It sounds ok, but not as good as it could have been. As flying piranha (see below) put it, "It felt like they weren't quite sure what to put in place of the heavy parts."
    Emperor's Child
    I liked Damnation a lot more than Deliverance but Heritage hasn't really resonated with me. Call me 'closed-minded' if you like Frederik but I listen to all sorts of non-death metal, whether it's King Crimson, The Mars Volta or Dead Can Dance.
    Emenius Sleepus
    The problem is not close-minded fans, but that the music on Heritage is sub-standard. They already did something similar with Damnation, and that was one of their better received albums, with no harsh vocal in sight at that.
    Caught them at Pop's in STL last night. Caught one of Mikael's pics. I like Heritage. The differences didn't bother me much. But when I saw them a year and a half ago on that tour and they played no songs with extreme vocals, that was disappointing. It's unique juxtapositions like that that initially made me a raging Opeth fan. To not hear that live kinda blew. Anyway, their song selection last night was much improved. Badass show.
    It's not close minded, it's just opinion! And my opinion is that it was clear in Watershed that the musical integrity and creative ingenious in Opeth was diminishing and that was emphasised further in heritage. It's got nothing to do with it lacking heavy stuff. Damnation is one of their best albums and that hasn't got a heavy moment in sight! I don't think Heritage is dark at all, I just think it's poor. But, it's all opinion
    I don't get the dislike for Watershed or the so called change in direction that is supposedly so apparent. The first 3 tracks off Watershed blow me away every time and theres some other great work on there too. It doesn't sound different to me at all but like you say its all opinion. With regards to Heritage there was an obvious shift in style/momentum but I still enjoyed it. The problem I had with it was that it spawned some tremendously dull live performances from them for a while but I think that's been re-addressed now.
    Mikael said himself in interviews before the release of Watershed that what he was writing has a very different tonality; using more major chords instead of minor chords for one. I'm not saying Watershed is bad. I think it's pretty good, got some great moments on it (the first 2 tracks are flipping awesome!) but it's very different from their other stuff. Change in itself is not a bad thing, in fact change for the sake of change is bad. But year, I was happy to hear their next album has some of the old flavours in it
    Using more major chords instead of minor chords doesn't equate to loss of musical integrity. Besides, I can't think of a bad track on that album.
    Watershed actually didn't cause a loss of musical integrity for me. In Heritage, there was certainly a loss of musical integrity though.
    For me, it was just because the songwriting simply wasn't there to make it a good record. It felt like they weren't quite sure what to put in place of the heavy parts.
    I like heritage. LIKED. See the thing i loved about opeth was/is the contrasts of heavy and death metal-y parts with the soft and beautiful parts. With no heavy it was all soft and while it was all good it wasnt damnation good. Still good music but its the kinda music i fall asleep to. And that isnt a bad thing its relaxing as hell but i remember trying to fall asleep to damnation and not being able to. id have to stay awake cause it was soo good. My 2 cents.
    Exactly! I can appreciate wanting to go in a different direction, but the music just wasn't *there* for me personally.To me the songs meandered without introducing many interesting ideas. They didn't command my attention in anything close to the way others such as Damnation, Morningrise or Blackwater Park did. Good music? Yes. Great music? I don't think so.
    I've been a fan since Blackwater Park and damn me if I didn't love Heritage. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of most "Extreme Metal" out there. I love Opeth because of three simple reasons. 1) They aren't afraid to be experimental, even if it "fails" for them. 2) They are consistent despite their changes, the sound remains the same over all albums. 3) They are a very talented band and each play off each others strengths. As long as they stick to that, I'll always be a fan. I'd gladly take another Blackwater Park or Damnation, either direction is okay with me.
    I consider myself pretty open-minded concerning music, and while Heritage has some cool parts, I haven't been able to get into it like all their other releases. I am one of those who loves Watershed. I totally understand not wanting to do the exact same thing, and I don't mind no growls or fast playing, but for me there is something missing in the compositions which makes it not sound like Opeth to me. I think it's that the guitar parts are too subdued and don't have the great riffs I have come to expect. From the first day Heritage was released until now, I still think it should have been a Akerfeldt solo project or something like Storm Corrosion and not released as an Opeth record.
    I think I'm lucky in some sense that I don't really care what genre a piece of music is, all that matters to me is if I like it or not - I am huge fans of many metalbands so I guess some would label me as a metalhead - but that shit bothers me, since metalhead suggests that I almost exclusively listen to metal, and all my favorite bands are metal, which is certainly not the case for me. Right now, my favorite band is actually Radiohead, and it has been so for 3 years, before that it was Alice in chains/Nirvana (I just couldn't decide between them), and before that Metallica, and throughout each "favorite band" phase, I always listened to all kinds of genres beside the one of the favorite band. If I was forced to narrow down the "music-fan" term I often use to describe my taste, I guess it would be simply rock, metal, jazz, eletronica, ambience, and occasionally a bit of pop (I own two Coldplay albums, which stand next to my Meshuggah collection, enough said). I guess my point is that I find it so strange that people are incapable of listning to other types of music. All people ever have to do is simply give the music a chance, and with a band simply find a song that you like, and then work it out from there (I initally didn't care much for Radiohead, and frankly loathed some of their songs until I heard "Let down" and "Climbing up the walls" which somehow managed to blow my mind). I neither liked Heritage to start with, but I found the songs I liked, gave it some time, it grew on me, and now I think it's an amazing record! People just have to abandon their stereotypes of a genre/band/record, and not just give up after a few listens...
    Most people do give it a chance and they end up disliking it. I gave Heritage a chance and found it very boring with multiple flaws, that does not mean I'm close minded or I listen to a very small amount of music, which the latter is not really a flaw.
    Why is it that bands like to blame it on their fans when they make a shit album? Instead of owning up and admitting that the album isn't so great...
    I have always felt that there are two distinct groups of metal fans: the meat-heads and the longhairs. The meat heads love moshing and heavy grinding riffs, but aren't as open to progressive type music. The longhairs are pseudo intellectuals who love progressive type metal, but can be a bit uppity.
    ...What? And then there are the people who just listen to whatever they like and don't try to classify every single thing. The fact you've invented names for these two types of people (who don't even exist in my opinion), is just hilarious.
    Here we observe the "Generalizing Human" in his natural environment, putting large groups of people into simple and unrealistic classifications because he thinks it works. Of course, any logical individual (read: non-Generalizing Human) would see that the reasons the Generalizing Human puts people into such classifications is arbitrary most of the time. Next time on "Humans and Shit They Do", the "Dwarwinian Human: An Exploration of People Who Die in a Stupid Manner"!
    I was being factitious, of course. Opeth got so much shit from fans because they are evolving away from Blackwater Park to something completely different.
    Different is fine; we LOVE different. But we also love Metal, and Heritage was NOT Metal.
    Second Rate
    I love "interesting" and Opeth just haven't been interesting in a long time. 70s prog has already been done, and done better, by other bands..... in the 70s. If Opeth are intent and content on being a long winded version of Wolfmother, well i say good for them, but don't expect me to goosestep along. I think Dark Tranquility has a new one coming out... think i'll spend my money on that instead of whatever watered down retro shit Opeth is limping to the barn with this time.
    "I love "interesting" and Opeth just haven't been interesting in a long time." This is opinion. The rest of what you said is rather ridiculous. You're what we like to call a fan of specific albums, not a fan of the band.
    Second Rate
    How is it ridiculous? Isn't that what he is essentially saying? That because I liked this band's earlier material, I should force myself to like the new material regardless of what I see as a protracted drop off in quality and an attempt to hitch a wagon to the whole retro rock thing? If Fredrik and Mikael are going to get sooo uppity and whiny over negative opinions... then maybe they should consider a career change. I'm sure they could use a few accountants over in Sweden.
    Metalheads are closed minded dipsh*ts, "tr00e metal, death to posers and **** bands like RHCP!!!!" I ****ing hate their attitude.
    Have you noticed that EVERY genre has fans like that? Jazz, classical, punk, pop, you name it... They all have a handful of crazed, elitist fans.
    I'm a Metalhead who likes RHCP... Anyway, you obviously have no idea how Metalheads actually are. There's morons in every group, and you seem to how run afoul of some in Metal. Quit judging all of us because of them please.
    Not every metalhead is like that, you can find people like that in every genre of music. I do agree, that people who say things that you have written(about any genre) aren't open minded. Crazysam23_... you beat me to it
    Im a metalhead who like RHCP, to stuff like Incubus, Sublime, Yellowcard, and Foo Fighters. Your argument is invalid.
    Second Rate
    Honestly, who cares? I'm a metalhead who doesn't feel the need to name off a list of arbitrary alt rock bands in an attempt to convince idiots like solidrevolver19 that i conform to their definition of "open minded." I can't stand the Red Hot Chili Peppers... boohoo. Can't stand anything Opeth have released in years, oh well. Perhaps Fredrik and Mikael should stick to making music for the neo hippie crowd and stop bitching about us old fans. After all, to hear Mike talk... it seems they feel we've outlived our usefulness anyway.
    Saying that only disproves your own point. Way to go! XD
    Second Rate
    Please. You kids throw that stupid ass phrase "closed-minded" around all the time and all you mean when you say it is "you don't like exactly the same bands and the same albums that I do." I am pretty far from "closed-minded" when it comes to music. I am also, however, what you would call an "unapologetic metalhead." I don't feel the need to use the non metal material i own, listen to, and enjoy as a way to justify my being a metal fan to "outsiders" or whatever term you wanna use. Understand? When you sit here and say things like "oh, i like metal, but i also like (insert arbitrary list here)" it doesn't give you some type of air of legitimacy. It makes you look like a pathetic approval seeker.
    FINALLY, someone making sense. Second Rate is 100% correct. i refer you to my earlier comments.
    I listen to BTBAM and RHCP, two polar opposites if you ask me. Your argument is invalid my good sir, suck my genitals.
    Hardcore fans of anything usually get high and mighty after a while. I dig their sound.
    I still don't get why metalheads hate bands who explore music... especially when the band does it so awesomely
    here's a true fan test, listen to any song from Heritage then listen to Morningrise: To bid you farewell' in its entirety. Something is seriously wrong here. Heritage has no emotion. Tell me I'm wrong, go on...
    lets face it, Heritage just didn't work. IMO it sounded forced and un-natural, I was extremely disappointed when I heard it and never managed to listen to it in its entirety. Not because of the style of music or because of my so called "closed mind" , just simply because they were shit songs. Sorry Opeth, I have loved every other album right from the beginning but Heritage was a massive fail.
    Just saw them in Athens. Amazing musicians and mikael was great with the crowd, I was amazed at the quality of the show, I was not disappointed
    Holy shit saw them in Athens a couple of weeks ago, amazing,amazing show
    I enjoyed Heritage,Opeth has a sort of rarity with their composition musicaly.And Bogwraith Go f$#@ yourself,,have a nice day!
    Heritage was great. Thats the kind of album that keeps a band from getting stale. Now, of course I am a huge prog fan and I would love for them to put out another album like Heritage, but I would be equally happy with an album like Still Life or Orchid.
    Opeth: the moderately interesting prog band fronted by a guy tragically obsessed with death metal.
    Second Rate
    Opeth: The moderately interesting death metal band fronted by a guy tragically obsessed with bad prog.
    I reckon the majority of metal fans are generally more open minded than casual music fans but I do tend to agree. The reaction to The Strokes new album is a good example of fans being critical of change. Heritage is another good example actually.
    I actually have no problem with Heritage, honestly, I've grown to like it and their non-metal material in general is pretty good too.
    What? They take some generic and uninteresting Extreme Metal and haphazardly throw in uninspiring Progressive elements into it whenever they damn well please. Then they remove the generic and uninteresting Extreme Metal and all they're left with is the uninspiring Prog, and are baffled when people don't like it? Poor Opeth. They're not a good Metal band because their Metal is lacklustre, and they're not accepted in Prog forums because King Crimson/Camel/actual Prog fans don't like it when Progressive elements are half-assedly thrown into music willy-nilly. The hate isn't from "close-minded" Metal fans (trust me, speak ill of Opeth near any group of "metalheads", and you'll be called an elitist who doesn't understand). It's from people who actually like good Metal and Prog.
    You're kind of don't get it, do you? If you think Opeth's compositions (any part of them are generic), then you apparently don't know the definition of generic when applied to today's realms of modern Prog and modern Metal. If you want generic, there's about 50 bands down the block who more perfectly fit that than Opeth. Your comment makes me think you haven't really ever seriously listened to Opeth. You probably gave it a spin or two on YouTube and (because you weren't actively listening) failed to hear it properly.
    It's generic in the fact that I could go back around 20+ years and find Progressive music that is infinitely more interesting and better put together than anything Opeth has done. But don't think I'm just targeting Opeth on this. It seems to be a genre-wide problem, in which a large majority of Progressive Metal bands are simply inferior to their Progressive Rock counter-parts. Why listen to some crappy band that thinks being as soft and 2deep4u as possible is "Progressive", especially a band like Opeth, whose Progressive stints sound like they were shoe-horned in last minute, when you can just listen to Comus? You want extreme Metal with a Progresssive side?