Talk:Orchid (album)

Garbled syntax

<< the start end of "Requiem" was placed at the beginning of "The Apostle in Triumph" >>

What does this mean? Slicing 00:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The consequence is that Requiem is shorter and TAiT is longer. HTH.--84.189.41.130 10:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Genre

One thing I wonder about, is if any of you editing this article have heard "Black metal" before. This album has no aspects of Death metal , Even the roars on this album and Morningrise are higher and more along the lines of the 90s Scandinavian Black metal.

It says in the article, that the album has the signature aspects of Opeth, the roaring and heavy guitar of death metal, And "Progressive" elements like singing and acoustic guitar, Bergtatt has screaming vocals, as well as clean vocals and acoustic guitar passages , And also, the "Heavy guitar" is in the style of black metal and not death metal, Not saying they didn't have more "Progressive" elements (They definitely seemed strange among the other 90s Black metal groups), Just saying that's not a good example of what's more "Progressive" about them.

Go listen to Nile and Cannibal Corpse, Then listen to Bergtatt and other early black metal albums and tell me which one is more similar. There's little, or nothing, Death metal about Orchid or Morningrise

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydrfish (talk • contribs) 17:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC) 

I agree. Black metal definately needs to be in there. Anyone disagree? If not, I will add it. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 13:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Though Forget What I said About Early Black Metal...More like the Mid Era Black Metal Bands Such as The Aforementioned Ulver, Dissection and Abigor, All of Which have acoustic guitar passages, and melodic Synchronized Guitar and 3/4 tempos in a sort of early Opeth Fashion. Though Opeth admitted to influence from Iron maiden, which would have part in those elements in their music...

Yes there are some(and I say some) characteristics of Death Metal in their Earliest work, I don't agree entirely with my former statements. But also I don't find it necessary to add a genre nor mention it anymore considering there wouldn't be a source on them being influenced by Black Metal.

Spydrfish (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd agree this is a black metal album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.133.65 (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Spydrfish on this one. Surely the death metal elements on this record are bleak but where can sources possibly be found other than Akerfeldt saying that the guitar parts were indeed "blackish." FireCrystal (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we add folk metal to this Wikipedia page or not? I do hear some elements in this album, but it's not based on "original research" or what the philosophy of Wikipedia believes; it's based on finding links that coagulate into this article--and not what's your perspective is. Most of the sound is in the sound of progressive death metal and progressive black metal, however, there's some elements if I do say so myself--but they're compounded together like an obscure puzzle that spirals out, you can evidently here. You decide on that one. I will find that link that admits has folk metal productions on their albums. And that one will be easily to find, honestly. panicpack121 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, as soon as you find the link, feel free to add it. Make sure the link is a reliable source, or it's likely to be deleted. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Opeth orchid.jpg

Image:Opeth orchid.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Black Metal

Really? Can we find a source on that? -MetalKommandant (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem like black metal. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Recording and production section - equipment

Do we really need a list of every instrument used in the recording process? It doesn't seem all that notable that they used those specific instruments. I'd suggest removing that entire section, and adding the reference given as an External Link instead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Those equipments are part of the production and and the recording sessions of the album, the better place to put it is in this section. T.R.Elven (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they're part of the production and recording, but I don't see how they're notable in any way.

Looking at several featured album articles (Adore (The Smashing Pumpkins album), Achtung Baby, Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Dookie, Doolittle (album), God Hates Us All, Reign in Blood, Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)), I don't see any lists of equipment. This makes sense, as a list like this is beyond an album article's general scope. It could be useful for some readers, however, which is why I suggest moving the link to the External Links section.

I really don't think this list adds anything to the article, other than taking up space, and should really be removed. If you can demonstrate how they are notable (perhaps a quote from a review or article about the album, saying how these specific instruments were integral to the creation and sound of the album), then you'd have a better case for keeping them. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it this way, it's better as external link. The only equipament that was cited is the Trameleuc. I will add it on the external link section. T.R.Elven (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the name "In The Mist She Was Standing" or "In Mist She Was Standing"?

Here it says "In Mist" but on Opeth.com it says "In The Mist"? So I really have no idea, does anyone have any proof or something like that for which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.27.178 (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic says it's "In Mist" (here). Best place to check would be the back of the CD/LP though (I don't own this album, so I can't personally check). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The album was well-received critically, even being called "unique"

Just sounds a bit daft to quote one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.216.237 (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Orchid (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617081149/http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid-session-diary to http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid-session-diary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617080629/http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid to http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617082537/http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid-session-diary-2 to http://www.opeth.com/index.php/discography/show/tpl/orchid-session-diary-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727070346/http://www.opeth.com/home/chapters/chapter-iii to http://www.opeth.com/home/chapters/chapter-iii

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)