From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Opeth is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 17, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 7, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
February 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
March 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Metal (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Sweden (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Progressive Rock (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Rock music (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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[edit]

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)

The Associated Acts section currently violates the guidelines provided at Template:Infobox Musical artist#Associated_acts. As I read them, only Bloodbath and Steel (band) should be linked:

  • Groups with one member in common should not be listed. This means Katatonia, Krux, Nifelheim, Sörskogen, Satanic Slaughter, Spiritual Beggars, Witchery and Amon Amarth should be removed.
  • Porcupine Tree should not be listed:
    • Steven Wilson acted as producer on three Opeth albums and provided some vocals and lyrics. But he did this as Steven Wilson, not as Porcupine Tree.
    • Åkerfeldt performed guitar and vocals on Deadwing. But he did this as Åkerfeldt, not as Opeth.
    • Steven Wilson and Mikael Åkerfeldt are collaborating on a new project, but it is a Wilson/Åkerfeldt collaboration, not a Porcupine Tree/Opeth collaboration.
    • Associating the two bands like this simply because Wilson is the lead songwriter in Porcupine Tree would suggest we should also list No-Man, I.E.M., Blackfield and Bass Communion as associated acts.
So there may be an argument for associating Åkerfeldt and Porcupine Tree, but there is only a direct association between Opeth and Steven Wilson. The guidelines state producers should not be listed unless the band essentially "belong" to the producer. So I don't think Steven Wilson should be listed, either.
  • Both Bloodbath and Steel feature two Opeth band members; they should be listed.

I have come to these conclusions simply by consulting the relevant guidelines. If nobody disagrees I will go ahead and implement these changes. Una LagunaTalk 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has disagreed with these suggestions as yet, so I will be bold and implement these changes. Una LagunaTalk 09:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

makes sense but has other bands like has katatonia, amon amarth as related acts. M4pnt (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit: points of clarification[edit]

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?[edit]

??? (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?[edit]

I won't argue that Opeth is definitely prog metal but it used to also say they were melodic death metal, which they what happened to that? (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 (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)

If your going to put melodeath, put early in brackets, as their albums Orchid amd Morningrise use dual leads which are usually associated with melodic death metal, but aren't really used after that —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Death metal (progressive, grindcore, or other sub-genres) have "Death Beat" apart from the Blast Beat into their music. Death Beats are what signifies a death metal band apart from the vocals. Death notes are another. And Opeth doesn't uses Death Beat. So Opeth is not any to all the sub-genres of Death. ````Milaan KB

A few points:

  1. Don't post in old conversations.
  2. Don't delete other conversations just to put your edit on the page.
  3. I'm a death metal fan, and I've never heard of any kind of "death beat" that defines death metal. It's bullshit.
  4. Grindcore is not a subgenre of death metal.

--LordNecronus (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

3 and BTBAM[edit]

Why does it say I cant add BTBAM or 3? theyre also on the progressive nation tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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)
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)

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

Prog death[edit]

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


Opeth is not death metal, they are technical death metal, They are never described as Death metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodfall (talkcontribs) 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 (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). (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,[1],[2],[3]. These are just the results i got from entering "Opeth Death metal" into google news. Here is the full results[4]. 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. 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") 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)

Has anyone considered that with this whole debate, as with any band that transcends genre in the way Opeth does, that using the widest of the plausible genre designations is often the best. Progressive Death Metal, or maybe even Progressive Metal, is surely the best way to sum up Opeth's sound. It is true that they are not a "typical" Progressive Death group, but the word "typical" has very little meaning when applied to a progressive genre. The advanatage is that using ProgDM or ProgM you include all Opeth's music. "Damnation" for instance is perfectly within the genre of ProgM or ProgDM as that genere allows for such sounds, wheras though Melodeath may be a slightly better way of describing some of Opeth's music, it falls well off the mark with other items in Opeth's discography. So, even though Melodeath could maybe be argued to better describe some of Opeth's music than ProgDM or ProgM, those two are better terms because at no point does Opeth's music fall outside of their limits. Better to give a genre description that sums up the entirety of their music reasonably well (to the best extent one can sum up such a band) rather than try and find a load of different genres for all their different styles. If you do that the arguments will never end because you'll always be able to find something Opeth have done which is outside the remits of any such specific genre label as Melodeath. "Progressive" has become a nice get-out clause that doesn't really tie you down to anything these days, and the very fact that there is such difficulty putting a genre to Opeth is evidence in itself for the use of the term. Duster (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Article too US-centric?[edit]

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)


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?[edit]

Hi there. Just a note: the article contains a [citation needed] 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! -- (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting that this article is a featured article. Cool. BTC 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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?[edit]

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 (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me...[edit]

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 (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. (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 (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)
It's not that anyone is insulting Opeth by calling them a death metal band. They are death metal. You are insulting many death metal bands by saying death metal is garbage. It's not. You don't know anything about it if you think that. I don't think Opeth is "trained," although they are a great band. There is a video with Mikael playing some chord that he says he uses a lot, and he doesn't know what chord it is. Mason092 (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Prog death[edit]

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)

Sorry to say but I cannot see similarities between Opeth and other technical death metal bands. I think calling them that is too extreme.

I believe they should be called "Darkened Progressive Metal/Rock". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordah16 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The truth is technical death metal is a most common and sourced name for progressive death metal.However we are looking for verifibility and as it is simply a redirect ot techdeath, this is what they must be called as wiki says progressive death metal does not exist Syxxpackid420 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction- description of Opeth.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.[edit]

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 (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 (talkcontribs) 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" —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhisperedConjuration (talkcontribs) 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Opeth have a number of songs which aren't metal, even and an entire album they have a justified progressive rock tag. (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
And we must not forget that a lot of their songs have progressive rock influences, even though they're heavy metal. I tend to refer to Master's Apprentices, A Fair Judgement, Hessian Peel, The Night and the Silent Water, and even more. Almost any Opeth song has a number of progressive rock elements.
So I think the genre progressive rock in the infobox is correct, and should not be removed. Paul Pl (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I, too, think that progressive death metal and progressive rock are what best describes Opeth. They're a death metal band, but by no means 100% death metal. They have songs that aren't even close to death metal, and it is not rare to find one. This is some seriously overdone crap; I like the genre descriptions the way they are. There was a huge controversy about this same thing on the Watershed (Opeth album) page before and after it was released. Heck, it was just a few days ago whenyet another anonymous user edited the infobox's genre information to fit their own opinions. How much further does this need to be debated? I say no further. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to combine the 1208937081702857 different discussions on this page discussing this single issue into one, as its quite confusing. Hasn't anyone read the article before posting a new heading talking about an issue that has a million headings for it already? Duster (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


I've actually never seen or come across sales figures for any of their albums, except one time where I read that Ghost Reveries had sold 90,000 copies in the US. Are there any figures out there? Revan ltrl (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not Progressive Death Metal[edit]

I'm sorry to bring up this discussion again, as I see its been debated a fair bit previously, but the 'Proressive Death Metal' discription of Opeth's music on the top right of their page is not referenced, and I really don't think it is correct. I would argue that the label 'Progressive x' implies some sort of evolution FROM POINT X (and not point y, for instance). In this way Progressive Death Metal would be an evolution from Death Metal (not Heavy Metal) and Progressive Metal wuld be an evolution from Heavy Metal. If this is true, then opeth is Progressive Metal, because they have evolved from a Heavy Metal, not a Death Metal one. Opeth were never like death, obituary, possessed, deicide, etc. They did not work in the more atonal intervals that pure Death Metal bands like the former did/do. Orchid, Morningrise etc are not like the works of death, obituary etc, obviously. These early albums from Opeth use much more 'melodic' intervals mirroring Progressive Rock/Metal. (Death Growls does not necessarily = death metal). Additionally, their heavy use of twin guitar harmonies in their early days also points to a Heavy Metal, rather than Death Metal, platform, as do their strumming techniques which do not mirror typical death metal techniques characterised by 'start stop' abruptness and also tremello picking. Another line of argument would be to compare opeth with bands that are uncontroversially Progressive Death Metal like Suffocation, Gorguts and early Cryptopsy (based on the wikipedia entry fro 'Progressive Death Metal') I would also include Immolation here. Modern Opeth sound nothing like these bands. The former have evolved from death metal whereas Opeth has evolved from heavy metal and prog rock (with superficial death metal elements like death growls and the odd death metal riff or passage here and there). I would like to throw open this discussion again. Cheers -David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

By "heavy metal", you mean traditional heavy metal, right? (I love the assumption that death metal has nothing to do with trad metal.) Opeth don't sound much like Death and Obituary, true, but their sound is far closer to those two bands than it is to the likes of Maiden and Priest. They also sound nothing like "traditional" prog metal bands, like Queensryche and Dream Theater. Opeth's origins were in death metal, they evolved (ie. progressed) from death metal, they are progressive death metal (and the main exponents of it). (Two minor gripes that have nothing to do with this debate: Suffocation and Immolation are not progressive death metal, and you need to avoid large walls of text like that.) Overall, though, arguments don't matter here - they just get nasty. I haven't checked for sources calling Opeth "progressive death metal" yet, but they obviously exist somewhere. When I find a source, I'll add it to the genre infobox. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting on those sources. David. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Good for you. --LordNecronus (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a bit rude there. Anyway, Opeth are referred to all over the article as prog-death (probably sourced, I haven't checked in detail). After I "promised" to go and find a source, I took a look at the article and realised that I didn't need to find another source identifying them as such. And, really, is it that controversial to call them "progressive death metal"? Contesting their status as prog-death is like contesting Kyuss' status as stoner metal. --LordNecronus (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
the issue is that Opeth do not represent a progression of straight death metal like bands such as Gorguts do, to pick one example (who's progressive tendencies are heard within their death metal, while opeth's are heard as prog rock 'interludes' inbetween bursts of metal vice versa). Opeth mix death metal and progressive rock, but they don't advance either generes on their own, sorry. It does a disservice to progressive death metal bands to think otherwise. Some people are advocating 'progressive death metal' as a label simply by joining the labels 'death metal' and 'progressive'. This would be fine if there weren't progressive death metal bands in their own right who are something different from a mere conjuction of prog rock and (death) metal! They advance the musicality of death metal itself. Think about it. It would be a shame if you could provide references that they are, but until that time shouldn't the label be removed? David


I apologize for my disruptive editing, but only now I realized that users Lordnecronus (talk · contribs) (sorry, but he or she is a typical genre warrior; According its user page, he is also a TV Tropes contributor, and "[he] seem to spend more time there than [he] do here. Over there, you don't need reliable sources, which pleases [him].) and Nymf (talk · contribs) are the "owners" of this article. Aside from this, they are constantly reverting the removal of original research while insist on keeping a hidden note "created" by myself. Wikipedia does not have an article on "progressive death metal," but the users mentioned above are insisting on maintaining one of the genres of Opeth as "technical death metal," which is contradictory because the article does not mention this.--Cannibaloki 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My editing styles on here and over on TV Tropes are different (you know, due to the fucking rules of this site). I really wish people would get that in their heads. You know why I prefer TV Tropes? It's because over there I don't get accused of being a genre warrior just because I reverted disruptive edits. You want to accuse me or any other users of bad form, take it to our talk pages; don't spam an article's talk page with this shit. --LordNecronus (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I resent that label, Cannibaloki. Please assume good faith. See WP:NPA. The current form is the consensus, which has been established through editing and discussion. Have a look at Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building if you do not know how to handle a situation like this´, and remember - the policy applies to everyone, even you who "created the note," whatever that has to do with things. Nymf hideliho! 09:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't revert due to "no consensus".--Cannibaloki 16:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That's an essay, which is the opinion of one user. Nymf hideliho! 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
That applies perfectly to you, a revert warrior. Your edits speak for themselves.--Cannibaloki 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact remains that the mini-edit war has in fact stopped and we're discussing it on the talk page. I don't think we need to carry on accusing people of being genre warriors, let's try and reach a consensus here and now. ~ mazca talk 18:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Cannibaloki, I have asked you nicely, and I'll do it again - please comment on content, not the contributor. I am hardly an edit warrior with one revert. Anyway, here's one source using the term "progressive death metal." Nymf hideliho! 20:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The prose in the article seems to generally support three genres - "progressive rock", "progressive metal", and "death metal" - and it may be that simply having those three listed in the infobox is the best way forward. It seems, to me, reasonable to combine the latter two and call them "progressive death metal", but I agree that some prose in the Musical Style section supporting it with actual references needs to be included. The infobox should simply summarise the contents of the article, not introduce new unreferenced synthesis. Wikipedia not having an article on "progressive death metal" is not necessarily an impediment to including it, but we need sources specifically describing Opeth as that phrase. ~ mazca talk 10:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As announced in 2009: No Opeth summer tour 2010[edit]

Mikael said last summer (2009) from the stage here in Toronto that there would be no tour in 2010.
Two Wikipedians attempted to add that news to this article.
In both cases, it was deleted by Cannibaloki.
Thanks for suppressing news of interest to readers, Varlaam (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, as Cannibaloki knew, the Toronto show was right at the beginning of the Opeth tour.
All C. had to do was slap a [citation needed] label onto this information. Then, later, when Mikael makes the exact same stage announcement from Cleveland, or New Jersey, or Edmonton, or wherever, then a Cleveland fan can get a nice quotation or citation from his local college newspaper, and add it to the article.
This is reasonable, because there is absolutely nothing controversial about this news. There is no hidden agenda here. Exactly as I said to C. last summer.
But if someone in Oklahoma City is thinking, "I can't afford to see the show this year, so I'll wait until next year", then just maybe that fan wants to read this little news item.
C. insisted in his rather uncivil fashion that this controversy-free news item must have a citation.
So I asked the only Toronto reporter I could find who had attended the show to back me up.
Except she had to leave to file her story. She left before the end which is when Mikael made his announcement.
But she had interviewed the band before the concert. So when I told her what Mikael had said, she said "Oooooooh." Because she now understood a casual remark one of the other band members had made which she hadn't understood at the time.
But, still, she had not actually heard Mikael's announcement.
So I emailed Opeth's record company asking for confirmation or denial of this report that there would be no Opeth tour in North America in the summer of 2010.
And the record company, naturally, did not respond, other than to put me on a stupid mailing list which I have now been on for a year.
Thanks, C., for the overkill on the vigilance.
When information is not controversial, it does not need to be treated like offensive information that will get Wikipedia sued.
Your pal in Toronto, age 49, Varlaam (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A Few Things[edit]

  • 1. Shouldn't the origin of this band be listed as Taby since the founding member and others are from there?
  • 2. has anyone come across who those other members who were of the band in the beginning? I got names but I don't know exactly who was in the band.
  • 3. Why aren't the previous members of this band not listed on the main template? Someone plez respond on my talk page. M4pnt (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Täby is an urban area/locality in Stockholm, so no - Stockholm is correct. Only the main members are listed, as the people you are referring to left the band after 1 or 2 gigs. Nymf hideliho! 19:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So why can't we be super specific? the other members were still members. M4pnt (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they aren't very notable. They are listed at List of Opeth band members anyway. Nymf hideliho! 11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't make a person more important than another. I've said it before that people deserve chances. I just don't find it fair that others are listed in the template than others. There's tons of non-notable stuff on wiki. What makes this any different? M4pnt (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people are more important than others - that's what Wikipedia's notability criteria are all about. In response to you comment: There's tons of non-notable stuff on wiki. What makes this any different?, see Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#General avoidance principle. That many other articles do not follow Wikipedia's guidelines does not make it okay for us to ignore them as well. Una LagunaTalk 07:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a nice thing to say. I wish I can make people notable here but then we have others who won't accept it. As for the other subject, glad to hear you talk about the rules. M4pnt (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing; influences[edit]

"Influenced at a young age by heavy metal bands such as Slayer, Death, Black Sabbath, Celtic Frost, King Diamond, Morbid Angel, and most importantly Judas Priest."

What I take issue with is the "most importantly Judas Priest" part. Is saying Priest was Akerfeldt's most important early influence an accurate statement? I'd say no, but if someone could give me a good reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It could be WP:OR, best to have the "and most importantly" line removed • GunMetal Angel 11:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong template in my edit summary[edit]

I meant Template:Infobox musical artist, not album. My mistake. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Next time do a dummy edit explaining instead of making it a talk page thread. • GunMetal Angel 11:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for the link! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Rock or metal opening?[edit]

There are some users that believe the opening should be "Opeth is a Swedish rock band" instead of "heavy metal band", and there's others that disagree. My personal view is that the opening should be "rock band" hence the fact that metal is a subgenre of rock, thus this is also going by the guideline of WP:NPOV along with keeping in mind that Opeth have several non-metal songs as well. Damnation is not the only non-metal material they have. "Hours of Wealth" is an exceptionally calm prog rock track off of Ghost Reveries. "For Absent Friends" is also a really calm track off of what's called their heaviest and deathly release ever, and "Patterns in the Ivy" is a soft rock song from Blackwater Park. May I also say that these songs are just scratching the surface of their prog rock library, and this bonus point is even besides the main subject because needless to say, "rock" follows a more generic neutral point without having to dig around into furthering other people calling them a "progressive death metal" band even though even their newest record contains no death metal and not to mention that this band follows about the sense of prog bands more than metal bands, reminiscent of Pink Floyd whom have their lead "rock band" and not "progressive rock band". Not to mention, even if you further consider Opeth a metal band, keep in mind there's many other heavy metal bands in Wikipedia that have their lead as "rock band" such as Black Sabbath and Motörhead. It's kind of plainfully obvious to have Opeth's lead as "rock" because this summarizes everything before going into the article and it's not like there isn't this huge section dedicating into naming off what the band gets labeled musically anyway. • GunMetal Angel 18:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First, the lead should summarize the article. Thus, whatever genre(s) is/are given in the lead should summarize what is said in Opeth#Musical style and influences (and to a lesser extent, the infobox). Cutting past all the "Akerfeldt listens to this band and that album" stuff, the first musical style info given is "Opeth's distinct sound mixes death metal with acoustic passages, while also incorporating elements of progressive metal[59] and progressive rock.[60]". After that comes several sentences expanding on this, mentioning other styles the band incorporates. Akerfeldt's quote says that the band doesn't "just" play death metal or "just" play "metal music", implying that they do in fact play death metal/metal, and that they experiment on that style by incorporating other styles.
Looking at the infobox, there are three agreed-upon genres listed: progressive death metal, progressive metal, and progressive rock.
In the archives, I found this (note: it's dated 2007, so if anyone has more up-to-date sources, please feel free to post them): Talk:Opeth/Archive 2#Making the genre verifiable. There, the terms given include "progressive", "progressive metal", "Swedish death metal", "Swedish prog-metal", "death metal", and a few other variations on those themes.
I don't think calling them a "rock" band is really accurate in this article. Yes, they do sometimes play rock. Yes, they don't always play metal. But I think this band has more in common with Iron Maiden or Death than they do Nickelback or Foo Fighters, and so I don't think calling them "rock" in the lead is accurate. And while people have been claiming that "rock is the mother genre", it's actually the grandmother genre. "Heavy metal" is the mother genre, and all the little children (death metal, prog-metal, black metal, metalcore, etc etc etc) come from that (and some of these children are already old enough to have children of their own, ie melo-death/prog-death/tech-death/gore-death etc). Calling Opeth "rock" in the lead is misleading to readers.
To summarize, the main styles given in the article, talk page archive and infobox include "progressive", "metal", and "death metal". However, since "death metal" seems to show up sometimes in their music, but not always, we can summarize further and remove "death metal". I think the lead should include "progressive", as pretty much every source brings up that term, and all three infobox genres use "progressive". Secondly, there is enough support from sources for "metal". Therefore, I think the lead should say "Opeth is a Swedish progressive metal band...". If readers want to know how they are progressive and/or metal, they can check out the Musical Styles section, or they can click on the progressive metal wikilink. In the progressive metal article, Opeth's name comes up several times, and the article itself explains what progressive metal is (obviously). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Found another source for "progressive metal" (from the Heritage article): MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
So, any objection to me making this change? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the main problem with classifying Opeth in this article is the fact that Opeth has a multi-genre diversity in their discography and even per some albums. However, Wikipedia is meant to be understood by someone with a very basic knowledge of things. Because of this, it is best to classify the band as "heavy metal", because most of their work, their first six albums and their eight album are a variant of heavy metal, at times progressive, at times death, and in their earlier work, even influenced by Black Metal. However, black, death and progressive are ultimately variations of Heavy Metal, the core genre from which Opeth's work is rooted. So to keep it simple, leave it "Heavy Metal" and we can go into further detail about that in the "band sound" subsections. --Rainroom (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, fine by me. If consensus changes to support "progressive metal", I fully support that, but "heavy metal" works for the lead too. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Generally when a band encompasses a wide variety of sounds, its best to use rock, then expand on that. Rock is not inaccurate in this article, as even Death Metal is a form of rock. A significant amount of Opeth material could never be classified as heavy metal, so it doesn't make sense to give them that more specific label when it doesn't apply to a good portion of their catalogue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That seems too generic. I mean, some of their material could never even be classified as "rock", so what then? "Pop music"? And as I suggested earlier, "this band has more in common with Iron Maiden or Death than they do Nickelback or Foo Fighters". Considering most of their career has featured metal in one form or another, "heavy metal" is sufficiently distilled enough to explain the band over most of their career, without going into too much detail (where the Musical Style section can take over). Even the infobox has two instances of "metal" to only one instance of "rock", and most of the album infoboxes feature the word "metal" in there somewhere. I have to oppose "rock" in the lead as being misleading and not specific enough to the majority of the band's career. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Keeping it as heavy metal is fine, in my opinion. It is unspecific (covering the general style of their music), but yet not as vague as just rock. Nymf hideliho! 00:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the lede to pick one of many styles to highlight. Rock is generic, but that is the point - it encompasses all of the subgenres that they play, and it gives no preference to any of them. What songs could you not classify as some form of rock? Its up to the body of the article to indulge the reader's craving for indepth knowledge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how WP:UNDUE applies here (I couldn't find anything in UNDUE that mentioned the lead, only about including minority viewpoints in an article, and I hardly think "Opeth is heavy metal" is a minority viewpoint, given the large number of sources calling them "metal"). Can you provide a quote that shows how you think it applies? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, one of the most important parts of it: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.
In other words proportional representation. Metal certainly has the majority, but is it fairly representing the entirety? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
"Is it fairly representing the entirety?" Yes. Yes, it is. Nymf hideliho! 07:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Nymf. But I think we're getting off-topic here, WP:UNDUE applies to minority viewpoints in an article, not how to properly summarize an article in the lead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with classifying it as rock. I have a hard time seeing someone being able to classify their first 4 albums as "rock" instead of heavy metal. Metal (with growling) was Opeth's starting point and inspiration, the sound of everything from Orchid, Morningrise, M.A.Y.H, Still Life and vast passages from Blackwater Park, Deliverance, Ghost Reveries, and even Watershed prove it. Later on, starting with Still Life and coming to the now recognizable form in Blackwater Park, they did indeed start to include rock elements and elements of the other generes more fully and more completely, and yet Metal was and (with the exception of Deliverance and Heritage) still is the norm. Any "rock-ish" or "rock-influenced" sound was an evolution, not the starting point for Opeth's sound. --Rainroom (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
One more thing: When a band puts out an uncharacteristic record, such as the recent Heritage, it does not mean that they have changed wholly as a band. The overwhelming majority, 8 out of the 10 albums are heavy metal and have growling. Just because their latest album is what can be considered prog-rock, does not mean that Opeth is a prog-rock band. Almost all of their work is Metal with progressive elements, and as such Opeth, in wikipedia's formatting, stylistic terms is a Heavy Metal band. --Rainroom (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Opeth timeline[edit]

I nominated this template for deletion as it is unused Bulwersator (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine. It used to be used on List of Opeth band members 3 years ago, but was replaced with the timeline that is currently there, so I don't think it's necessary to keep anymore. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't even think really any bands have their own page for the use of a timeline, just a waste of space if you ask me. I mean unless the timeline chart is being used across several articles, inputting a small amount of text against a lot could be in-order, but I have never seen this done. • GunMetal Angel 10:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of progressive death metal in infobox[edit]

That needs to be removed from the infobox, it has no article. I'm sure there's a WP policy out there stating that genres with no articles shouldn't be allowed in infoboxes. If we start letting genres with no articles in infoboxes, then soon there will be stuff like old school thrash metal, funeral grindcore, slamming brutal death metal and depressive atmospheric black metal in infoboxes, along with other lastfm tags. I purpose that progressive death metal be removed, switched with technical death metal (which it redirects to) or mentioned in the lead, but not included in the infobox. I call the big one bitey 18:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Terrorizer's review of Morningrise calls it "the third installment in the Stockholmers oddyssey through the unexplored reaches of Progressive death metal" (viewable here, although in order to read the review I had to view the Page Source, thanks to's formatting or something), Allmusic's review on My Arms, Your Hearse says, "Opeth continues to refine their epic, progressive death metal style", Blabbermouth's review of Watershed talks about how "OPETH seamlessly incorporates the likes of folk, funk, blues, '70s rock, goth and a laundry list of other sonic oddities into their trademark progressive death style", Popmatters' review of Ghost Reveries talks about "combining the progressive side of death metal with a more midtempo, melodic, almost folk-based sounds", the Allmusic biography on the band calls them "progressive metal with death roots", Sputnikmusic's biography lists both "progressive" and "death metal" as genres, Allmusic's review on Morningrise says, "Their style falls at a meeting point between melodic Swedish death metal and '70s progressive rock", Pitchfork's review on Ghost Reveries calls the album "A carefully crafted set of melodic progressive death-tinged metal", and I'm sure there's plenty more references. Between the direct quote "progressive death metal" showing up on a couple of these reliable sources, along with plenty of mentions of "progressive" and "death metal" in the same sentences, there is plenty of support for the genre "progressive death metal". I do agree, however, that this should be better sourced within the article, so I think using one or two of the references that specifically mention all three words in a row in the Musical Style section would be a good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem with the whole progressive death metal thing is that the link redirects to a music page that Opeth is not usually associated with. To put it short, progressive death metal and technical death metal are not perceived as synonymous. Blizk2 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Under Influences, where it says, " Åkerfeldt considers Sad Wings of Destiny the best metal album of all time, and notes that there was a time when he only listened to Judas Priest. Åkerfeldt sings "Here Come the Tears" by Judas Priest before most Opeth concerts while warming up." Wouldn't it make more sense to put this under his Career and Biographical Information? I mean, its specific to him, and I think the influences section on the band page should just list the bands they were influenced by rather than getting this detailed. Twyfan714 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Progressive Black Metal[edit]

Hi, I think progressive black metal should be added to the genres because there first 4 albums are all labelled as such and I think it played a big part in the style of early albums, I think it should be added as (progressive black metal (early)) to make it clear that it is no longer a style the band play. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
[1] / [2] / [3] Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Not using this one as a source as such but a black metal compilation which featured early Opeth. [4] Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the progressive black metal issue should definitely be covered in the Still Life article per the Allmusic source; however I'm not sure about the Chronicles of Chaos source (it is an album review and CoC is not on the album sources list.) Burningshed source is not reliable at all though, because it is not a third-party source. (published by the label) Considering these, I don't really think that progressive black metal is a major genre to be added to the infobox; however it should definitely be covered in the prose (if it has been already). Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure even the Allmusic review supports "progressive black metal"; does "their unlikely fusion of progressive rock and black metal" = "progressive black metal"? Maybe it does, but it seems awfully close to WP:SYNTH to use that source to support that genre. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think that listing a number of micro-genres would serve well the infobox purpose. According to the musician's infobox guide, we should aim for generality rather than incorporating subgenres that are hardly notable. Referring to the sources Lukejordan02 provided, only Allmusic can be considered reliable. The other links point to pages that lack editorial oversight and are not authorized. However, I wouldn't advise using the Allmusic reference because it is an album review, and here we are talking about the band's genre. (basically what Myxomatosis57 already said).--Retrohead (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question By reading the genre section, only progressive metal appears to be referenced. The term "progressive death metal" is probably coined by combining the "progressive rock influences" with the "death metal vocals", directly contadicting WP:SYNTH. Progressive rock is mentioned as having a "a profound impact" on the band's sound in their later stages. But why isn't folk music listed in the infobox as well since it is written in the same connotation as prog rock?--Retrohead (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Progressive death metal" is supported by sources, which I intended on adding in the past (see above: Talk:Opeth#Inclusion of progressive death metal in infobox), but must have become sidetracked and forgot to do so. I'll take a look later today at adding in those references into the Musical Style section (if no one else gets to it first). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also re-added the removal of "progressive rock" from the infobox, this is also sourced (as something the band plays) in the Musical Style section: "Opeth's distinct sound mixes death metal with progressive rock." – Confirmed by the given ref for Stylus Magazine. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
MrMoustacheMM, if the addition of progressive rock is based on the sentence that "Opeth's distinct sound mixes death metal with progressive rock", wouldn't it be logical to list death metal as well?--Retrohead (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
We could add it, but it seems redundant with "progressive death metal" already there. "Progressive rock" is also supported by more than one source (the Still Life review given above; perhaps this source should be added to the Musical Style section as well); are there more sources supporting "death metal" just on its own? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Progressive this, progressive that. They are progressive metal and black metal, not progressive black metal and progressive (insert genre here). I made a bold edit to the genres that was reverted, which I felt adequately balanced the styles of the band... I'll let others take a look and decide on their own whim. - Floydian τ ¢ 07:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

MrMoustacheMM, I proposed listing death metal to avoid cherry-picking. Choosing one genre over the other when the prose clearly says "mixes this with that" is not an option. Either both should be listed or none of them. Also agree with Floydian to a certain degree. The sidebar, as it currently looks, is rather confusing than helpful. Why not mention just death metal and progressive metal as major genres rather than pointing to a number of micro-genres that don't even have an article on Wiki? We don't have to slavishly stick to sources.--Retrohead (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So, "Progressive metal, death metal, progressive rock"? I could live with that. What do other editors think? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with that... though I wonder what the point is of having progressive metal and progressive rock... progressive metal generally includes folky, bluesy, and otherwise non-metal elements in songs, so is it not redundant to include both? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely 100% disagree. Opeth have never ever been purely "death metal". Only prog-death metal. Also, Opeth have never played purely "prog metal". It's only listed here in the first place because prog-death-metal is a subgenre of prog-metal. So I propose the listed genres are "Progressive death metal, progressive rock". This describes perfectly long string of prog-death albums into their quick transition into normal prog rock. And it describes their sound in just two genres. Thoughts? TheamDreaterxXx2334 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
This is summarizing the sentence "Opeth's distinct sound mixes death metal with progressive rock", which is supported by the reference to Stylus Magazine ("Since 1995, this Swedish band has established an unmistakably unique blend of death metal, '70s-influenced progressive rock, and folk music."). Plenty of other sources use "progressive metal" as well, thus the inclusion of both. I would prefer to use "progressive death metal" over just "death metal", as this is supported by sources, but other editors above disagreed, so we compromised. For the record, I would agree with just two genres: "Progressive death metal, progressive rock". But this change should not have been made until more discussion happened here. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but until anything different is agreed, the genres should be changed back to what they were before: Prog death, prog metal, prog rock. TheamDreaterxXx2334 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "Progressive death metal, progressive rock" would work well. Poppermost2014 (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

No longer heavy metal[edit]

I understand and fully appreciate that it has been previously agreed that the opening line should say "heavy metal band", but I strongly believe that this should be reconsidered now that Opeth have recently completely removed any heavy metal influence from their music and become purely a rock group. Poppermost2014 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you show a reliable source describing the change in the band? Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Even with a reliable source, a vast majority (8/11) albums have been some form of heavy metal. I would agree with adding both "heavy metal" and "progressive rock" to the lead, but removing heavy metal is denying a large portion of the band's career (which means the lead would not be properly summarising the article, per WP:LEAD). I would rewrite the first sentence as: "Opeth is a Swedish heavy metal and progressive rock band from Stockholm, formed in 1990." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, here are a few sources:
  • Loudwire: "without frontman Mikael Akerfeldt‘s demonic gutturals and Opeth’s death metal dynamic..." "...the band’s shift back into a softer prog sound with ‘Heritage’ in 2011."
  • MOJO Magazine, August 2014: "Opeth are now a '70s progressive rock group... [Opeth] were once a bona-fide death metal band"
  • BBC: "Opeth ditching metal for the prog world on their 10th album"
  • Pitchfork: "...the shift from progressive death metal to full-on progressive rock..."
  • AllMusic: "Opeth's tenth studio offering finds the Swedish band abandoning death metal."

And regarding the suggested change to "Opeth is a Swedish heavy metal and progressive rock band", I think that would be an improvement, but not accurate, as it implies that they played either progressive rock, or pure heavy metal. Since Opeth were always progressive, would this be worth considering: "Opeth is a Swedish progressive band"? Or "progressive metal/rock", or even "progressive death metal/rock". Poppermost2014 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The suggested combinations will fail WP:V, so no. We should not decide on a genre that is not specifically stated by most sources.
Regarding the recent move away from heavy metal, I say let's take the long view. Let's not react to this change by rewriting the whole article. For all we know, the 11th album could be pure heavy metal. So let's hold off on reclassifying the group, and instead tell the reader that the band has demonstrated several genres. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't "progressive band" work? There are countless sources calling them prog rock, prog metal, prog death metal, prog this, prog that... Probably many more than there are saying just "heavy metal". Shikari 123 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Because progressive band is not a genre. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with "Opeth is a Swedish progressive rock/heavy metal band" or "progressive rock/metal". Shikari 123 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional Genres[edit]

Does anybody else think additional genres such as jazz fusion, folk metal, or neo-classical metal should possibly be added as a genre for Opeth? "Opeth has consistently incorporated progressive, folk, blues, classical and jazz influences into their usually lengthy compositions, as well as strong influences from black metal and death metal, especially in their early works." is one of the first sentences on their page. However, the only two genres listed for them are "progressive death metal" & "progressive rock". These two genres account for very little of what makes up Opeth's sound. Perhaps more genres, such as the three I've suggested, should be added. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Centennialbrainwaves (talkcontribs)

First thing is that you should find a handful of sources agreeing on some genre other than prog metal and prog rock. Wikipedia goes by verifiable sources, not editors getting together to share personal impressions. Second thing is that the adjective 'progressive' includes lots of things such as symphonic bits, experimental bits, a fusion of various influences, etc. Progressive is a very big bag, big enough to hold all of the sub-genres mentioned in the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)