Talk:Watershed (Opeth album)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watershed (Opeth album) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Sweden Low‑importance

	Sweden portal 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progressive Rock Low‑importance

	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.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Art Rock

Considering that the album is actually more than 50% soft, and Mikael Åkerfeldt's ambition to infuse elements of Scott Walker's The Drift in the album, Art Rock really should be in the genre specification together with Progressive Metal. It'd give a better overlook of the sound of the album if it were included. The overall arrangements in the album and the strip down of complex structures also contributes to that fact. It relies more on soundscaping. Progressive Metal and Death Metal (a rather clumpsy combination) together with Art Rock would be much better. What say you, friends?Revan ltrl (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

What about the US charts? couldn't someone make that charts table?84.217.189.228 (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I think I'll bring it up in the Wikipproject Metal discussion area. BT^C 18:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song lengths

I think the song lengths should be removed, because I'm pretty sure they're wrong. Mike himself said on the Opeth forums that the album was just under 60 minutes long, and Coil was about 3 minutes long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.127.8.6 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? BT^C 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Rly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.127.8.6 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, then I will remove the time lengths from the page. I myself have seen two versions of the song lengths, and I'm not really certain which one to believe. So as I said, I'm going to erase the time lengths from the page. BT^C 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure as to the figure, but the shorter version of the song lengths is the right one. At least, that is what one can assume from what Mike said, and the confirmation that Coil is only 3 minutes long. Anyways, I just didn't want any disappointed Opeth fans who thought they were getting a 69 minute album, but got a 59 minute album instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.127.8.6 (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I understand. Where did you hear about Mike saying that Coil's a 3 minute song on a 59 minute album? I'd like to view that website. BT^C 22:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/opeth/366641-new-album-called-watershed-out-june-2nd-17.html <- go there, and there will be member who quotes a french magazine that has song lengths for the album that add up to 55 minutes. Another member then posts the song lengths that were on this wikipedia page previously, with the typical Opeth song lengths (most over 10 minutes). On the next page of the thread, Mikael Akerfeldt comments that the album is actually about 55 minutes and the longer song lengths were completely wrong. Judging from this it's quite possible that the song lengths are: Coil (3:07), Heir Apparent (8:51), The Lotus Eater (8:48), Burden (7:42), Porcelain Heart (8:01), Hessian Peel (11:26), Hex Omega (6:59). Although it may be best not to assume anything.

Okay, thanks for that information. I'll remember that you showed me this page. Thanks a lot. BT^C 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the leaked versions of The Lotus Eater and Porcelain Heart are 8:51 and 8:01 long, respectively, which corroborates the French magazine's information about the track lengths. 98.214.88.110 (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heir Apparent

I've removed the comment that a live performance of "Heir Apparent" was released on March 10th. It's not sourced, and I've checked the band's site, the band's myspace and the record label's site for any sign of this and have found nothing. Nothing was officially released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.50.79 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard some stuff about a leak of the same track and i even have a link to a sharing site (or whatever they call them these days!), so does anyone has any info about this?! Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- The footage of Heir Apparent came from their performance on the Melloboat Cruise in the Baltic Sea on a Silja Line ship. This was the first time any material from Watershed was played and naturally people filmed it with their cellphones etc. 81.233.124.250 (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which day is it?

What day is this album released? It says on this profile both May 30 and June 3. Which one is it? BT^C 04:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends whether Wacken Open Air is a reliable reference or not! Anyone knows anything about this site? Maged M. Mahfouz (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably both. It will come out on different days throughout the world. Burningclean _[speak] 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it could be both days. By the way, I don't know about the Wacken Open Air website. BT^C 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release of Special Edition cover

Opeth published the cover of the special edition Watershed on their official site. can someone find a legal photo source and add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.254.225 (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Smith

The link in the article leads to the Trivium drummer - who, while i'm sure is very talented, is NOT the artist in question.

I'm sure that the Trivium drummer is not also the Opeth cover artist, either. I'm going to look into it. Thanks for mentioning this. BT^C 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't the artist. The artist doesn't have an article. Burningclean _[speak] 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, then. What is appropriate to be in the parenthesis after Travis Smith's name? Or should the link be totally subtracted? BT^C 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say just delink. If someone were to make an article, it would be Travis Smith (artist). Burningclean _[speak] 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will go delinking it then. Thanks for the insight. BT^C 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derelict Herds

Someone's changed the comment about the song Derelict Herds to say that it will be put on the Japanese release. They've also removed the citation that went with the comment that the song had been recorded. I can't find anything anywhere to say that it will be the Japanese bonus track, however, it does appear that it will be on the vinyl release. Possibly it will be both, but I think I will revert back to the version with the citation.80.7.59.211 (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus Tracks

Please can we keep Derelict Herds and Mellotron Heart separate from the tracklisting. Someone came along and added them to the list along with the others, but this is very confusing, especially as the tracks will probably not have consistent track numbers (e.g. Mellotron Heart will not be track 9 as it will be given on a separate CD, similarly track 8 on one version might be Derelict Herds while on another it may be one of the cover tracks). Also it's worth noting that Derelict Herds was written by Akerfelt and Wiberg, unlike most tracks on the album.80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

This album was released on the Italian iTunes Store on May 19. Proof:

iTunes link (may launch iTunes, may not work outside Europe and/or Italy): [1]
Screenshot: [2]

If there are no objections, I will change the release date in this article as per WP:ALBUM. Mushroom (Talk) 23:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also added the physical European release dates. Mushroom (Talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what is this album about?

Who or what is this alum about? a watershed? a funeral? A creepy looking guy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.205.197 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are the special characters? and what do they mean on the last page of the album art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.205.197 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I briefly wondered if it could be a concept album, but it's not necessarily a concept album. Anyways, I know this doesn't help much, but you could imagine what you want with all the characters and stuff. BT^C 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the January Metal Hammer magazine, Mikael said the lyrics do have a concept. Burningclean _[speak] 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, crap. I made the mistake of starting to listen to the album from shortest song to longest. I knoew I should've started on track one and advanced forward to the next track everyday. I got the album June 3 and I've been listening to one song per day off the album (like I usually do when I get a new album). I knew I should've listened to it in order of the track listing. I guess I'll stop here.

So, Burningclean, did Mikael say what the story was or did he just leave it at "it's a concept album"? BT^C 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just said it was a concept. It was January so he didn't want to give too much away. Burningclean _[speak] 01:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why that is. It's cool when people don't reveal much, like Mikael did. BT^C 02:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre section of the infobox

The genre of this album is being disputed. People keep changing it to different genres, while it's fine the way it is. I think the genre should stay as follows:

| Genre = [[Progressive death metal]], [[progressive rock]]

I do not like all the editing from anonymous users that are changing this. I believe it's fine the way it is. BT^C 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree, but I still think art rock is very accurate. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genre section of the infobox (again)

I'm serious, why didn't people read my first post about this issue? This is juvenile! I already stated that the genre section of the infobox was fine the way it was. I'm getting very sick of all these edits toward this small section of the article. Can't people just leave it like it is? I believe that the genres should be like this:

[[Progressive metal]], [[death metal]]

I know it's different from last time, but I decided that this was better. It should just be left like that! If I see edits to that part of the page after this post, I might have to request this page for protection. Because I'm getting fed up with this. Seriously.

BT^C 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bands described as technical death metal or progressive death metal usually fuse common death metal aesthetics with elements of progressive rock, jazz and/or classical music."
I will not more change the genre of this album, but I think the most correct is [[Progressive death metal]], for a better definition. Cannibaloki 02:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's cool. it can be one of the two options that I said above, as long as it just stays still. Thanks for your input. BT^C 04:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Death Metal - actually, I think your first combination was better. I think it gives a better feel for the diversity of the album.

Come to think of it, I agree with you. For instance, there's nothing "metal" about the song Coil (it's definitely more progressive rock than it is metal), a song made up of acoustic guitar, male vocals, and female vocals. While the next track, Heir Apparent, is death growling, electric rhythm guitar, double-bass drums, and all the other traditional instruments for death metal. And the diversity goes throughout the album. I agree with you. I might change it to that, unless if it's already changed.

Only one song could be called prog rock. The presence of one song does not justify the genre. While I agree the album has more sympnohic prog elemts theen thier usual sound, it still makes this a prog/death metal album. Oh, and[[NOR] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Rachmaninov (talk • contribs) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I count two that ARE progressive rock, both Coil and Burden, and neither Porcelain Heart nor Hex Omega are death metal by any means, so that means only 3 of 7 tracks fall under the Progressive Death Metal category, with two being simply prog metal and two prog rock (between which the line is pretty thin). So the album on a whole is progressive death metal, progressive rock, and all points in between. I guess you can name the extremes or only the middle ground, but to only say progressive death metal would give a VERY unbalanced picture of the album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can fins a source for that, I can't see how we can keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan Rachmaninov (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a source with a track by track genre breakdown? Good luck... in the meantime here's some... http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/59325/opeth-watershed/ http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=5137 http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/content_display/reviews/albums/e3i07a95797894eac56697c4ed87f1f1b2f http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/51006-watershed . In many reviews, you'll find a reference to the 70's which is before progressive metal as we know it existed. There are some things, musically especially, that are subjective. It's not finding someone's birthday- at some point, you have to let your ears and consensus take over. Hell, it's just labeled rock in my iTunes, but that doesn't mean it's a definitively accurate genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marti786 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those state that the album is a rpog rock album, they state that prog rock is an influence, which it is in all prog metal. And consensus does not overide WP:NOR or WP:V Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While a couple of them only cite it as an influence, the first two cite it as a definite element of the album. But the Billboard review calls it rock. Why not put that up there. It's sourced, right? And in two places. Really, I would be okay with just calling it progressive metal, which is well-sourced and balanced. Anyone with ears common sense can tell you it's progressive rock as much as it is death metal. I'd look for more sources, but they won't be satisfactory. Do what you want. You're going to anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.178.197 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This album can't be called "rock" because that term is very vague and could mean anything. BT^C 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would? - Alice In Chains Cover

Here's a reference proving they did indeed record the song: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=89988 Feel free to add that into the article as I have no experience in adding proper references. Thank you! Dan (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Acclaim

Any mention of the reception please? Revan ltrl (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dick cheney is THE MAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.15.68 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is of utmost unrelativity to this album. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mellotron Heart

I'm not sure why Mellotron Heart is listed as a single. It was a promo disc included with some copies of the album. I haven't read that it was released to radio, or that it was ever available for sale. Should the Mellotron Heart article redirect to the album article? If it's notable outside of the album, it's for being a B-side on the Burden single. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE HELl IS THIS??

"Carpe Diem is the name of the third solo studio album from Mexican singer and actor Martin, set to be released on March 23, 2010 through Capitol Latin. The album has a mixture of Electropop, Dance-pop as well as a different sound to his previous albums. The album was released March 12, 2010 in canadian iTunes by mistake, which lead to a mass leak over the internet and popular video site YouTube. The album was taken off from iTunes later that same day."

WHAT IS THIS DOING IN OPETH'S PAGE??? someone check the page please!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloody bimo (talk • contribs) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty unfortunate that that happened on this article. Fortunately, BiblioteKarin took care of the blatant discord that happened. Massive vandalism like what that anonymous editor did is definitely not allowed. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]